What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[hadit]

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1. Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2. Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Here is an answer to your terminally stupid question:
Simple enough. he will do what costs the least. Which says, me boy, he will hire a person at a wage which will not allow the person to live, or he will buy the machine. Which is why there are no jobs left to pump gas. Even the terminally uninformed know that. Sorry you missed it.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans. If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would. And why again does the human cost more than the machine? Be honest.
Simple, but really ignorant question. Have an intelligent phone? Think for a minute. If you are capable. The technology of the self serve pump has increased by the cost of the electronics. Now, you try to be honest, if possible.
1. Do you really think that anyone can work for what they used to prior to automated gas pumps????
2. Look around. See any gas pump attendant?
3. Did you notice that those attendants were long ago phased out?
4. The gas station owners profits have been squeezed to near starvation levels.
5. The oil companies were making record profits, prior to the oil glut over the past couple years.
Blaming minimum wage for automated gas stations is close to the stupidest thing I have seen anyone suggest. Really, really stupid.

Now, here is a hard one, I am afraid, for you. What does all that have to do with minimum wage?
And please, if you are capable, spend a bit of time with google. and try to find an impartial source that suggests that raising the minimum wage has ever done what you say it will do. Best of luck with that.

1. You are agreeing with me that it is cheaper to use self-serve pumps than to hire and pay a teenager to pump gas. That is the point, after all.
2. When have we ever doubled the MW in a handful of years?

 

[Rshermr]

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

 

[Rshermr]

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1. Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2. Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Here is an answer to your terminally stupid question:
Simple enough. he will do what costs the least. Which says, me boy, he will hire a person at a wage which will not allow the person to live, or he will buy the machine. Which is why there are no jobs left to pump gas. Even the terminally uninformed know that. Sorry you missed it.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans. If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would. And why again does the human cost more than the machine? Be honest.
Simple, but really ignorant question. Have an intelligent phone? Think for a minute. If you are capable. The technology of the self serve pump has increased by the cost of the electronics. Now, you try to be honest, if possible.
1. Do you really think that anyone can work for what they used to prior to automated gas pumps????
2. Look around. See any gas pump attendant?
3. Did you notice that those attendants were long ago phased out?
4. The gas station owners profits have been squeezed to near starvation levels.
5. The oil companies were making record profits, prior to the oil glut over the past couple years.
Blaming minimum wage for automated gas stations is close to the stupidest thing I have seen anyone suggest. Really, really stupid.

Now, here is a hard one, I am afraid, for you. What does all that have to do with minimum wage?
And please, if you are capable, spend a bit of time with google. and try to find an impartial source that suggests that raising the minimum wage has ever done what you say it will do. Best of luck with that.

1. You are agreeing with me that it is cheaper to use self-serve pumps than to hire and pay a teenager to pump gas. That is the point, after all. No, that is not the point. Your point was that the problem was the minimum wage, me boy. I simply proved you to be wrong. The reason, me boy, was the cost of the new technology, not minimum wage.
2. When have we ever doubled the MW in a handful of years?
In the 1930's. And republicans then told all that would listen that it would kill an already terrible economy. It did not of course. But they, like you, believed the con talking points, believing them rather than the majority of economists. The economists were correct. The con talking points were, as they are today, simply dogma of the very wealthy that create the talking points, for the weak minded who believe them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!

Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

 

[Rshermr]

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Or not.

 

[Rshermr]

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

 

[Southern Dad]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle starts with another lie and personal attack, then defends libertarianism by quoting as many con talking points as he can fit in:
You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.

Sort of. Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation. The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.

[/QUOTE]

You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.
Oldstyle, you are a joke, You are lying, calling me a liar. And you know well that I never ever lie. Here is the thing, me boy. If I ever claimed such a thing, it would be in the history on this board. What was actually said is, in fact there, and I have brought it forward before, several times. It proved you to be a liar. I made no claim to have been in charge of a class of economics, which would have been over 47 years ago. I proved you a liar a couple years ago, and more recently in the past year. And I have no reason to do so again. Though I will bring back the proof should anyone other than you wish to see it. Because, you see, you know that you are lying. If someone else wants the proof, that is worth showing your lies.
Now, if I were to have said what you say I did, it would be simple for you to prove. That you can not proves you to be a liar in addition.
Nice to see you have not changed. You immediately start off with personal attacks, and lies. Then you ignore the subject (minimum wage, remember) and take off posting con talking points. Jesus, you are a waste of space.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. Sorry, but the proof is in the history of such economies. The wealthy, me boy, like to be more wealthy. And the powerfull like to be more powerful. So they see to it that the revenues are increased to the maximum and that those revenues end up in their hands. Simple enough. We who examine such things today see that occurance. Only con trolls who are told what to believe, and do so. like yourself, miss that. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. They believe in very little government, in general. And as things move forward for them, they typically want even less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. No, I do not. I know what anarchists are. They are not libertarians. And really, you calling someone ignorant is really a case your inability to argue a point and reverting to the normal, for you, lies and personal insults. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. What they believe is that the more of the pie they get, the better. So they see no reason for social security, educational services, health services, and so forth. Simple. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.The question is not about how powerful the economy becomes, at all. You are pretending to miss the point entirely. You see, we have become less and less a Laissez Faire capitalist economy. We have provided more and more services to our people. Why, me boy? For the same, exact reason that every nation has done so. Because the people have not been willing to go along with the libertarian ideal of clowns like yourself.
The people, not the owners of power, are what ends libertarian hopes. In every single case. Which is why, as I have said and continue to point out that there is not a single Libertarian nation today, and has never been a successful libertarian nation ever, in the history of the world. And you, and other libertarian minded people, seem incapable of seeing that in every case it has ever been tried, it has ended in failure. But you continue to push it, having bought the dream pushed on you by those who would actually benefit from both the push toward libertarianism through reduced costs for their corporations, and for the end result that they will never achieve.
What proves Libertarian wanabe's like yourself to be stupid is that you are incapable of understanding that with hundreds of countries over hundreds of years, the great Libertarian dream has never worked. No such libertarian economy ever worked. All went down, peacefully or in flames. How stupid do you have to be to miss that, dipshit? You are a proven con troll, me boy. I always know that you will take the side of the con dream in every single discussion of any subject. You are, as are all cons, predictable. But pushing the Libertarian dream makes you a joke.
Simple, me boy, bring forward the name of a successful LIBERTARIAN nation, as named by an expert source, with proof that it is Libertarian, and I will admit it is possible. Otherwise, get back to the subject of this thread and stop your silly insults and lies.[/QUOTE]

What Libertarian economy "went down, peacefully or in flames"? You make it sound like Libertarianism was tried and failed. Kindly point out a country that has followed Libertarian principles only to see them fail! The truth is that people in power want nothing to do with Libertarian policies because Libertarian policies start by LIMITING the power that people in power HAVE! It's human nature to crave control of things and against human nature to give up control once you have it.

 

[Oldstyle]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.

World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest.

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters". LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

[/QUOTE]
But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

 

[Southern Dad]

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

That sounds good. Really, you paint a rosy picture. I'm in management for a company that owns newspapers. We can't really raise our prices. So, as our labor costs go up, we are going to have cut some expenses somewhere. That may be sending our call center offshore putting those workers out of a job. That may mean eliminating our truck drivers to have that done by contractors. Maybe outsourcing printing of a couple publications to another newspaper. Again, eliminating jobs.

You suspect there will be little change, and you seem attached to this "living wage." The fact is that a significant raise in minimum wage adjusts across the board. Union contracts will require step level in kind increases. You raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour that means that union press lead goes from $25 an hour to $50, and so forth. No, my friend, I know there will be change. There will be significant change.

Walmarts and Targets they can absorb the costs of this labor increase but your small chains and mom-pops? This is the coffin nail for them. Businesses that are already struggling to stay profitable? They're done. Then those employees making a "living wage" are down at the unemployment line where they will max out in 13 weeks. Then what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.

 

[Rshermr]

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.

World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

As I stated. Here iGallup's latest.

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting. Apparently you don't feel it is helpful. So, we have your opinion, and Gallup's opinion. You loose. Have you always been this dishonest, or are you simply trying it out from scratch:
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct. You are using old methodology. Simply, and obviously, because you do not want to look at current data. And because you are dishonest. Gallup does not break it out as your chart has it, from back in 2014, Get back to me if you can find new charting of more current data, not with data over 2 years old. Otherwise, just give up. You are about to loose this on big time.

Get back to me if you can find a recent chart, 2016. There are several out there. Easy to find. I did not comment about 2014.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP
Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie. You will not.
I did read your little chart. It has no date. . Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart. To me, looks to be a scam. Sorry, I just have no respect for clowns who try to pass off nonsense as something meaningful. DERP. Provide a link so I can see what Gallup has to say about your 2014 chart. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

Here is what they said in 2016. You see, that is where we are actually at. We live in 2016. Not back in 2014. Since then, americans have come to be very concerned with Global Climate Change.

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup's annual environment poll. Most emblematic is the rise in their stated concern about the issue. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming, up from 55% at this time last year and the highest reading since 2008.
Mirroring this, the March 2-6 survey -- conducted at the close of what has reportedly been the warmest winter on record in the U.S. -- documents a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun. Nearly six in 10 (59%) today say the effects have already begun, up from 55% in March 2015. Another 31%, up from 28% in 2015, believe the effects are not currently manifest but will be at some point in the future. That leaves only 10% saying the effects will never happen, down from 16% last year and the lowest since 2007.
Concern about global warming has increased among all party groups since 2015, although it remains much higher among Democrats than Republicans and independents. For example, 40% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 31% last year. The percentage of independents expressing concern has also increased nine points, from 55% to 64%. Democrats' concern is up slightly less, from 78% to 84%.

Democrats and independents also show double-digit increases in the percentages attributing warmer temperatures to human activities. Republicans show a more modest uptick of four points on this question.
U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High

 

[Rshermr]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

 

[Rshermr]

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

That sounds good. Really, you paint a rosy picture. I'm in management for a company that owns newspapers. We can't really raise our prices. So, as our labor costs go up, we are going to have cut some expenses somewhere. That may be sending our call center offshore putting those workers out of a job. That may mean eliminating our truck drivers to have that done by contractors. Maybe outsourcing printing of a couple publications to another newspaper. Again, eliminating jobs.

You suspect there will be little change, and you seem attached to this "living wage." The fact is that a significant raise in minimum wage adjusts across the board. Union contracts will require step level in kind increases. You raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour that means that union press lead goes from $25 an hour to $50, and so forth. No, my friend, I know there will be change. There will be significant change.

Walmarts and Targets they can absorb the costs of this labor increase but your small chains and mom-pops? This is the coffin nail for them. Businesses that are already struggling to stay profitable? They're done. Then those employees making a "living wage" are down at the unemployment line where they will max out in 13 weeks. Then what?

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

Or not.

As I am sure you know, since that chart, the concern of voters has increased a great deal. To new highs.
Really, you need to use a new graph, dipshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.

World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

As I stated. Here iGallup's latest.

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting. Apparently you don't feel it is helpful. So, we have your opinion, and Gallup's opinion. You loose. Have you always been this dishonest, or are you simply trying it out from scratch:
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct. You are using old methodology. Simply, and obviously, because you do not want to look at current data. And because you are dishonest. Gallup does not break it out as your chart has it, from back in 2014, Get back to me if you can find new charting of more current data, not with data over 2 years old. Otherwise, just give up. You are about to loose this on big time.

Get back to me if you can find a recent chart, 2016. There are several out there. Easy to find. I did not comment about 2014.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP
Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie. You will not.
I did read your little chart. It has no date. . Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart. To me, looks to be a scam. Sorry, I just have no respect for clowns who try to pass off nonsense as something meaningful. DERP. Provide a link so I can see what Gallup has to say about your 2014 chart. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?

BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

How do they have monopoly power?

You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting. Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.

Your claim was, "And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.". Do Americans who worry "a fair amount" qualify as understanding it is "a large problem"? Or only those who worry about it "a great deal"?

I'd say my earlier chart which broke out "a great deal" is a more accurate indicator of the accuracy of your claim.

You are using old methodology.

Obviously, and the old methodology showed that Americans don't consider global warming...err...climate change...err...extreme weather to be their main, or even a major concern.


Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.

My Gallup chart was a lie?

I did read your little chart. It has no date.

The last year on the chart is 2014. Too complex for you?

Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart. To me, looks to be a scam.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course it does.

Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming

 

[Rshermr]

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie. I have known many, many libs. Never ever has one gone there. Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.


I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage. Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy. Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair. You may want to consult an MD. I think brain damage may be the issue.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing. Did you think that it did?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with. The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars. As will new technologies. If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.
Computers, same thing.
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.