America's greatness is its working classes not "wealth" creators

[EconChick]

Where'd ya run to mac? Everytime you come and fart on a political thread about the economy and I remind you it's political, your cowardly ass runs off.

Not "running" anywhere. I'm at work and look in here once in a while.

Do you stay here all day?

.

Good now that you've come back, put that mirror to your face and admit anyone who praises the social Democrat Socialist way of Europe is a partisan.

So stop you're lying. And stop saying others are incapable of blending.

You are the true binary thinker. My conclusions - are after looking at every theory out there.

Oh yes I forget....you're too stupid to realize each Pres candidate LEANS toward a theory.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone that think the social Democrats of Europe are hip is a partisan. You're just too stupid and vanilla to admit it.

You're really working yourself into a tizzy here, calm down.

The fact that I'm not a fellow hardcore rightwing partisan ideologue does not make me a socialist.

You're illustrating precisely the simplistic binary thought to which I have referred, do you realize that?

.

 

[EconChick]

And while we're at it, mac, you have socialist leanings yourself, so don't act like you're talking for everyone here. I can't even stand Europe's social Democrat form of socialism that you think is great.

So you aren't really on the fence, you lean further away from Capitalism than I do.

I'd love to see you link to where I said that "Europe's social Democrat form of socialism is great".

Looking forward to it.

.

Ahhhh, just like Clinton....wiggle out of everything. Well you certainly sent that message. You certainly implied it.

So Mr. Vanilla, just what is your answer to it?????

 

[EconChick]

Anyone that think the social Democrats of Europe are hip is a partisan. You're just too stupid and vanilla to admit it.

You're really working yourself into a tizzy here, calm down.

The fact that I'm not a fellow hardcore rightwing partisan ideologue does not make me a socialist.

You're illustrating precisely the simplistic binary thought to which I have referred, do you realize that?

.

Me calm down? I was enjoying this back and forth till you showed up to condescend to everyone on this thread telling people to stop considering political aspects.

You still haven't answered why you would do something so stupid in a political thread.

So why??????????????

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

With all due respect my friend, and I do like how you post, there are so many variables that affect the unemployment rate that for you to draw cause and effect between just min wage and unemploy is completely incorrect.

You'd have to look at a lot more variables than you have.

Just for one of hundreds of variables, the timing impact of min wage doesn't even show up immediately as you've suggested in your numbers.

But basically you've not looked at the long list of other variables.

Correct, that is what I'm saying, there is NO evidence that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. NONE.

I mean I CLEARLY showed you a year that if one were so inclined they could say "aha see the raise in the minimum wage DECREASED unemployment" but we both know that it isn't that simple.

I have seen many graphs and stats over the years that show it does. But as you and I agree, it's not that simple.

What is simple is at the anecdotal level.

When someone who owns a Wendy's who has 500,000 dollars allotted in the budget to salaries. Let's say they employ 10 people with that. When min wage goes up, they can only pay 9 people with that 500,000 budget now.

Typically those people have small profit margins, which means they don't make that much money to put in their pockets. So when someone like you says, "well pull it from somewhere else" the other money is allotted to costs they have to pay like building, insurance, supplies, food, etc. etc. etc. And to pull it from low profits pushes some of them to actually go out of business so that now all 10 are unemployed.

This is overly simplistic but this is the counterintuitive nature of raising the min wage.

But that isn't the way labor is figured and you know it.

Let's use McD instead of Wendy's b/c I have insight into their business model.

McD wants labor @ 20% of sales on average. Now they use varying formulas throughout the day to vary that labor percentage hour to hour but at the end of every day they want to see 20%

So, they don't budget $X for labor, they budget 20% of sales for labor.

Now food costs are roughly 1/3 and all other overhead is 1/3 (again roughly) Leaving the franchise owner 10% as profit.

Now, the AVERAGE McD does $2M a year in sales, meaning the owner pays out $400K in wages , pays the rest of his expenses and pockets $200K. Again this is on average.

Let's say his wage costs went up to 22% (which would more than cover an increase to $10/Hr) now , there is nothing he could do about food costs, or other costs (though franchise owners are raising hell with McD corporate about how much they take, but that is for a different thread) so there's only place that 2% can really come from. The franchise owner's pocket. So now the people who work for him share an extra $40K a year and he makes $40K a year less, or does he? Because studies have shown that people are willing to pay on average a dollar more per meal from McD if the minimum wage goes up to $10/Hr, so let's be generous and say the owner would be out $20K a year to get ALL of his employees to $10/hr.

They can afford $20K a year to get their employees off welfare.

 

[EconChick]

Anyone that think the social Democrats of Europe are hip is a partisan. You're just too stupid and vanilla to admit it.

You're really working yourself into a tizzy here, calm down.

The fact that I'm not a fellow hardcore rightwing partisan ideologue does not make me a socialist.

You're illustrating precisely the simplistic binary thought to which I have referred, do you realize that?

.

I think anyone that comes to a political thread and tells people to stop being political should get the hell off the thread.

 

[Mac1958]

Me calm down? I was enjoying this back and forth till you showed up to condescend to everyone on this thread telling people to stop considering political aspects.

You still haven't answered why you would do something so stupid in a political thread.

So why??????????????

I know this is going to sound crazy, but here goes: Not everyone is a partisan ideologue. Many of us choose to think for ourselves. That doesn't mean that we don't want to solve problems, quite the contrary. Unfortunately, it's the partisan ideologues who are hurting us by polluting political discourse. You're creating most of the noise but nothing is improving.

If you really think you're moving us toward solutions with your behavior, there's nothing I can do about it. But you and other partisan ideologues don't own the conversation, you don't own political message boards.

The ignore function here works quite well if my posts are causing you some kind of trauma.

.

 

[EconChick]

I notice evety

.

The OP is essentially the "bottom up" approach favored by the social Democrats, and it doesn't work in a dynamic economy with global competition that depends on efficient deployment of capital.

And, as always, this conversation has been binary all the way through. One or the other. It can't work that way, gang, an equilibrium must be found. Neither "bottom up" nor "top down".

Good grief.

Politicize something and you dumb it down, faster than shit through a goose.

.

Obviously you haven't seen posts where we dig way into numbers where it is gray.

You totally lose normal people doing that. Just look at how many "normal" people follow the big econ discussions in the ECON FORUM threads. That's where we geeks like to hang out but not every day Americans who are trying to figure it out. Look at the sincere people we've lost on this thread (Smarter has left, Chris has shut down) once we delve way down into numbers. It just bores them and confuses them.

Though it has become binary, working in the weeds where it's gray loses those we're all talking to. There has to be an attempt to make it relatable. Not everyone sits on Wall Street and crunches numbers all day long like you do.

What an insult. A) I didn't leave the thread, I merely stopped talking to one dishonest poster B) Numbers don't confuse me.

Dude, you said, "Evening." Maybe you should take responsibility for the ambiguity of your words. You can't see how someone would think you're telling everyone bye?

You have the same problem in every discussion you've gotten in so far. You're only capable of looking through YOUR eyes and not the point the other person's making.

 

[Darkwind]

Anyone that think the social Democrats of Europe are hip is a partisan. You're just too stupid and vanilla to admit it.

You're really working yourself into a tizzy here, calm down.

The fact that I'm not a fellow hardcore rightwing partisan ideologue does not make me a socialist.

You're illustrating precisely the simplistic binary thought to which I have referred, do you realize that?

.

I think anyone that comes to a political thread and tells people to stop being political should get the hell off the thread.

You don't see the hypocrisy of your statement?

You are telling him not to do something in response of his telling people not to do something.

You can have that opinion if you want it, but it makes you look to be the fool. You have no control or authority to determine who should or should not post in ANY thread.

You do realize that, right?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I notice evety

.

The OP is essentially the "bottom up" approach favored by the social Democrats, and it doesn't work in a dynamic economy with global competition that depends on efficient deployment of capital.

And, as always, this conversation has been binary all the way through. One or the other. It can't work that way, gang, an equilibrium must be found. Neither "bottom up" nor "top down".

Good grief.

Politicize something and you dumb it down, faster than shit through a goose.

.

Obviously you haven't seen posts where we dig way into numbers where it is gray.

You totally lose normal people doing that. Just look at how many "normal" people follow the big econ discussions in the ECON FORUM threads. That's where we geeks like to hang out but not every day Americans who are trying to figure it out. Look at the sincere people we've lost on this thread (Smarter has left, Chris has shut down) once we delve way down into numbers. It just bores them and confuses them.

Though it has become binary, working in the weeds where it's gray loses those we're all talking to. There has to be an attempt to make it relatable. Not everyone sits on Wall Street and crunches numbers all day long like you do.

What an insult. A) I didn't leave the thread, I merely stopped talking to one dishonest poster B) Numbers don't confuse me.

Dude, you said, "Evening." Maybe you should take responsibility for the ambiguity of your words. You can't see how someone would think you're telling everyone bye?

You have the same problem in every discussion you've gotten in so far. You're only capable of looking through YOUR eyes and not the point the other person's making.

I said good evening to ONE poster

You've jumped the shark here, calm down , take a breath - it's only the internet.'



Oh , and as far as "only seeing things through my eyes " goes. maybe that's b/c I'm convinced most of the world needs glasses

Go read my posts , and tell me which political party you would I think I favor. I guarantee you can't . Because I look at situation on its own merits and judge accordingly. There are some threads where I think conservative ideologues are being morons and some that I think liberal ones are stupid.

Most of the time, its a combination of the two. ANYONE who declares EACH and EVERY time that one ideology is right and the other is wrong is a moron.

 

[EconChick]

Me calm down? I was enjoying this back and forth till you showed up to condescend to everyone on this thread telling people to stop considering political aspects.

You still haven't answered why you would do something so stupid in a political thread.

So why??????????????

I know this is going to sound crazy, but here goes: Not everyone is a partisan ideologue. Many of us choose to think for ourselves. That doesn't mean that we don't want to solve problems, quite the contrary. Unfortunately, it's the partisan ideologues who are hurting us by polluting political discourse. You're creating most of the noise but nothing is improving.

If you really think you're moving us toward solutions with your behavior, there's nothing I can do about it. But you and other partisan ideologues don't own the conversation, you don't own political message boards.

The ignore function here works quite well if my posts are causing you some kind of trauma.

.

I don't use the ignore function, I'm not a coward like you.

You've not said one thing in this tread that brings an ounce of clarity to this discussion other than we're being political. And news flash, it's a political thread, not Econ Forum.

Is the President a political person or not? You act like politics has nothing to do with the person who directs econ policy.

And every time I've made these points before you've run off.

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

 

[Mac1958]

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

Of course I lean towards capitalist solutions, and anyone who reads my posts beyond a shallow level knows that.

Amazing how many times you've called me "stupid". How old are you? I assume I'm dealing with an adult, yes?

.

 

[EconChick]

Anyone that think the social Democrats of Europe are hip is a partisan. You're just too stupid and vanilla to admit it.

You're really working yourself into a tizzy here, calm down.

The fact that I'm not a fellow hardcore rightwing partisan ideologue does not make me a socialist.

You're illustrating precisely the simplistic binary thought to which I have referred, do you realize that?

.

I think anyone that comes to a political thread and tells people to stop being political should get the hell off the thread.

You don't see the hypocrisy of your statement?

You are telling him not to do something in response of his telling people not to do something.

You can have that opinion if you want it, but it makes you look to be the fool. You have no control or authority to determine who should or should not post in ANY thread.

You do realize that, right?

Of course I don't have control to determine which is why your interpretation makes no sense to me. It means I personally think it's silly to go to a farming thread and tell people they shouldn't talk about farming.

All it is is a diversion. See how much time has been spent NOT talking about solutions or actual economic points? You do see that don't you?

 

[EconChick]

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

Of course I lean towards capitalist solutions, and anyone who reads my posts beyond a shallow level knows that.

Amazing how many times you've called me "stupid". How old are you? I assume I'm dealing with an adult, yes?

.

So does Castro on some days. That tells me nothing. How much? How much big govt do you want?

As for names....Really? I warned you your narcissism and inane comments were the first attack. Now you're crying?

 

[Mac1958]

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

Of course I lean towards capitalist solutions, and anyone who reads my posts beyond a shallow level knows that.

Amazing how many times you've called me "stupid". How old are you? I assume I'm dealing with an adult, yes?

.

So does Castro on some days. That tells me nothing. How much? How much big govt do you want?

As for names....Really? I warned you your narcissism and inane comments were the first attack. Now you're crying?

You'll have to get more specific than "big government" - that's an absolutely vague term.

As always, I'm happy to answer any specific questions, but not platitudes.

.

 

[EconChick]

I notice evety

.

The OP is essentially the "bottom up" approach favored by the social Democrats, and it doesn't work in a dynamic economy with global competition that depends on efficient deployment of capital.

And, as always, this conversation has been binary all the way through. One or the other. It can't work that way, gang, an equilibrium must be found. Neither "bottom up" nor "top down".

Good grief.

Politicize something and you dumb it down, faster than shit through a goose.

.

Obviously you haven't seen posts where we dig way into numbers where it is gray.

You totally lose normal people doing that. Just look at how many "normal" people follow the big econ discussions in the ECON FORUM threads. That's where we geeks like to hang out but not every day Americans who are trying to figure it out. Look at the sincere people we've lost on this thread (Smarter has left, Chris has shut down) once we delve way down into numbers. It just bores them and confuses them.

Though it has become binary, working in the weeds where it's gray loses those we're all talking to. There has to be an attempt to make it relatable. Not everyone sits on Wall Street and crunches numbers all day long like you do.

What an insult. A) I didn't leave the thread, I merely stopped talking to one dishonest poster B) Numbers don't confuse me.

Dude, you said, "Evening." Maybe you should take responsibility for the ambiguity of your words. You can't see how someone would think you're telling everyone bye?

You have the same problem in every discussion you've gotten in so far. You're only capable of looking through YOUR eyes and not the point the other person's making.

I said good evening to ONE poster

You've jumped the shark here, calm down , take a breath - it's only the internet.'



Oh , and as far as "only seeing things through my eyes " goes. maybe that's b/c I'm convinced most of the world needs glasses

Go read my posts , and tell me which political party you would I think I favor. I guarantee you can't . Because I look at situation on its own merits and judge accordingly. There are some threads where I think conservative ideologues are being morons and some that I think liberal ones are stupid.

Most of the time, its a combination of the two. ANYONE who declares EACH and EVERY time that one ideology is right and the other is wrong is a moron.

Really? You can't see how people would interpret that to mean Good Eve to everyone on the thread?

This is why Rik gave up on you. Incapable of seeing the other's points.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Me calm down? I was enjoying this back and forth till you showed up to condescend to everyone on this thread telling people to stop considering political aspects.

You still haven't answered why you would do something so stupid in a political thread.

So why??????????????

I know this is going to sound crazy, but here goes: Not everyone is a partisan ideologue. Many of us choose to think for ourselves. That doesn't mean that we don't want to solve problems, quite the contrary. Unfortunately, it's the partisan ideologues who are hurting us by polluting political discourse. You're creating most of the noise but nothing is improving.

If you really think you're moving us toward solutions with your behavior, there's nothing I can do about it. But you and other partisan ideologues don't own the conversation, you don't own political message boards.

The ignore function here works quite well if my posts are causing you some kind of trauma.

.

I don't use the ignore function, I'm not a coward like you.

You've not said one thing in this tread that brings an ounce of clarity to this discussion other than we're being political. And news flash, it's a political thread, not Econ Forum.

Is the President a political person or not? You act like politics has nothing to do with the person who directs econ policy.

And every time I've made these points before you've run off.

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

I've seen a lot of people post a lot of stupid shit on this board, but I really don't see what you are gettng onto Mac for here.

Raising the minimum wage should NOT be a political agenda. It shouldn't be Republicans lined up against Democrats screaming at each other that they are wrong when half (at minimum) of the posters screaming don't have a ******* clue what they are screaming about other than "I hate those _______"

Hell , look at you in this thread. You went from "EVERY STUDY SHOWS THAT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT" to "oh well studes can be made to say whatever you want them to say, and there is a lot more to UE than the minimum wage" the moment I showed you actual hard proof that were wrong , minimum wage increases do NOT increase UE.

 

[EconChick]

We still don't know whether you lean toward Capitalist solutions, Socialist solutions, or Communist solutions.

If you're too stupid to know the distinctions between them, then no wonder.

Of course I lean towards capitalist solutions, and anyone who reads my posts beyond a shallow level knows that.

Amazing how many times you've called me "stupid". How old are you? I assume I'm dealing with an adult, yes?

.

So does Castro on some days. That tells me nothing. How much? How much big govt do you want?

As for names....Really? I warned you your narcissism and inane comments were the first attack. Now you're crying?

You'll have to get more specific than "big government" - that's an absolutely vague term.

As always, I'm happy to answer any specific questions, but not platitudes.

.

Well now we're getting somewhere aren't we? Big government is used in all the models I mentioned. The devil is in how much.

 

[Camp]

Sam and Bud Walton were creators of wealth. Their kids and grandkids are leaches and parasites that mooch of the government, the public, the employees of the monster Sam and Bud created and the carcasses of their dead ancestors.

 

[Mac1958]

I've seen a lot of people post a lot of stupid shit on this board, but I really don't see what you are gettng onto Mac for here.

She's angry that I pointed out how partisan ideologues are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

After that, it's pretty much just meltdown.

.