Disadvantages of Minimum Wage Laws

[PoliticalChic]

Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

He, (i.e. Higginbottom) clearly says that he'd hire unskilled labor to carry supplies...or dig holes....if the law allowed him to pay what that level of skill called for.


Further...I called your bluff: you won't reach into your pocket....you'd rather reach into the employer's.

Political Chick, Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

The federal minimum wage rate is THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr). The FMW rate certainly to some extent supports all USA wages and salaries but that’s the limit of its relativity to your narration regarding the conditions of Higginbittom’s labor recruitment problems.

Your narration regarding Higginbottom is not germane to the FMW.

I suppose you’re correct; we, (you and I) wouldn’t reach into our personal pockets for reasons no better than subsidizing employers’ net incomes.

My father was as close as I’ll ever come to encountering an angel and his son is not as altruistic.
But I would support the reduction or elimination of Medicare, (which is both economically and socially justified), if it was accompanied by the elimination of the unjustified tax reduction granted for long term capital gains incomes and the entire revenue savings were dedicated to our government promoting a better economy for my father’s great grandchildren.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/205471-capital-gains-and-income-averaging.html

Respectfully, Supposn

"THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr)."


Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?
Or collect nails left on the jobsite"
Or getting coffee for workers?

Get you hand out of their pocket.


That's between labor and management.

You don't like it?
Cough up your own bucks, Lefty.

 

[Rshermr]

Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

He, (i.e. Higginbottom) clearly says that he'd hire unskilled labor to carry supplies...or dig holes....if the law allowed him to pay what that level of skill called for.


Further...I called your bluff: you won't reach into your pocket....you'd rather reach into the employer's.

Political Chick, Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

The federal minimum wage rate is THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr). The FMW rate certainly to some extent supports all USA wages and salaries but that’s the limit of its relativity to your narration regarding the conditions of Higginbittom’s labor recruitment problems.

Your narration regarding Higginbottom is not germane to the FMW.

I suppose you’re correct; we, (you and I) wouldn’t reach into our personal pockets for reasons no better than subsidizing employers’ net incomes.

My father was as close as I’ll ever come to encountering an angel and his son is not as altruistic.
But I would support the reduction or elimination of Medicare, (which is both economically and socially justified), if it was accompanied by the elimination of the unjustified tax reduction granted for long term capital gains incomes and the entire revenue savings were dedicated to our government promoting a better economy for my father’s great grandchildren.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/205471-capital-gains-and-income-averaging.html

Respectfully, Supposn

"THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr)."


Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?
Or collect nails left on the jobsite"
Or getting coffee for workers?

Get you hand out of their pocket.


That's between labor and management.

You don't like it?
Cough up your own bucks, Lefty.

Uh, just a stupid question: do you have the certificate proving that you have the right to determine if a minimum wage should exist??
Oh, and another question: Do you believe in the concept of the citizenry of this country having the right to determine the laws of this nation?? Just wondering, since all polls point to the concept of a minimum wage increase being wildly popular.
So, do you believe that the people of our nation should be able to determine the laws of our nation?? Or do yo actually have that certificate??

But, again, PC passes the Koch test. If it is good for the Koch bros, PC will be for it. If it is bad for the Koch bros, PC will be against it. Simple. Knowing that you need not read PC's drivel.

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize it's a debate about proper policy, right? Should every policy be determined by polls? How about the gov't gives free cell phones to everyone on low income in Cleveland? (oh wait they do that already). How about free contraceptives? Free abortions? Free houses? Free cars? I'll bet those will be wildly popular too, especially with the crowd that doesnt pay any income tax.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick, Why am I responsible for your lack of comprehension?

The federal minimum wage rate is THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr). The FMW rate certainly to some extent supports all USA wages and salaries but that’s the limit of its relativity to your narration regarding the conditions of Higginbittom’s labor recruitment problems.

Your narration regarding Higginbottom is not germane to the FMW.

I suppose you’re correct; we, (you and I) wouldn’t reach into our personal pockets for reasons no better than subsidizing employers’ net incomes.

My father was as close as I’ll ever come to encountering an angel and his son is not as altruistic.
But I would support the reduction or elimination of Medicare, (which is both economically and socially justified), if it was accompanied by the elimination of the unjustified tax reduction granted for long term capital gains incomes and the entire revenue savings were dedicated to our government promoting a better economy for my father’s great grandchildren.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/205471-capital-gains-and-income-averaging.html

Respectfully, Supposn

"THE minimum rate we're discussing. It did not prevent Higginbottom from hiring anyone (unless he intended to pay them less than $7.25/Hr)."


Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?
Or collect nails left on the jobsite"
Or getting coffee for workers?

Get you hand out of their pocket.


That's between labor and management.

You don't like it?
Cough up your own bucks, Lefty.

Uh, just a stupid question: do you have the certificate proving that you have the right to determine if a minimum wage should exist??
Oh, and another question: Do you believe in the concept of the citizenry of this country having the right to determine the laws of this nation?? Just wondering, since all polls point to the concept of a minimum wage increase being wildly popular.
So, do you believe that the people of our nation should be able to determine the laws of our nation?? Or do yo actually have that certificate??

But, again, PC passes the Koch test. If it is good for the Koch bros, PC will be for it. If it is bad for the Koch bros, PC will be against it. Simple. Knowing that you need not read PC's drivel.

The Koch brothers investments in conservative politics is a drop compared to literally buckets of money from Soros and the Left.

See "The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future" by Horowitz and Laksin



Often misquoted as ‘The business of America is business,” Coolidge really said:

“... After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. …

Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture.

Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
January 17, 1925 Given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors


Minimum wage laws are a combination of crony capitalism, ignorance of business by politicians, attempts to buy votes and show 'what a good boy am I."

Wise up.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's feel good legislation. Look, Congressman Blowhard is giving you a pay raise. Isn't he great? Speaker Pelosi gave the American people a Christmas gift: free health care. Obama gives free money.
Never mind none of this shit isn't free and these programs make things worse for everyone.

 

[Rshermr]

Drop in the bucket??? Right. You obviously do not mind lying. What a tool. Did you ever hear of Citizens United. What soros or the Koch bros contributed is of little interest, when you consider money in politics overall. And, by the way, you brought that up, not I. And CU was not a democratic idea, and was not supported by most dems. It was, however, supported by nearly all repubs. And we are, as a result, the joke of the rest of the world.
Relative to your quote from a source saying min wage is a bad idea, consider these:

Economic Effects of the Minimum Wage
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ICS/Insi....cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=1032609

Economic research supports raising the minimum wage
Economic research supports raising the minimum wage - The Hill's Congress Blog

Helpful, Harmful, or Hype? 5 Economists Weigh In on Obama's Minimum-Wage Proposal
Helpful, Harmful, or Hype? 5 Economists Weigh In on Obama's Minimum-Wage Proposal - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

If you approach the subject with just a bit of objectivity, you will find the impact of the minimum wage on unemployment to be minimal. Some studies show a slight increase in unemployment,m others show a slight decrease. But all show the impact as short term. Overall, very little change at all after 6 months to a year.
So, the above references are as impartial as I could find. I left out sources like CATO, AEI, and others from the right as well as Huffington Post and others that may seem to be more left leaning. Most are university based studies.
Your certainty that min wage laws are unquestioningly bad for our economy are only supported by the really bat shit crazy con sites. Which you seem to prefer. And for which you provided no links. Note above that the links are provided and actually work!!

Wise Up!

 

[The Rabbi]

You're not the stupidest poster on here only because competition is so stiff. The SEIU is one of teh biggest contributors. Unions in general are enormous contributors. And I dont have a problem with it. Citizens United has zero to do with any of it. Just another red herring to deflect from your idiotic statements.

Min wage may not effect overall employment. But it sure affects employment for those most likely to work those jobs, namely the very ones the libtards claim to be for.

 

[Rshermr]

It's feel good legislation. Look, Congressman Blowhard is giving you a pay raise. Isn't he great? Speaker Pelosi gave the American people a Christmas gift: free health care. Obama gives free money.
Never mind none of this shit isn't free and these programs make things worse for everyone.

Yup. And the fact that min wage increases are supported by the vast majority of the citizenry of the US is of no interest to you. Hell, all the conservative bat shit crazy con sites say it is a bad idea. And corporatists believe it. To hell with the middle class and below, eh, let them eat.....
And to hell with those independent economic studies. You have the con sites. Good enough for you.

 

[Rshermr]

You're not the stupidest poster on here only because competition is so stiff. The SEIU is one of teh biggest contributors. Unions in general are enormous contributors. And I dont have a problem with it. Citizens United has zero to do with any of it. Just another red herring to deflect from your idiotic statements.

Min wage may not effect overall employment. But it sure affects employment for those most likely to work those jobs, namely the very ones the libtards claim to be for.

You have it, Rabbi. No one could compete with you for stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

You're not the stupidest poster on here only because competition is so stiff. The SEIU is one of teh biggest contributors. Unions in general are enormous contributors. And I dont have a problem with it. Citizens United has zero to do with any of it. Just another red herring to deflect from your idiotic statements.

Min wage may not effect overall employment. But it sure affects employment for those most likely to work those jobs, namely the very ones the libtards claim to be for.

Oh, by the way, here is the red herring thing. You have got to be either a congenital idiot, or just do not mind lying. Citizens united is the game in political contributions:

“A hundred million dollars is nothing,” the venture capitalist Andy Rappaport told me back in the summer of 2004. This was at a moment when wealthy liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis were looking to influence national politics by financing their own voter-turnout machine and TV ads and by creating an investment fund for start-ups. Rappaport’s statement struck me as an expression of supreme hubris. In American politics at that time, $100 million really meant something.

Eight years later, of course, his pronouncement seems quaint. Conservative groups alone, including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.

The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - NYTimes.com

And the SEIU and all other unions do not make the top 10 contributors if you COMBINED their contributions. Try a little integrity some time, me boy. It would be refreshing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Drop in the bucket??? Right. You obviously do not mind lying. What a tool. Did you ever hear of Citizens United. What soros or the Koch bros contributed is of little interest, when you consider money in politics overall. And, by the way, you brought that up, not I. And CU was not a democratic idea, and was not supported by most dems. It was, however, supported by nearly all repubs. And we are, as a result, the joke of the rest of the world.
Relative to your quote from a source saying min wage is a bad idea, consider these:

Economic Effects of the Minimum Wage
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ICS/Insi....cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=1032609

Economic research supports raising the minimum wage
Economic research supports raising the minimum wage - The Hill's Congress Blog

Helpful, Harmful, or Hype? 5 Economists Weigh In on Obama's Minimum-Wage Proposal
Helpful, Harmful, or Hype? 5 Economists Weigh In on Obama's Minimum-Wage Proposal - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

If you approach the subject with just a bit of objectivity, you will find the impact of the minimum wage on unemployment to be minimal. Some studies show a slight increase in unemployment,m others show a slight decrease. But all show the impact as short term. Overall, very little change at all after 6 months to a year.
So, the above references are as impartial as I could find. I left out sources like CATO, AEI, and others from the right as well as Huffington Post and others that may seem to be more left leaning. Most are university based studies.
Your certainty that min wage laws are unquestioningly bad for our economy are only supported by the really bat shit crazy con sites. Which you seem to prefer. And for which you provided no links. Note above that the links are provided and actually work!!

Wise Up!

You ignorant worm....

You should know by now that I never lie.

I am absolutely correct about the finances of Left and Right.....

...and even more correct about you being a slimy little worm.


1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.

a. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.

b. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
c. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, Google



2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.


3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! Horowitz and Laksin, "The New Leviathan," p. 8

a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.



4. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!

a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right


5. Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundationmade a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Conservative News, Views & Books

 

[Rshermr]

So, PC is at it again. Posting drivel from right wing bat shit crazy con sites as though they are credible sites. Here is what she had to say, most recently:

You ignorant worm....

Last person I heard call me a worm was a slut. Are you a slut, PC???

You should know by now that I never lie.

right. You never lie. So you say. From the mouth of a slut???

I am absolutely correct about the finances of Left and Right.....

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

...and even more correct about you being a slimy little worm.

Yup. You MUST be a slut.

1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.

Not just conventional wisdom. It is obvious to the majority. And getting more so. Did you happen to know there was an election a few months ago??

a. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.

Well, I know you do not believe so. Because you are a con tool. I suspect that you are paid to post dogma, but if you address that, you will deny it.

b. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”

Some are. Those not already bought and owned by big money.

c. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, Google

Stupid post, dipshit.

2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.

Right. And now we get to see your sources.

3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! Horowitz and Laksin, "The New Leviathan," p. 8

You are talking about financial assets in a non election year. From a really agenda driven source. What a surprise, PC.
In 2012, tax exempt meant many of the PAC.s. And it is certain that the tax exempt contribution was much higher for republicans than democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/u...ney-general-enters-campaign-finance-fray.html
What matters is what is being spent, and specifically in 2012. And from a super pac standpoint, the repubs got $225M while the dems got $92M. See the difference, PC?? The PAC money is largely the contributions allowed by Citizens United. You know, the funding that we can see very little about.
2012 Presidential Campaign Finance Explorer - The Washington Post
For all political candidate spending, PAC money was aroung $416M for repubs, and $209M for dems.
2012 Outside Spending, by Super PAC | OpenSecrets

a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

Do WHAT??? Do you understand the Kings English. Check out sentence construction rules.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

No link. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

And???????????? Were you aware that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is Not a political organization. So, what the hell are you trying to say???
No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

4. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!

No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right.

No link. Wild accusations. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

Funny, PC, how you forgot links to your drivel. Odd, eh. Funny how you talk about assets, and ignore what was spent in campaigns. Funny how you have no current numbers. You know, like for the 2012 campaign. Trying to mislead as hard and fast as you can. You really have NO integrity, PC.

5. Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundationmade a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Conservative News, Views & Books

Uh, interesting. There are full records for 2012. So, where do you get your drivel???
Interesting. But in 2012 Koch spent over $4M, nearly all on republican candidates. And no known political group spent 5X as much as the Koch foundation spent. Except, of course, one republican PAC. However, only two dem PAC's spent more than Koch. And the largest was only 25% larger.

What was that you said about not lying at the beginning of your post?? Obviously, you were lying about lying. Because this post is nothing but lies, me dear. In true con tool methodology. You just wasted, and I mean completely wasted, 15 minutes of my time. As usual, you are way to easy, PC.

_____________

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, PC is at it again. Posting drivel from right wing bat shit crazy con sites as though they are credible sites. Here is what she had to say, most recently:

You ignorant worm....

Last person I heard call me a worm was a slut. Are you a slut, PC???

You should know by now that I never lie.

right. You never lie. So you say. From the mouth of a slut???


That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.



Yup. You MUST be a slut.




Not just conventional wisdom. It is obvious to the majority. And getting more so. Did you happen to know there was an election a few months ago??


Well, I know you do not believe so. Because you are a con tool. I suspect that you are paid to post dogma, but if you address that, you will deny it.



Some are. Those not already bought and owned by big money.



Stupid post, dipshit.



Right. And now we get to see your sources.



You are talking about financial assets in a non election year. From a really agenda driven source. What a surprise, PC.
In 2012, tax exempt meant many of the PAC.s. And it is certain that the tax exempt contribution was much higher for republicans than democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/u...ney-general-enters-campaign-finance-fray.html
What matters is what is being spent, and specifically in 2012. And from a super pac standpoint, the repubs got $225M while the dems got $92M. See the difference, PC?? The PAC money is largely the contributions allowed by Citizens United. You know, the funding that we can see very little about.
2012 Presidential Campaign Finance Explorer - The Washington Post
For all political candidate spending, PAC money was aroung $416M for repubs, and $209M for dems.
2012 Outside Spending, by Super PAC | OpenSecrets



No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.



No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.



No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.



Do WHAT??? Do you understand the Kings English. Check out sentence construction rules.



No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.



No link. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.




And???????????? Were you aware that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is Not a political organization. So, what the hell are you trying to say???
No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.




No link. Only assets. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right.

No link. Wild accusations. What did they spend in 2012. And on whom?? TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

Funny, PC, how you forgot links to your drivel. Odd, eh. Funny how you talk about assets, and ignore what was spent in campaigns. Funny how you have no current numbers. You know, like for the 2012 campaign. Trying to mislead as hard and fast as you can. You really have NO integrity, PC.

5. Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundationmade a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Conservative News, Views & Books

Uh, interesting. There are full records for 2012. So, where do you get your drivel???
Interesting. But in 2012 Koch spent over $4M, nearly all on republican candidates. And no known political group spent 5X as much as the Koch foundation spent. Except, of course, one republican PAC. However, only two dem PAC's spent more than Koch. And the largest was only 25% larger.

What was that you said about not lying at the beginning of your post?? Obviously, you were lying about lying. Because this post is nothing but lies, me dear. In true con tool methodology. You just wasted, and I mean completely wasted, 15 minutes of my time. As usual, you are way to easy, PC.

_____________

C'mon....we both know that so very many call you a worm, you can't possibly keep track of who they are.

 

[Rshermr]

So, PC says:

C'mon....we both know that so very many call you a worm, you can't possibly keep track of who they are.

Not really. No one that I know of. Certainly not as many as call you a slut. And I know you are upset. Having just been shown to be totally dishonest does make you angry. But your ability to argue an economic issue is just so limited. Your cut and paste methodology does take up a lot of space. But your lack of intellectual curiosity makes you easy to crush. Funny..;......

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, PC says:

C'mon....we both know that so very many call you a worm, you can't possibly keep track of who they are.

Not really. No one that I know of. Certainly not as many as call you a slut. And I know you are upset. Having just been shown to be totally dishonest does make you angry. But your ability to argue an economic issue is just so limited. Your cut and paste methodology does take up a lot of space. But your lack of intellectual curiosity makes you easy to crush. Funny..;......

What makes me angry is that no fisherman has caught up with you yet, worm.

 

[Rshermr]

So, PC says:

C'mon....we both know that so very many call you a worm, you can't possibly keep track of who they are.

Not really. No one that I know of. Certainly not as many as call you a slut. And I know you are upset. Having just been shown to be totally dishonest does make you angry. But your ability to argue an economic issue is just so limited. Your cut and paste methodology does take up a lot of space. But your lack of intellectual curiosity makes you easy to crush. Funny..;......

What makes me angry is that no fisherman has caught up with you yet, worm.

Is that supposed to be clever??? In your little mind?? Or do you simply like to waste people's time?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, PC says:



Not really. No one that I know of. Certainly not as many as call you a slut. And I know you are upset. Having just been shown to be totally dishonest does make you angry. But your ability to argue an economic issue is just so limited. Your cut and paste methodology does take up a lot of space. But your lack of intellectual curiosity makes you easy to crush. Funny..;......

What makes me angry is that no fisherman has caught up with you yet, worm.

Is that supposed to be clever??? In your little mind?? Or do you simply like to waste people's time?

I found your baby pics...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5c5QQkSdo]Weird Slimy Worm - YouTube[/ame]



You haven't changed much.

 

[Supposn]

Political Chick, some species of minimum wage rate exists within EVERY labor market.

You advocate a market determined minimum bench mark that’s never mandated but always unspecific.
Opponents of FMW consider the politically determined that minimum rate as a “vote buying” strategy with little consideration of economic consequences.

Those supporting a legally mandated minimum are less concerned or are unconcerned with the unspecified characteristic of market determined prices. They contend except when there’s a shortage of all labor, the unspecific market determined minimum bench mark’s purchasing powers will ALWAYS be severely less than that that of the U.S. Congresses determined minimum rate; thus the nation’s median wage’s purchasing power will also be significantly reduced.

They contend when there’s no shortage of labor, employers are in significantly more advantageous negotiating positions

They generally consider much of the political opposition to the FMW as a strategy of chasing campaign funding from the wealthy. The wealthy prefer servers’ greater dependence upon employers’ good graces. It’s not difficult to rationalize your own best interests to be the same as that of your nation.

I’m among those that are proponents of the FMW rate annually adjusted to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. We concur with those that object to the minimum bench mark being always subject to political considerations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Political Chick, politicians supporting the FMW to any extent can be divided into two sub-groups:

(a) Those that sincerely prefer a definite legally mandated rate to some extent are also supporters of that rate being annually adjusted to the dollar’s purchasing power.

(b) Those who privately do not fully support a legally mandated minimum but consider elections within which opposition of the FMW would deny them victory. Although they believe it’s imprudent to publically oppose the FMW, they may have no need to further alienate their political fund contributors by supporting an annual adjustment to retain the minimum’s purchasing power.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?
Or collect nails left on the jobsite"
Or getting coffee for workers? ...

Political Chick, The minimum benchmark affects all wage rates but does not affect them all equally.
Prior to this message, nothing you wrote of Ms. Elzie Higginbottom construction enterprises was germane to the federal minimum wage laws.

I don’t suppose you have ever carried wall board, lifted it up to and affixed it to ceilings for an entire working day. (I’ve done so).

If Higginbottoms’ an experienced general contractor, she knows that if you trust more demanding tasks to severly underpaid employees, the damage induced by such extremely inadequate compensation would exceed any possibly hoped for net cost reductions due to an extremely unrealistic pay scale. This is relatively valid within the USA or a nation that enforces no minimum wage.
This is not germane to the discussion of the FMW. The FMW is the legally mandated minimum rate regardless of the tasks’ demands.

Tasks such as construction clean up or doing the “coffee run” or working as a “flagman’ on mild spring days at comparatively safer less polluted surroundings are not very demanding tasks are the tasks directly related to our discussion of the FMW rate.

I addressed less demanding jobs such as these within the first post of another thread.
Excerpted from:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html

There are many job tasks that do not justify the minimum rate but they now exist because their performance is necessary to our public or private enterprises. Those jobs will continue to exist but their wage levels will plunge down to sub-minimum rates.

Sub-minimum jobs will be the vast majority of additional jobs created and (because many of those qualified to perform sub-minimum tasks were previously not qualified for employment at minimum wage rates), we’ll have a pool of eligible labor that will far exceed the number of those additional jobs.

The affect of those extremely poor paying jobs will ripple throughout our entire labor market. All labor compensation will be somewhat affected but the general extent of the effect upon a task’s wage rate will be inversely related to the difference between the purchasing power of the eliminated minimum wage rate and the job’s rate; (i.e. the more you’re earning, the less you’re hurting. That’s the meaning of minimum wage rate’s inverse affect upon all jobs’ rates).

Lower wage earners will all then be paid in wages of extremely poor purchasing power. Prior to the elimination of the minimum wage rate, many of those now earning the lesser purchasing powered wages will have been unemployed or not worked steadily but they will be joined by those who already had been the working poor and some who were previously getting by slightly better. There’ll be net increased needs for public assistance and our states can’t now handle the present needs.
That’s a scenario of increased national poverty.

I ‘m a proponent of an annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage rate similar to the annually COLA’d Social Security benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn