Eliminate Minimum Wage

[The Rabbi]

Since that last post, my wages have risen. I now earn around $18.25 per hour.

Must suck, eh?

Being stuck in a dead end job at McDonald's? Yeah, that sucks all right.

I meant the pay. It must make you angry that I work in fast food and get better pay than most Yanks.

No. It saddens me that anyone would think working in fast food is anything to boast about.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What you earn is up to you.

In the US, 97% of hourly wage earners make more than the federal minimum wage.

It doesn't matter what the starting point is as far as pay goes because it is just that; a starting point.

I haven't made only minimum wage since I was 15. So it really is irrelevant.

 

[Supposn]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction that as described in post #62 of this discussion when we permit the federal minimum wage rate lag behind while the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the purchasing power of our median wage and wages of all jobs with requiring tasks for which there is no labor shortage will not similarly suffer decreased purchasing powers. But you cannot by your own standards prove that what’s contended in post #62 is not completely valid. You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

It is I believe a logically rational analysis and can only be refuted by a superior analysis. Is such conflicting analysis a case of he said/she said? I don’t think so.

I agree with those that contend mathematics is not a “science” but a philosophy which is only a system of thought. You cannot prove 2 + 2 = 4 without resorting to using arithmetic. You’d be using a definition of something in order to define something which logically ain’t a kosher definition.
Mathematics is the most precise and demanding of all philosophies. A rule is no longer a rule if you encounter a single exception to the “rule”. Mathematicians do not rationalize away any exceptions.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction that as described in post #62 of this discussion when we permit the federal minimum wage rate lag behind while the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the purchasing power of our median wage and wages of all jobs with requiring tasks for which there is no labor shortage will not similarly suffer decreased purchasing powers. But you cannot by your own standards prove that what’s contended in post #62 is not completely valid. You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

It is I believe a logically rational analysis and can only be refuted by a superior analysis. Is such conflicting analysis a case of he said/she said? I don’t think so.

I agree with those that contend mathematics is not a “science” but a philosophy which is only a system of thought. You cannot prove 2 + 2 = 4 without resorting to using arithmetic. You’d be using a definition of something in order to define something which logically ain’t a kosher definition.
Mathematics is the most precise and demanding of all philosophies. A rule is no longer a rule if you encounter a single exception to the “rule”. Mathematicians do not rationalize away any exceptions.

Respectfully, Supposn

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

 

[editec]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction that as described in post #62 of this discussion when we permit the federal minimum wage rate lag behind while the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the purchasing power of our median wage and wages of all jobs with requiring tasks for which there is no labor shortage will not similarly suffer decreased purchasing powers. But you cannot by your own standards prove that what’s contended in post #62 is not completely valid. You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

It is I believe a logically rational analysis and can only be refuted by a superior analysis. Is such conflicting analysis a case of he said/she said? I don’t think so.

I agree with those that contend mathematics is not a “science” but a philosophy which is only a system of thought. You cannot prove 2 + 2 = 4 without resorting to using arithmetic. You’d be using a definition of something in order to define something which logically ain’t a kosher definition.
Mathematics is the most precise and demanding of all philosophies. A rule is no longer a rule if you encounter a single exception to the “rule”. Mathematicians do not rationalize away any exceptions.

Respectfully, Supposn

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

The fact that you think her POV needs to be proved is somewhat troubling.

How would one "prove" such a post?

For that matter how would one disprove it?

I don't see any erroneous statements of fact in it.

Do you?

 

[JoeB131]

You have fallen onto the liberal trap that stealing from hard working people and giving it to the lazy will help America. Why is this so hard for liberals to see are they really that stupid?

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

If they aren't lazy then they are to stupid to get a good job. This means they are still over paid. If a person is lazy or stupid it doesn't justify laws that let him steal from his employer.

As I've mentioned before, I have a tidy little side business where I write resumes for people.

The reality is not that people are lazy. I have met people with years of experience who are finding themselves out of work. Some have worked at the same company for decades and don't know anything else.

Simply, we are in the mess because the 1% who control half the wealth are too greedy and too unethical. Not because people are unwilling to work. We could put everyone in a good paying job if we wanted to. We just don't want to.

 

[Oddball]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction that as described in post #62 of this discussion when we permit the federal minimum wage rate lag behind while the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the purchasing power of our median wage and wages of all jobs with requiring tasks for which there is no labor shortage will not similarly suffer decreased purchasing powers. But you cannot by your own standards prove that what’s contended in post #62 is not completely valid. You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

It is I believe a logically rational analysis and can only be refuted by a superior analysis. Is such conflicting analysis a case of he said/she said? I don’t think so.

I agree with those that contend mathematics is not a “science” but a philosophy which is only a system of thought. You cannot prove 2 + 2 = 4 without resorting to using arithmetic. You’d be using a definition of something in order to define something which logically ain’t a kosher definition.
Mathematics is the most precise and demanding of all philosophies. A rule is no longer a rule if you encounter a single exception to the “rule”. Mathematicians do not rationalize away any exceptions.

Respectfully, Supposn

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

The fact that you think her POV needs to be proved is somewhat troubling.

How would one "prove" such a post?

For that matter how would one disprove it?

I don't see any erroneous statements of fact in it.

Do you?

There's no logical rational analysis for the MW in general, and certainly not one that is irrelevant to the prevailing wage in virtually all of the nation....In fact, all the rational analysis speaks to eliminate it altogether.

It's all about emotional response and using the MW as a contrivance for union wage scale political payola.

 

[Supposn]

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

Oddball, what you describe as my imaginative creations, I describe as my logically rational conclusions. If you’re honest to yourself, you’ll agree that your conclusions can not satisfy the quality of proof that you wish to impose upon me.

That was the essence of my post #243.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

Oddball, what you describe as my imaginative creations, I describe as my logically rational conclusions. If you’re honest to yourself, you’ll agree that your conclusions can not satisfy the quality of proof that you wish to impose upon me.

That was the essence of my post #243.

Respectfully, Supposn

Logic, based on the fact that less than 3% of hourly wage earners make the federal minimum wage, would tell you that raising the minimum wage would not have much of an effect.

 

[Supposn]

Joe B 131, I fear that the fault is not due to the very wealthiest people.
They’ve got theirs and are confident (to the extent that any people can be comfortable regarding an uncertain future); they’re likely to remain doing well regardless of any but their most radically extreme changes of our society or its economy.

It is those who lack confidence in their own abilities and are unsure if they could really maintain their status and/or continue to do well in a democratic meritocracy that are opposed to the minimum wage laws.

Within a more meritocracy the wealthy could as the song describes, turn their bigger umbrellas upside down to catch their full share or more opportunities. But the wealthier would be unable to deny opportunities others. To great extent the poor could also enjoy the refreshing opportunities also showering upon them.

The Rockefellers, the talented, the self confident people are not opposed to the minimum wage laws. The opponents of the minimum wage are those who doubt there own talent and abilities, or believe their status is threatened if opportunities are more widely spread; and they (with good reason) are ashamed and embarrassed to admit their motivations even to themselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

It is those who lack confidence in their own abilities and are unsure if they could really maintain their status and/or continue to do well in a democratic meritocracy that are opposed to the minimum wage laws.

You do Orwell proud.

 

[AmazonTania]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

Economics has laws, just like there are laws of physics and laws of gravity. The scarcer a commodity is, the more value it has. That is just a basic law of economics, and it's a very harsh reality many countries has faced in this world. Claiming otherwise is like claiming water can flow uphill. It just doesn't happen.

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction that as described in post #62 of this discussion when we permit the federal minimum wage rate lag behind while the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the purchasing power of our median wage and wages of all jobs with requiring tasks for which there is no labor shortage will not similarly suffer decreased purchasing powers. But you cannot by your own standards prove that what’s contended in post #62 is not completely valid. You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

He may not be able to, but I can. And all one has to do is just look at a real world example, or several. Have you ever heard about the economy of American Samoa?

 

[Supposn]

Logic, based on the fact that less than 3% of hourly wage earners make the federal minimum wage, would tell you that raising the minimum wage would not have much of an effect.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, the federal minimum wage rate affects ALL USA wage rates.

Excerpted from post #141: “The minimum rate affects ALL wage and salary rates but it doesn’t affect them all equally. Its proportional effect is inversely to the differences between tasks’ pay scales and the minimum rate. Lesser paying jobs benefit proportionally more and higher paying jobs benefit proportionally less due to the minimum rate; but they do ALL benefit to some extent. …
… The minimum rate very much affects wage rates approaching the minimum rate. You incorrectly underestimate the minimum's affect upon the median and all lesser incomes. The minimum rate extremely affects, (I believe no less than) the least earning fifth of USA’s full time wage earners”.
//////////////////////////////////////

Half of all USA wage and salary employees earn no more than the median wage. That’s the definition of the median. I am not a statistician but I would suppose that the FMW significantly affects no less than 1/4 of our nation’s employees and it extremely affects no less than 1/5th of our nation’s employees.

Yes that is a conclusion based upon a logical rational, but that 1/4 figure is a very low ball estimate. I’ll entertain any logical rational or statistics that you may believe can reasonably refute these conclusions.

The point is not the proportion of USA employees or USA full time employees or the ages of employees that earn no more than the FMW. No one is questioning or concerned with the validity of your 3% statistic because it is inconsequential to the FMW rate’s aggregate effects upon the purchasing powers of USA’s employee earnings.

It’s contended that the FMW significantly affects the purchasing powers of more than 1/4 of all USA full time employees. Within those significantly affected employees are 1/5 of USA employees earnings that are EXTREMELY significantly affected. We are discussing FMW’s significant affect is upon in excess of a quarter of all USA full time employees.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

Somalia!!!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

IOW, you're just making things up can't prove a word of what you've posted.

Oddball, what you describe as my imaginative creations, I describe as my logically rational conclusions. If you’re honest to yourself, you’ll agree that your conclusions can not satisfy the quality of proof that you wish to impose upon me.

That was the essence of my post #243.

Respectfully, Supposn

No, you make up shit and I call you on it.

Source/link or it didn't happen.

 

[dblack]

I've noticed many otherwise intelligent people support minimum wage laws for the same kinds of reasons they support PPACA, even when they realize it's bad law. They see it as a 'foot in the door', an opportunity to advance a broader agenda of setting up government control of the economy in general.

And, well... **** them.

 

[Supposn]

Skull pilot & Oddball, social studies is not a science and the overwhelming economic concepts cannot be proved because there’s no practical method to modify one significant and variable factor while retaining wall or even a significant majority of all other significant factors as reasonably constant.

Economics has laws, just like there are laws of physics and laws of gravity. The scarcer a commodity is, the more value it has. That is just a basic law of economics, and it's a very harsh reality many countries has faced in this world. Claiming otherwise is like claiming water can flow uphill. It just doesn't happen. ...

Amazon Tania, yes that particular concept can (I believe) be tested to both of our satisfactions.
But that doesn't transform social studies to be considered as social sciences. Social study topics are generally driven by humans which are very erratic creatures. Many examples of such erratic behaviors can be cited.

I stand by response post #243.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[OnePercenter]

That's not how it works, Gomer....You show where you're right.

But since you have such a warped perception of even the most elementary concepts, like "subsidy", I have little hope of getting anything more than dopey leftbat platitudes, bromides and yapping points out of you.

A subsity is any monies that the Government gives you. Your personal deduction is a subsidy.

Letting you keep your own money is not a subsidy.

But the way of keeping your own money is.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your bragging that you earn $16.75 an hour at McDonalds, Hell Walmart workers in some Nouth Dakota stores make more.
A Boomtown Is Born in North Dakota - WSJ.com

Since that last post, my wages have risen. I now earn around $18.25 per hour.

Must suck, eh?

Being stuck in a dead end job at McDonald's? Yeah, that sucks all right.

Being stuck in North Dakota is a dead end life.

 

[Supposn]

I was very favorably impressed by what Greenspan within his book, “Age of Turbulence”. “Very favorably impressed” is of course code for “the author agrees with my contentions”.
[I’m no better than most others. We generally determine our political positions and then seek support and/or proof that support our positions. Also we generally lie to ourselves and claim that we are making our own OBJECTIVE determination. We ain’t all saints and we ain’t all that objective].

Allen Greenspan was first appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve board under a conservative administration and he was reappointed to the chairmanship under both Republican and Democratic presidents. He was and generally remains perceived to be a conservative.

He wrote that when serving as the board’s chairman, he had confidence that the CEOs and CFOs of our nation’s greatest financial institutions were extremely knowledgeable and the best interests of their institutions were their primary concern. Furthermore these esteemed executives were not unpatriotic and fully appreciated that as their own best interests and those of their organizations were strongly linked to their nation’s economy’s best interests.

He saw no justification or need for government regulators to diligently regulate the financial industries.
After the great recession from which our nation and the remainder of the world’s economies have not yet recovered from, Greenspan’s opinion has transformed to become aligned with the economic and administrative concepts of those that I concur with.

Greenspan is now of the opinion that we are more likely to believe the concepts that our in our own best interests converge with, (if not completely share) what’s in the best interests of our enterprises and our nation. He now believes that ain’t necessarily so. He now believes that there is a necessary role for government’s enforced regulations and the lack of such checks upon commercial activity is detrimental to our nation’s economy.

I suppose some members might describe as an economic law that entrepreneurs are the best judges of their industries’ best interests and are by far are superior to governments’ ineffective interventions.
I and Allen Greenspan and many others believe that’s concepts rather than laws; those concepts are wrong; we believe the concepts of transparency, reasonable and diligently enforced government regulations to protect our society’s interests are superior to pure Laissez faire.

Respectfully, Supposn