Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.

So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass". And of course, the states that raised their minimum wages were already higher than the *federal minimum wage*. But you knew that already. You thought you could conflate the issue by conflating the federal minimum wage with the minimum wage in the states that raised theirs. None of the states that raised their minimum wages in 2014 had a minimum wage as low as the federal one. In every case, the state's minimum wage was higher than the federal minimum wage. Feel like you tried to throw a red herring in here because you know your argument is full of shit. BTW - the states that did raise their wages represented about 30% of the total US population. So once again, facts are on my side and not yours.

Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011. They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.
It's true, amongst his other failures was his failure to play well with others.
Elections have consequences, eh

That's right, elections do have consequences. The consequences of the last election is that the Conservatives now have to govern. Boy, they're doing a shitty job of that, even after Obama handed them a growing economy. Obama was too nice to Republicans. If it was me, I would have put the boot to your necks right after the 2008 election. Obama made attempt after attempt to work with Conservatives. But they were too ashamed and embarrassed at the disaster that was Bush so you all thought the best course of action was to deliberately harm the economy so you could draw an equivalence between Obama and your failures. Such brats.

But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.
Increased so much, number of SNAP recipients is 50% higher. Good job!

If you raised wages, it would be lower. But you oppose raising wages. Which makes that response from you purely masturbatory. Apparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times, and fairy dust. Er um, "supply side". LOL!

his from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.
Tell me again that businesses won't expand when individual taxes are cut. That's always funny.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes. In fact, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in the first four years of his tax cuts. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years. So you have this dumb theory, with no empirical evidence to support it, that you think is equal in terms to my position which is based on actual evidence and fact? Get outta here, joker! Bush cut taxes, proceeded to lose nearly 1M jobs, then inflated a housing bubble that burst and left Obama with an economy in shambles. So...thanks?

Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.
It only hurts the ones who lose their jobs......and the ones who don't get hired.
For the few that receive MW, a hike is good.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue? 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't. So you say raising the MW kills jobs, but lack any empirical evidence to support it. So, like most of what you believe, it's a fantasy not grounded in reality or fact. You do that a lot, substitute theory for fact. Well guess what? Your instincts suck ass. Which means your theories suck ass. Which means your belief system sucks ass. Lotta ass sucking on your part, I'd say.

More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.
Less money for companies to hire = fewer workers = less demand.

Why would they have less money to hire people? They only pay taxes on profits, not revenues. And if people are spending more, because they have more money to spend, wouldn't that lead to an increase in revenues? Why would revenues decline if you're paying people more. You conflate revenues with profits and I think you do that on purpose so you can cloud the issue because you know ultimately that you're full of shit.

My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you. She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
Does she still believe in the magic pot of corporate money that unlimited MW hikes can draw from?

Who said anything about unlimited hikes? Is this just your attempt to spike the debate because you're know you're going to lose, so instead of being an adult and accepting that maybe your worldview is wrong, you would prefer to just flame out because you've reached the end of everything you think you know? Seriously, grow up and get over yourself.

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.
Why would it be unreasonable? Just think of all the spending they'll do, more demand = more jobs!

So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context, hiding the stuff that you don't want to see, in order to what? Stay relevant in an internet debate? Seriously, dude, get over yourself and grow up. I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job. But for you, there only exists these two extremes, with nothing in the middle. That is why and how I know you're full of shit, that you're posturing on this board because you feel some culpability and regret for being such a tool, and because you haven't really put any thought into this subject beyond regurgitating the same, tired, bullshit we've heard over and over from people who have never been right about anything!

 

[The Derp]

They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.

No one is suggesting the MW go that high, so why are you?

You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous. I disagree.
This is America, you're free to start a business and pay your low-skilled workers $15/hr.
Hell, you're a nice guy, make it $20/hr.Be sure to post your progress.

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit. So if they can do it, why can't everyone else?

Of course, maybe you should just pay people in faith...since that seems to be the only thing guiding your philosophy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.

So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass". And of course, the states that raised their minimum wages were already higher than the *federal minimum wage*. But you knew that already. You thought you could conflate the issue by conflating the federal minimum wage with the minimum wage in the states that raised theirs. None of the states that raised their minimum wages in 2014 had a minimum wage as low as the federal one. In every case, the state's minimum wage was higher than the federal minimum wage. Feel like you tried to throw a red herring in here because you know your argument is full of shit. BTW - the states that did raise their wages represented about 30% of the total US population. So once again, facts are on my side and not yours.

Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011. They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.
It's true, amongst his other failures was his failure to play well with others.
Elections have consequences, eh

That's right, elections do have consequences. The consequences of the last election is that the Conservatives now have to govern. Boy, they're doing a shitty job of that, even after Obama handed them a growing economy. Obama was too nice to Republicans. If it was me, I would have put the boot to your necks right after the 2008 election. Obama made attempt after attempt to work with Conservatives. But they were too ashamed and embarrassed at the disaster that was Bush so you all thought the best course of action was to deliberately harm the economy so you could draw an equivalence between Obama and your failures. Such brats.

But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.
Increased so much, number of SNAP recipients is 50% higher. Good job!

If you raised wages, it would be lower. But you oppose raising wages. Which makes that response from you purely masturbatory. Apparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times, and fairy dust. Er um, "supply side". LOL!

his from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.
Tell me again that businesses won't expand when individual taxes are cut. That's always funny.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes. In fact, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in the first four years of his tax cuts. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years. So you have this dumb theory, with no empirical evidence to support it, that you think is equal in terms to my position which is based on actual evidence and fact? Get outta here, joker! Bush cut taxes, proceeded to lose nearly 1M jobs, then inflated a housing bubble that burst and left Obama with an economy in shambles. So...thanks?

Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.
It only hurts the ones who lose their jobs......and the ones who don't get hired.
For the few that receive MW, a hike is good.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue? 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't. So you say raising the MW kills jobs, but lack any empirical evidence to support it. So, like most of what you believe, it's a fantasy not grounded in reality or fact. You do that a lot, substitute theory for fact. Well guess what? Your instincts suck ass. Which means your theories suck ass. Which means your belief system sucks ass. Lotta ass sucking on your part, I'd say.

More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.
Less money for companies to hire = fewer workers = less demand.

Why would they have less money to hire people? They only pay taxes on profits, not revenues. And if people are spending more, because they have more money to spend, wouldn't that lead to an increase in revenues? Why would revenues decline if you're paying people more. You conflate revenues with profits and I think you do that on purpose so you can cloud the issue because you know ultimately that you're full of shit.

My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you. She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
Does she still believe in the magic pot of corporate money that unlimited MW hikes can draw from?

Who said anything about unlimited hikes? Is this just your attempt to spike the debate because you're know you're going to lose, so instead of being an adult and accepting that maybe your worldview is wrong, you would prefer to just flame out because you've reached the end of everything you think you know? Seriously, grow up and get over yourself.

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.
Why would it be unreasonable? Just think of all the spending they'll do, more demand = more jobs!

So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context, hiding the stuff that you don't want to see, in order to what? Stay relevant in an internet debate? Seriously, dude, get over yourself and grow up. I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job. But for you, there only exists these two extremes, with nothing in the middle. That is why and how I know you're full of shit, that you're posturing on this board because you feel some culpability and regret for being such a tool, and because you haven't really put any thought into this subject beyond regurgitating the same, tired, bullshit we've heard over and over from people who have never been right about anything!

So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".

Well, take the less than 1 million MW workers....add their raises....show me how much that raised average wages for the 150 million plus employees in the US.

I'll wait, while you pull that number out of your ass.

If you raised wages, it would be lower. But you oppose raising wages.

I think rising wages are great, even while raising them by government fiat is stupid and destructive.

Apparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times

And saying.....you must pay $X/hr. I agree, raising them that way is stupid.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.

Well, they did.

Bush tax cuts fully phased in May, 2003.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue? 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.

You said they had better job creation because they raised MW. Still waiting for your proof.

Why would they have less money to hire people?

You just forced them to raise wages.
You think they have that unlimited pot of money you dreamed up?
If you raise their expense from $8/hr to $10/hr, $40 now pays for 4 instead of 5 workers.

They only pay taxes on profits, not revenues.

You're right, higher MW would reduce profits, if you assume they don't reduce headcount.

So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context

$15/hr is good, $100/hr is better.
Put that in context.

I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.

$50/hr is in the middle. Too high? Why?
$30/hr sounds good, right? Why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.

No one is suggesting the MW go that high, so why are you?

You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous. I disagree.
This is America, you're free to start a business and pay your low-skilled workers $15/hr.
Hell, you're a nice guy, make it $20/hr.Be sure to post your progress.

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit. So if they can do it, why can't everyone else?

Of course, maybe you should just pay people in faith...since that seems to be the only thing guiding your philosophy.

No one is suggesting the MW go that high, so why are you?

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.

Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

 

[danielpalos]

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Lay off the weed and get a job.

 

[danielpalos]

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Lay off the weed and get a job.

oh look, another "dopeless wonder" with a lousy argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Lay off the weed and get a job.

oh look, another "dopeless wonder" with a lousy argument.

Stoned, fat and unemployed is no way to go through life son.

 

[danielpalos]

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Lay off the weed and get a job.

oh look, another "dopeless wonder" with a lousy argument.

Stoned, fat and unemployed is no way to go through life son.

neither is being, "full of fallacy".

 

[The Derp]

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate? Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms? Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate? Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.
Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more. You haven't made the argument they shouldn't. The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr. You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate? Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms? Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate? Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.
Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more. You haven't made the argument they shouldn't. The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr. You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised

Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

 

[The Derp]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

 

[The Derp]

So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".
Well, take the less than 1 million MW workers....add their raises....show me how much that raised average wages for the 150 million plus employees in the US.

Of course, you already know that many states have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage...though still below the $15/hr necessary for workers today to avoid leaning on welfare benefits. So I'm wondering why you don't bother to make that distinction in your posts? Is it because you know that and are choosing to be deliberately deceptive by removing that context? Is that because it's the only way you can even come close to making a point here on the boards (even though it's not salient)? How many workers in this country make less than $15/hr? Certainly more than 1 million, right? So to you, you are ignoring the fact that many states have minimum wages above what the federal minimum wage is. Why? I didn't say to raise the federal minimum wage...I simply said we should raise the minimum wage. That goes for all of them, not just the federal one. So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.

If you raised wages, it would be lower. But you oppose raising wages.
I think rising wages are great, even while raising them by government fiat is stupid and destructive.

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly? Certainly not any empirical evidence. So what are you basing it on? Your own personal bias. Well, your bias means shit when stacked next to the facts. Why is it that everything you say has to be qualified like that, anyway? There you go, substituting your feelings for fact. I find you do that pretty much all the time. There's not a single position you argue that is based in any fact. It's all from the ether or your imagination and feelings and instincts. Why the fuck should anyone take anything you say or believe seriously, knowing you don't care for facts to make an informed decision?

Ipparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times
And saying.....you must pay $X/hr. I agree, raising them that way is stupid.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did.
ush tax cuts fully phased in May, 2003.

So here's the problem with what you are arguing; Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those. Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument, and you're doing so completely outside the purview of the Bush Mortgage Bubble, which is the only driver of job growth during Bush's presidency. So if you are saying job growth starting in 2003-4 (even though the Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2001 with some of them starting in 2001) is attributed to the tax cuts, then that means the mortgage bubble -which was the driver of the job growth- is also attributed to the tax cuts. So that means the subsequent economic collapse and all the shit that came from that is the fault of the Bush Tax Cuts. So thanks for helping me make the case that the Bush Tax Cuts destroyed the economy. If, as you say, they are what was responsible for the job growth, which was caused by the mortgage bubble. Ergo, the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble. Of course, Bush already said so while campaigning in 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

So now comes the part in the debate where you try to say that the growth Bush had wasn't because of the housing bubble, but because of the tax cuts. But the reality is that the tax cuts caused the housing bubble -according to you and Bush- so is that what you were intending to say?

BTW - Bush was President from January 2001 - January 2009. So by ripping the years where the economy performed -because of the housing bubble- out and representing those as the whole is disingenuous, and I think you even recognize that. Which would make you pretty shameless.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue? 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.
You said they had better job creation because they raised MW. Still waiting for your proof.

There's enough circumstantial evidence to tie the two. Whereas your position, that raising the MW kills jobs, has no evidence whatsoever to support its claim. You all said that raising the minimum wage would kill jobs. The empirical evidence shows that isn't the case at all. So why are you still arguing that it does? Is this another ego/pride thing? Get over yourself.

Why would they have less money to hire people?
You just forced them to raise wages.

And you don't think there would be a corresponding increase to revenues from sales due to people having more money to spend? Have you ever worked in a business before? You are assuming that the rate of spending remains the same, even though people have more to spend if their wages are raised. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say you are full of shit. Paying people more means they spend more. Which means more revenues for the business.

They only pay taxes on profits, not revenues.
You're right, higher MW would reduce profits, if you assume they don't reduce headcount.

No, a higher MW would increase revenues. You are working from the assumption that if people are paid more money, they don't spend more. Which is in complete contradiction to your position on taxation; that if they are given more after-tax income, they will spend more. So explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending, yet reducing someone's taxes will? This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...your entire argument contradicts itself the second we begin to scrutinize it.

So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context
$15/hr is good, $100/hr is better.
Put that in context.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr. You seem determined to pretend there isn't and you only do that because you would have to admit that I'm right and your ego just can't handle that. So, as usual, it's all about you and your feelings. Get over yourself.

I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.
$50/hr is in the middle. Too high? Why?
$30/hr sounds good, right? Why not?

I am not an economist. I don't know what the middle ground is. All I know is that it's too low right now.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

 

[danielpalos]

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate? Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms? Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate? Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.
Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more. You haven't made the argument they shouldn't. The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr. You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised

Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; that is Why.

 

[danielpalos]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".
Well, take the less than 1 million MW workers....add their raises....show me how much that raised average wages for the 150 million plus employees in the US.

Of course, you already know that many states have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage...though still below the $15/hr necessary for workers today to avoid leaning on welfare benefits. So I'm wondering why you don't bother to make that distinction in your posts? Is it because you know that and are choosing to be deliberately deceptive by removing that context? Is that because it's the only way you can even come close to making a point here on the boards (even though it's not salient)? How many workers in this country make less than $15/hr? Certainly more than 1 million, right? So to you, you are ignoring the fact that many states have minimum wages above what the federal minimum wage is. Why? I didn't say to raise the federal minimum wage...I simply said we should raise the minimum wage. That goes for all of them, not just the federal one. So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.

If you raised wages, it would be lower. But you oppose raising wages.
I think rising wages are great, even while raising them by government fiat is stupid and destructive.

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly? Certainly not any empirical evidence. So what are you basing it on? Your own personal bias. Well, your bias means shit when stacked next to the facts. Why is it that everything you say has to be qualified like that, anyway? There you go, substituting your feelings for fact. I find you do that pretty much all the time. There's not a single position you argue that is based in any fact. It's all from the ether or your imagination and feelings and instincts. Why the fuck should anyone take anything you say or believe seriously, knowing you don't care for facts to make an informed decision?

Ipparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times
And saying.....you must pay $X/hr. I agree, raising them that way is stupid.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did.
Bush tax cuts fully phased in May, 2003.

So here's the problem with what you are arguing; Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those. Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument, and you're doing so completely outside the purview of the Bush Mortgage Bubble, which is the only driver of job growth during Bush's presidency. So if you are saying job growth starting in 2003-4 (even though the Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2001 with some of them starting in 2001) is attributed to the tax cuts, then that means the mortgage bubble -which was the driver of the job growth- is also attributed to the tax cuts. So that means the subsequent economic collapse and all the shit that came from that is the fault of the Bush Tax Cuts. So thanks for helping me make the case that the Bush Tax Cuts destroyed the economy. If, as you say, they are what was responsible for the job growth, which was caused by the mortgage bubble. Ergo, the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble. Of course, Bush already said so while campaigning in 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

So now comes the part in the debate where you try to say that the growth Bush had wasn't because of the housing bubble, but because of the tax cuts. But the reality is that the tax cuts caused the housing bubble -according to you and Bush- so is that what you were intending to say?

BTW - Bush was President from January 2001 - January 2009. So by ripping the years where the economy performed -because of the housing bubble- out and representing those as the whole is disingenuous, and I think you even recognize that. Which would make you pretty shameless.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue? 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.
You said they had better job creation because they raised MW. Still waiting for your proof.

There's enough circumstantial evidence to tie the two. Whereas your position, that raising the MW kills jobs, has no evidence whatsoever to support its claim. You all said that raising the minimum wage would kill jobs. The empirical evidence shows that isn't the case at all. So why are you still arguing that it does? Is this another ego/pride thing? Get over yourself.

Why would they have less money to hire people?
You just forced them to raise wages.

And you don't think there would be a corresponding increase to revenues from sales due to people having more money to spend? Have you ever worked in a business before? You are assuming that the rate of spending remains the same, even though people have more to spend if their wages are raised. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say you are full of shit. Paying people more means they spend more. Which means more revenues for the business.

They only pay taxes on profits, not revenues.
You're right, higher MW would reduce profits, if you assume they don't reduce headcount.

No, a higher MW would increase revenues. You are working from the assumption that if people are paid more money, they don't spend more. Which is in complete contradiction to your position on taxation; that if they are given more after-tax income, they will spend more. So explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending, yet reducing someone's taxes will? This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...your entire argument contradicts itself the second we begin to scrutinize it.

So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context
$15/hr is good, $100/hr is better.
Put that in context.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr. You seem determined to pretend there isn't and you only do that because you would have to admit that I'm right and your ego just can't handle that. So, as usual, it's all about you and your feelings. Get over yourself.

I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.
$50/hr is in the middle. Too high? Why?
$30/hr sounds good, right? Why not?

I am not an economist. I don't know what the middle ground is. All I know is that it's too low right now.

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.

Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?

On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?

Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.

Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.

Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument

Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?

Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.

And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

So explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,

When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...

Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.

The correct minimum wage is $0.

I am not an economist.

No fucking kidding.

All I know is that it's too low right now.

Yes, your feelings are noted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate? Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms? Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate? Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.
Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more. You haven't made the argument they shouldn't. The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr. You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised

Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; that is Why.

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Only through wealth. There is plenty of demand for water in the Gobi Desert, by the poor.

So why is there not overwhelming supply? The neo-Marxists of the democratic party claim that demand is the catalyst for production, yet here we have demand and no product. How can this be possible?