Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 71
  1. #26
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,416
    Nobody benefits from the minimum wage.
    So people getting less money will have a greater benefit having less money. Sounds good.

  2. #27
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.

  3. #28
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,416
    And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.
    You really wonder why they don't?

  4. #29
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.
    I don't know whats more re ed on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

    Both are incredibly re ed, so we'll just call it a toss up.

  5. #30
    Believe. admiralsnackbar's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    4,010
    This is true.

    But I think MW would be more effective if it was enforced for everyone, including illegal immigrants.
    The whole reason people hire illegals is so they don't have to pay them MW!

  6. #31
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,416
    I don't know whats more re ed on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

    Both are incredibly re ed, so we'll just call it a toss up.
    True enough. I still have trouble believing the Cato Ins ute published it. It looks like something Wild Cobra would do.

  7. #32
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Post Count
    2,539
    "Always wanting to raise taxes"

    link? we had 2 Repugs admins of cutting taxes, and nobody but the super rich benefitted, and their excess money into the (unregulated) mortgage markets fueled lending boom./

    You'r so full of check-box conservative fantasies, it's not even interesting anymore.
    Keep telling yourself that. Well all have to justify our ty lives some how I suppose.

  8. #33
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    What is he supposed to do once the interest rates went all the way down to virtually zero? The problem with monetarism is that once you hit that rock bottom they don't tell you what to do...
    Do you mean when the interest rates equal the inflation or zero, which would be negative? If you had low inflation and the interest rate was equal to the inflation, then what is the problem?
    You are going on the idea that Keynsian ever worked. When dealing with politics, when do they do the hard right? The hard right would be to increase the interest rate while we are at close to or full capacity employment, which we didn't.

  9. #34
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    I don't know whats more re ed on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

    Both are incredibly re ed, so we'll just call it a toss up.
    ...it's especially stupid considering the horrible record of the Bush tax-cuts at new job creation....if the govt wasn't over-hiring, the economy would have crashed much, much sooner...

  10. #35
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    Gotta love when mogrevejo posts his wet dream about companies being able to pay $3-$4 an hour to its workers. Then the lowest class of full-time workers can live in shelters (who can afford an apartment on that?), thus effectively having their salaries partly socialized. I could care less about eliminating slave labor jobs; any company that can't afford to pay a measly $7 an hour to its workers deserves to go under. Your constant use of the $1000 an hour example makes you look like a fool to everyone.

  11. #36
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

    - who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

    - if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1.000 hour.

    Ad homimen remarks and childish insults suit best some people, I suppose.

  12. #37
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    raised to $1.000 hour.
    ...raised to $1.00/hour ?

  13. #38
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.
    The working poor?

    Teenagers?

    recent immigrants?

  14. #39
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,045
    ...raised to $1.00/hour ?
    Flight of fancy, or Freudian slip?

  15. #40
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

    - who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

    - if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1.000 hour.

    Ad homimen remarks and childish insults suit best some people, I suppose.
    Get off your high-horse with your passive-aggressive crap.

  16. #41
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,045
    Europe uses the period where we use a comma and vice versa. For pretty sure, dan.

  17. #42
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    Europe uses the period where we use a comma and vice versa. I think.
    Correct, my bad. I meant $1,000.

    The working poor?

    Teenagers?

    recent immigrants?
    How? Or why?

  18. #43
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    1,636
    mogrovejo, I wouldn't expect anything from dan beyond, it gives them a living wage, man!

    Let's take a simple example. Which is better for unemployment and inflation?

    - Employer hires 5 workers at $5.15 per hour ($25.75 per hour), the 2007 federal minimum wage.

    - Employer hires 4 workers at $7.25 per hour ($29.00 per hour), the current minimum wage.

  19. #44
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,416
    - who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.
    Who would benefit from making $1 an hour?

  20. #45
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    mogrovejo, I wouldn't expect anything from dan beyond, it gives them a living wage, man!

    Let's take a simple example. Which is better for unemployment and inflation?

    - Employer hires 5 workers at $5.15 per hour ($25.75 per hour), the 2007 federal minimum wage.

    - Employer hires 4 workers at $7.25 per hour ($29.00 per hour), the current minimum wage.
    And employees from the first example have a to go on food-stamps to survive, so the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the employer who hires the 5 workers for the slave wage vs the 4 for the crap wage.

  21. #46
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    1,636
    And employees from the first example have a to go on food-stamps to survive, so the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the employer who hires the 5 workers for the slave wage vs the 4 for the crap wage.
    How do you know that? Since when is $5.15 per hour a slave wage? Are you always so careless with words? That's pretty weak.

    Anyway, please answer my question. Which is better for unemployment and inflation? Serious argument, please.

  22. #47
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    How do you know that? Since when is $5.15 per hour a slave wage? Are you always so careless with words? That's pretty weak.

    Anyway, please answer my question. Which is better for unemployment and inflation? Serious argument, please.
    $900 a month (before taxes) is in no way enough money for someone to rent an apartment, pay for food, and pay for transportation to and from work. A $5.15 minimum wage just ensures more government dependence for the poor.

  23. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,045
    40 hours/wk at 5.15 translates to a little over 1000 a month, pretax. For a young, healthy, employable single person, maybe this can work out for awhile.

    Would 80 hours a week at 5.15 get it to where you could get off public assistance and start to pay for a kid and a car, besides yourself?

    120 hours a week at 5.15 would be recommended, I should think, for the family man who seeks to provide for his child's future by saving up.

  24. #49
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

    - who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

    - if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1,000 hour.

  25. #50
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    40 hours/wk at 5.15 translates to a little over 1000 a month, pretax. For a young, healthy, employable single person, maybe this can work out for awhile.

    Would 80 hours a week at 5.15 get it to where you could get off public assistance and start to pay for a kid and a car, besides yourself?

    120 hours a week at 5.15 would be recommended, I should think, for the family man who seeks to provide for his child's future by saving up.

    Actually, it's worse
    .
    Code:
    5.15 dollar/hour * 40 hour/week * 52 week/year * 1/12 year/month = 892.67 dollar/month

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •