You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why vote this down?
- Thread starter EqtTrdr
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
That essentially is the same BS argument that keep illegals working under scale, and under the table, and the republican administration doing squat about it. Without illegals all wages will go up, yada, yada, yada....and legals will lose jobs.
Horse Shit.
Horse Shit....
WRONG
It's amazing how confident this guy is when he regularlly makes such ridiculuous comments.
what keeps illegals working under scale, and under the table is the fact they are here ILLEGALLY.
THAT IS THE INCENTIVE TO RISK BREAKING THE LAW TO HIRE THEM, THEY TAKE LESS!!!!!! BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!
This guy has disqualified himself from intelligent conversation after just about every one of his posts...
This one takes the cake
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Many agree that the greatest period of real productivity, real growth, and real accumulation of peace of mind in this country came following the end of WWII through the beginning of the 70's.
That period saw labor unions flourishing, pension programs developing and people investing, minimum wages sufficient for living, etc.
What do we see now? Productivity to this administration means cutting health care benefits, cutting pension plans, cutting jobs and exporting them overseas, etc.
We used to measure productivity not in terms of the corporations and their profits, but in the lives of Americans improving.....
Since then we have seen the weakening of labor unions, wages for the common man, more use of drugs to cope with mental illness (yes, the wealthy take a lot of drugs to help them sleep, keep them sane, etc.), increase in divorce rates, etc.
America is better off now?
Just one time, let the people vote their real life situation, and not their bogus fear of terrorism....
The bottom line is that having corporations run the show, via the lobby money, is not good for the people as a whole, that's the facts....
My mistake, this one takes the cake. Just drenched in liberal-platitudes-nonesense.
"Oh, pleeeeeze, just once ...let the populace vote their real life situation. "
If I remember correctly, I think 2004 was really the first time "terrorism" was even a campaign issue.
"OH, JUST ONCE ...."
This comment reveals the true liberal core, "the people are sheep too stupid to know whats good for them. We must take over and make all the decisions for them! "
You might have wanted to put a link back to the "Conservatives are Dumb, thread."
"Is America Better Off Now" ... spoken from sunny california on an expensive computer, on a thread in probably the most capatilistic of websites.
I think this might be the last time I point out the ridiculous nature of this guys posts, it's too much work to keep up.
As for the minimum wage, if the government is going to insist on what people are paid they might as well make it a reasonable amount.
In 1984 at 16, I made the minimum 3.15, for a few months before moving on to a 5-12 hour job. $2 in 20 years is ridiculuous.
But this is pretty much a non-issue, seeing that the statistics reveal just who is making minimum wage ... about 1% of the force for a few months, and most are under the age of 22...
BLAH
"But this is pretty much a non-issue, seeing that the statistics reveal just who is making minimum wage ... about 1% of the force for a few months, and most are under the age of 22..."
If it is such a non issue, why do the regressives fight it so strongly?
Doh!
If it is such a non issue, why do the regressives fight it so strongly?
Doh!
Quote from pattersb:
My mistake, this one takes the cake. Just drenched in liberal-platitudes-nonesense.
"Oh, pleeeeeze, just once ...let the populace vote their real life situation. "
If I remember correctly, I think 2004 was really the first time "terrorism" was even a campaign issue.
"OH, JUST ONCE ...."
This comment reveals the true liberal core, "the people are sheep too stupid to know whats good for them. We must take over and make all the decisions for them! "
You might have wanted to put a link back to the "Conservatives are Dumb, thread."
"Is America Better Off Now" ... spoken from sunny california on an expensive computer, on a thread in probably the most capatilistic of websites.
I think this might be the last time I point out the ridiculous nature of this guys posts, it's too much work to keep up.
As for the minimum wage, if the government is going to insist on what people are paid they might as well make it a reasonable amount.
In 1984 at 16, I made the minimum 3.15, for a few months before moving on to a 5-12 hour job. $2 in 20 years is ridiculuous.
But this is pretty much a non-issue, seeing that the statistics reveal just who is making minimum wage ... about 1% of the force for a few months, and most are under the age of 22...
BLAH
Quote from dddooo:
Politics 101 - Ted Kennedy's job is safe
Economics 101 - the prices of products and services are established by supply and demand, not by the cost of production and cost of labor. If businesses could raise prices they would have regarless of how much or how little they pay their workers. Most likely the minimum wage increase would come out of insane business profits and absurd CEO compensation packages (still leaving businesses extremely profitable and CEOs uber-wealthy).
We only hear the sensationalized version of outrageous corporate profits and CEO compensation from the media, who have a very good habit of sensationalizing something to make it a big deal to fit a personal biased agenda. This is not to say that some companies are definitely out of control because some are.
However, how many companies are large, mid-sized, and small who are not paying outrageous salaries to a CEO and do not have tremendous profits. These are the ones who will either have to raise the cost of the products/services to meet the new labor demands or scale back their operations if they do not have enough capital to support the current workforce if the minimum wage is raised.
The bottom line is, if you are 30-years old and are bitching about making minimum wage their, is probably a reason for it that lies solely at the person in the mirror. Secondly, if you are relying on minimum wage to raise a family you are too stupid to have kids in the first place. Take care of your business, get an education and then once you get above minimum wage and can actually support a family, then start a family. I do not know why this basic concept escapes so many people.
The problem isn't minimum wage; the problem is that people want to be given something for nothing. Unfortunately what they do not realize is they are selling their dignity and freedom to some jackass politician wanting a vote.
Minimum wage legislation is no more anti-liberty than a zillion other laws already on the books.
Two points liberals miss though.
One, wage levels should/or not be imposed locally. $5.15 is not the same in San Francisco (who has their own MW) as it is in Rapid City.
Secondly, most minimum wage recipients aren't supporting households! The senior at Wal-mart (who makes a bit more than MW) is only trying to subsidize his SS or pension. The teenager at Dairy Queen is also not the head of a household. Those who need to support a family ect. aren't going to have an easy time even if the MW goes to $10.00 an hour.
Of course we're seeing the ridiculous "corporate greed" arguments from loZZZer and his ilk. Yea, right. I'm sure that Oracle and General Motors are just TEEMING with $5 an hour help. The businesses effected are agriculture, hospitality industry ect. At any given time there's more Americans in prison than toiling at the Federal mandated MW.
Two points liberals miss though.
One, wage levels should/or not be imposed locally. $5.15 is not the same in San Francisco (who has their own MW) as it is in Rapid City.
Secondly, most minimum wage recipients aren't supporting households! The senior at Wal-mart (who makes a bit more than MW) is only trying to subsidize his SS or pension. The teenager at Dairy Queen is also not the head of a household. Those who need to support a family ect. aren't going to have an easy time even if the MW goes to $10.00 an hour.
Of course we're seeing the ridiculous "corporate greed" arguments from loZZZer and his ilk. Yea, right. I'm sure that Oracle and General Motors are just TEEMING with $5 an hour help. The businesses effected are agriculture, hospitality industry ect. At any given time there's more Americans in prison than toiling at the Federal mandated MW.
No they are not but an increase in minimum wage would ripple through the entire economic system and give a long overdue raise to every working american. And yes that raise would come at the expense of Oracle and GM CEOs and shareholders. But certainly giving working americans a raise is not the top priority of the republican administration and congress, they are busy giving raises, corporate welfare, tax cuts, no-bid contracts etc to the wealthiest 5% of the country.Quote from Pabst:
I'm sure that Oracle and General Motors are just TEEMING with $5 an hour help.
Quote from Burtakus:
However, how many companies are large, mid-sized, and small who are not paying outrageous salaries to a CEO and do not have tremendous profits.
Are you familiar with the concept of averages, what part of the following quote do you not understand?
"Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005 "
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=12607863&src=rss/domesticNews
If you're mathematically challenged and it's still not clear:
"The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said."
OR
"a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks"
Quote from dddooo:
Are you familiar with the concept of averages, what part of the following quote do you not understand?
"Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005 "
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=12607863&src=rss/domesticNews
If you're mathematically challenged and it's still not clear:
"The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said."
OR
"a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks"
Look you communist, don't you understand that these CEO's NEED that kind of money to be incentivized to get out of bed with their supermodel wives or girlfriends every morning and come to work? Our economy depends on their innovation and creativity. I'm sure the Boards of Directors, which are filled with the most repsonsible corporate stewards we can find, would not approve these pay packages if they, in their collective wisdom, didn't believe them to be in the best interests of the company and its employees.
OK, only kidding. They are hogs, their boards are corrupt weasels and the pay packages are obscene and threaten our whole system. But it has bumpus to do with the minimum wage, which is nothing but an example of congress demonstrating its economic illiteracy. Luckily, it's most harmless.
Quote from dddooo:
Are you familiar with the concept of averages, what part of the following quote do you not understand?
"Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005 "
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=12607863&src=rss/domesticNews
If you're mathematically challenged and it's still not clear:
"The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said."
OR
"a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks"
Are you a statistical retard as well? A few outliers can easily skew an average. I would not pass judgment unless you have an actual distribution to look at. Also it would be a good idea to some 1, 2, and 3 sigma dispersions to make a better determination on the spread of CEO compensation. Unfortunately statistics can portray an accurate, or completely inaccurate, picture depending on the level of understanding, or in your case lack of understanding.
And we wonder why people lose money on moving averages.