Here is a brain teaser: the Minimum Wage

[JD Barleycorn]

economics and biology are not quite the same thing

[Old-T]

But the argument that "if a little is good, a lot more must be better" is as illogical in one area as the other.

[Texas Contrarian]

The only brain Professor Barleycorn is capable of teasing is his own.

That creates a slight problem for him, though. As a consequence, he has pulled off the cool biological trick of becoming the only one around here whose brain actually has a chronic case of blue balls.

And he's still frustrated that there's no award for starting the greatest number of ridiculously stupid threads.

(Although the minimum wage is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion, couching a few words you wrote as a "brain teaser" and positing this the way you did is simply asinine, especially for one who actually claims to teach.)

[Sidewinder]

Not one of y'all has noticed that there were two parts to his question.

ONE of y'all managed to make a snarky comment about the second part. NONE of you touched the first part, which was "Why didn't the Democrats raise the Federal minimum wage when they had control of the House, the Senate, *AND* the Oval Office?".

The answer is simple.

It isn't about raising the minimum wage. It is about making the Republicans look bad.

The Democrats aren't as stupid as they seem to be. They KNOW that raising the minimum wage across the board will do very serious damage to the economy. That's why they didn't do it when they had the chance. They ALSO know that the typical low-information (translation: Democrat) voter is far too stupid to understand that, but the typical Republican *IS* smart enough. This means that they can float their trial balloon, watch the Republicans scream in horror and shoot it down, for DAMNED GOOD REASON, and then say to the spectators "See, we TRIED to help you all, but those dirty rotten Republican scumbags wouldn't let us do it. Vote for US next time!"

[fortylove]

Sidewinder hit the nail on the head. End the end it all comes down to which party is in charge when the country goes bankrupt. Once the country goes bankrupt and we are forced into a one world government the party (Republican or Democrat) that is in charge becomes the ruling party of the one world government. This is about power not what is right or wrong. The more we move to the wrong the sooner we go bankrupt. So both sides just keep up the good work we are moving towards a one world government faster than we can see.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Not one of y'all has noticed that there were two parts to his question.

ONE of y'all managed to make a snarky comment about the second part. NONE of you touched the first part, which was "Why didn't the Democrats raise the Federal minimum wage when they had control of the House, the Senate, *AND* the Oval Office?".

The answer is simple.

It isn't about raising the minimum wage. It is about making the Republicans look bad.

The Democrats aren't as stupid as they seem to be. They KNOW that raising the minimum wage across the board will do very serious damage to the economy. That's why they didn't do it when they had the chance. They ALSO know that the typical low-information (translation: Democrat) voter is far too stupid to understand that, but the typical Republican *IS* smart enough. This means that they can float their trial balloon, watch the Republicans scream in horror and shoot it down, for DAMNED GOOD REASON, and then say to the spectators "See, we TRIED to help you all, but those dirty rotten Republican scumbags wouldn't let us do it. Vote for US next time!"

A+

[i'va biggen]

Really stupid to have the minimum wage pay as much or more than you can make on welfare.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Not one of y'all has noticed that there were two parts to his question.

I doubt that anyone actually failed to notice that there were two parts to his question. It's just that he generally couches his insult-laden "arguments" in such a ridiculous fashion that people tend simply to treat him with the contempt he so richly deserves.

Sidewinder, it doesn't appear that you're a frequent participant in this forum, so there's something you should know. Barleycorn generally acts like a troll and a childish jackass, and continually hurls insults at those with whom he generally disagrees. And I say that as someone who's a bit to the right-of-center on most fiscal and economic matters, and who would agree with him on a great number of issues, even though I'm undoubtedly nowhere near as conservative as he is. Although he occasionally makes a good point, he continually floods the forum with insulting, ridiculous nonsense. And he's rarely capable of articulating his views in any coherent fashion. In short, he's simply an abject embarrassment to smarter conservatives. So in case you're wondering why so many people ridicule him or condescend to him, that's why.

But back to the minimum wage, I'm in general agreement with the assessment offered in Sidewinder's last paragraph. All the demagoguery surrounding the minimum wage is far more about politics than economics. There's no credible evidence that a big minimum wage increase would, in the aggregate, do much to reduce poverty or income disparity. And if pressed too far, it would clearly be distortive to the labor market -- and thereby to the economy -- in a variety of ways. I would also note that at least up to a certain point, increasing the earned income tax credit is better than increasing the statutory minimum wage, since it doesn't disincentivize work relative to receiving unemployment compensation, welfare, and other benefits.

It's easy to see why Democrats can demagogue and game this issue in ways that redound to their bebefit. Republicans don't have an easy way of making their case here, because anything they do or say is likely to backfire by making it look like they're simply shooting themselves in the foot in something resembling their customary, ham-handed fashion.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Really stupid to have the minimum wage pay as much or more than you can make on welfare.

Yes, that might encourage people to work. Wouldn't want that.

Some day the RWWs will understand simple cause and effect. Probably a few centuries after they develop some basic compassion.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Really stupid to have the minimum wage pay as much or more than you can make on welfare.

Please enlighten us.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Yes, that might encourage people to work. Wouldn't want that.

Some day the RWWs will understand simple cause and effect. Probably a few centuries after they develop some basic compassion.

Yes, that would really build up a country to have a generation of burger flippers as a career (and I mean they stay burger flippers) because they have no incentitive to aspire to something better as they have just enough to pay the bills, they get food at work, their healthcare is free, and they look forward to social security when they finish behind the grill.

Minimum wage is like the carrot and the stick and they give you the carrot first.

As for the Captain, you need to be a little more honest. I have started some very serious, and I hope thought provoking threads, but usually get greeted with the Greek chorus of snarks. So I give back tit for tat. Sometimes people get caught in the cross fire.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As for the Captain, you need to be a little more honest. I have started some very serious, and I hope thought provoking threads, but usually get greeted with the Greek chorus of snarks. So I give back tit for tat. Sometimes people get caught in the cross fire.

I think everyone who reads these threads can see that I'm quite honest.

Why don't you pause for just a moment and consider why you usually get treated with a "Greek chorus of snarks?" Then it might dawn on you that your attitude could have something to do with that. You've long demonstrated a propensity to start a discussion by scattershooting blanket insults at everyone who even might disagree with your views.

If you dial back the attitude, you might find that people are more inclined to listen to what you say instead of simply ridiculing you. By the way, it would also help to refrain from starting quite so many threads. We don't need to see a new one every time some thought pops into your head, or every time a "Tea Party" in the U.K. does better than expected in an election.

Got it now?

[JD Barleycorn]

Actually that "shotgun" is an attempt to plant a seed in your head. No one can convince someone else that they're wrong. You have to put the idea out there so they can examine it, taste it, and then change their own mind. That "shotgun" has a purpose.

FYI, the point behind that one post is to demonstrate that the Tea Party exists elsewhere in the world because you see (and I'm giving this away too soon) the left says the Tea Party exists because of racism and a black president. What is their excuse for having a Tea Party in England then? First I throw it out there, we talk about it until they accept that it is real, and then I go to the race question. At this point they may start to think and go, "wait a minute, England doesn't have black president. Maybe there is something more to this Tea Party that I have been instructed."

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I think everyone who reads these threads can see that I'm quite honest.

Why don't you pause for just a moment and consider why you usually get treated with a "Greek chorus of snarks?" Then it might dawn on you that your attitude could have something to do with that. You've long demonstrated a propensity to start a discussion by scattershooting blanket insults at everyone who even might disagree with your views.

If you dial back the attitude, you might find that people are more inclined to listen to what you say instead of simply ridiculing you. By the way, it would also help to refrain from starting quite so many threads. We don't need to see a new one every time some thought pops into your head, or every time a "Tea Party" in the U.K. does better than expected in an election.

Got it now?

advice given to your neighbors cat about taking a shit in your flowerbed would go further, and have more meaning ...

[JD Barleycorn]

Notice in the other thread about the Tea Party of England, Bjerk actually asked the question, "what do they (the English Tea Party) have to be mad about?" You notice that he thought about that and was asking why would the English be in a Tea Party when they don't have a black president.