Bernie Sanders drops a truth bomb

[shanm]

^another "funny man" joins the conversation.

Have we ever talked before? What the fuck is up your ass?

[Jackie S]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought ole Bernie was going to say......"I can never support Hillary Clinton because she is a lying sack of shit cunt"

[DSK]

Originally Posted by shanm

You're right jackass. I meant to say Nobel prize.

I'll bet ExNyer would have gotten it right! He is schooling you, just like COG tends to do when he doesn't ignore you.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by DSK

I'll bet ExNyer would have gotten it right! He is schooling you, just like COG tends to do when he doesn't ignore you.

That veil you hide behind is becoming more and more transparent each day, DickSuckingKing. You wouldn't want all that hard work to go to waste now, would you?

[Texas Contrarian]

Almost all of the demagoguery (both for and against) connected with increasing the minimum wage is much more about politics than economics. (That should come as a surprise to no one, as it's true of almost all political rhetoric.) You can always get hundreds of academic economists (including Nobel laureates) to sign letters in support of various popular proposals, as most are highly ideological and quite fond of ingratiating themselves to powerful politicians.

A crude, statutory minimum wage increase would do little more than shuffle dollars from one group of poor people to another. Many retail and fast food outlets that employ low-skilled workers operate on very thin margins, and in the face of a large minimum wage increase would have to reduce employment or raise prices, and many of them primarily serve low-income households. It should be obvious to anyone that no business is likely to pay any worker wages or salary greater than the value it assigns that worker's utility.

So, instead of pushing for a large minimum wage increase, an honest, non-demagogic progressive (sorry, that doesn't include the clueless Bernie Sanders) would support a large expansion of the EITC, which is obviously redistributionist, but wouldn't impose a job-destroying hardship on low-margin operations like many types of restaurants and retail stores. Thus, it encourages work and does not disincentivize job creation.

(The net effect of this is not significantly different from that of the "negative income tax" advocated by Milton Friedman 50 years ago. His essential point was that its structure would be significantly less clusterfuckish than running large amounts of money through a mishmash of bureaucratic social welfare agencies, and the EITC is structured in such a way that it incentivizes work for people who lack education and skills.)

The EITC was first implemented in the 1970s, but many people are surprised to learn which president was the first to substantially expand it. It was none other than that great socialist, Ronald Reagan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_138428.html?

As the author notes, Reagan did hang around with Mikhail Gorbachev on a few occasions, so what do you expect?

Looks like some of that socialism must have rubbed off!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Almost all of the demagoguery (both for and against) connected with increasing the minimum wage is much more about politics than economics. (That should come as a surprise to no one, as it's true of almost all political rhetoric.) You can always get hundreds of academic economists (including Nobel laureates) to sign letters in support of various popular proposals, as most are highly ideological and quite fond of ingratiating themselves to powerful politicians.

A crude, statutory minimum wage increase would do little more than shuffle dollars from one group of poor people to another. Many retail and fast food outlets that employ low-skilled workers operate on very thin margins, and in the face of a large minimum wage increase would have to reduce employment or raise prices, and many of them primarily serve low-income households. It should be obvious to anyone that no business is likely to pay any worker wages or salary greater than the value it assigns that worker's utility.

So, instead of pushing for a large minimum wage increase, an honest, non-demagogic progressive (sorry, that doesn't include the clueless Bernie Sanders) would support a large expansion of the EITC, which is obviously redistributionist, but wouldn't impose a job-destroying hardship on low-margin operations like many types of restaurants and retail stores. Thus, it encourages work and does not disincentivize job creation.

(The net effect of this is not significantly different from that of the "negative income tax" advocated by Milton Friedman 50 years ago. His essential point was that its structure would be significantly less clusterfuckish than running large amounts of money through a mishmash of bureaucratic social welfare agencies, and the EITC is structured in such a way that it incentivizes work for people who lack education and skills.)

The EITC was first implemented in the 1970s, but many people are surprised to learn which president was the first to substantially expand it. It was none other than that great socialist, Ronald Reagan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_138428.html?

As the author notes, Reagan did hang around with Mikhail Gorbachev on a few occasions, so what do you expect?

Looks like some of that socialism must have rubbed off!

Netanyahu won... and Reagan ain't no communist.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by shanm

yeah I really really doubt that. You don't know me. But feel free to post whatever you want. This is the internet. We are obligated to believe everything you say.

You don't know me either, shit-for-brains. You just toss around insults like they are arguments and apparently have minimum reading comprehension skills.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You don't know me either, shit-for-brains. You just toss around insults like they are arguments and apparently have minimum reading comprehension skills.

awww that's it? No more playing economist? Allright then, as you were.


Typical typical.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by shanm

awww that's it? No more playing economist? Allright then, as you were.

I have yet to see you play economist at all.

Besides throw out meaningless insults, all you do is talk about how there are "experts" with advanced degrees that somehow know the exact point to peg the minimum wages at - the one you agree with, of course. Yet other experts peg it at different points and you simply ignore those other experts. But they have those same advanced degrees. So, why? Are you only interested in testimony that supports your viewpoint?

So, again, I ask: Why not $25 an hour?

And saying "Because the experts say $10.10 an hour" is NOT an acceptable response.

If raising the minimum wage to $25/hour meant that fewer people went to college, then the starting salary of $45K per year for college graduates would have to go up because there would be a shortage of college graduates. Supply and demand, right? So the market would correct and you would increase college graduate wages as well, thereby offsetting at least some of the effect of raising the minimum wage to $25/hour.

Everybody does better. So, again, I ask: Why not $25 an hour?

If you want to know one way to raise wages across the board, read below.

[Guest032516]

Here is another problem that NO progressive wants to talk about.

We keep flooding our job markets with unskilled labor from foreign countries. Why are we letting semi-literate, unskilled Somalis, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Mexicans, and Chinese into the country when we have high unemployment among native born Americans? If you are native born and in the bottom quartile in this country, you have to be pissed.

Shouldn't we be trying to create labor shortages, instead?

And the vast majority of immigrants - legal and illegal - are NOT doctors, lawyers, and engineers, despite the propaganda of the open-borders idiots. Take a look at any poor neighborhood and see what percentage are foreign born.

And we are even getting scammed in the high-skilled job sector as well. The H1B visa program that supposedly brings in highly skilled immigrants to meet shortages in our job markets is nothing by a scam to depress the wages of skilled American workers as well. The IT and engineering sectors being ass-sucked by both foreign and American companies who want to replace higher wage American tech workers with lower wage foreign tech workers.

This should make your blood boil:

http://www.computerworld.com/article...imination.html

The Indian company Tata Consulting Services (TCS) basically has nothing but contempt for American workers and wants to staff their US operations with Indian workers.

Key quotes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An IT worker is accusing Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) of discriminating against American workers and favoring "South Asians" in hiring and promotion. It's backing up its complaint, in part, with numbers.

The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in San Francisco, claims that 95% of the 14,000 people Tata employs in the U.S. are South Asian or mostly Indian. It says this practice has created a "grossly disproportionate workforce."

India-based Tata achieves its "discriminatory goals" in at least three ways, the lawsuit alleges. First, the company hires large numbers of H-1B workers. Over from 2011 to 2013, Tata sponsored nearly 21,000 new H-1B visas, all primarily Indian workers, according to the lawsuit's count. Second, when Tata hires locally, "such persons are still disproportionately South Asian," and, third, for the "relatively few non-South Asians workers that Tata hires," it disfavors them in placement, promotion and termination decisions."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly when did it become US policy to run our country for the benefit of people from Third World countries?

Thank you, Ted Kennedy, and your 1965 immigration reforms. Drunken prick.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Here is another problem that NO progressive wants to talk about.

We keep flooding our job markets with unskilled labor from foreign countries. Why are we letting semi-literate, unskilled Somalis, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Mexicans, and Chinese into the country when we have high unemployment among native born Americans? If you are native born and in the bottom quartile in this country, you have to be pissed.

And the vast majority of immigrants - legal and illegal - are NOT doctors, lawyers, and engineers, despite the propaganda of the open-borders idiots. Take a look at any poor neighborhood and see what percentage are foreign born.

And we are even getting scammed in the high-skilled job sector as well. The H1-B visa program that supposedly brings in highly skilled immigrants to meet shortages in our job markets is nothing by a scam to depress the wages of skilled American workers as well. The IT and engineering sectors being ass-sucked by both foreign and American companies who want to replace higher wage American tech workers with lower wage foreign tech workers.

This should make your blood boil:

http://www.computerworld.com/article...imination.html

The Indian company Tata Consulting Services (TCS) basically has nothing buy contempt for American workers and wants to staff their US operations with Indian workers.

Key quotes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An IT worker is accusing Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) of discriminating against American workers and favoring "South Asians" in hiring and promotion. It's backing up its complaint, in part, with numbers.

The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in San Francisco, claims that 95% of the 14,000 people Tata employs in the U.S. are South Asian or mostly Indian. It says this practice has created a "grossly disproportionate workforce."

India-based Tata achieves its "discriminatory goals" in at least three ways, the lawsuit alleges. First, the company hires large numbers of H-1B workers. Over from 2011 to 2013, Tata sponsored nearly 21,000 new H-1B visas, all primarily Indian workers, according to the lawsuit's count. Second, when Tata hires locally, "such persons are still disproportionately South Asian," and, third, for the "relatively few non-South Asians workers that Tata hires," it disfavors them in placement, promotion and termination decisions."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly when did it become US policy to run our country for the benefit of people from Third World countries?

Thank you, Ted Kennedy, and your 1965 immigration reforms. Drunken prick.

Amen - it is a wonder it doesn't lead to a revolution.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I have yet to see you play economist at all.

Besides throw out meaningless insults, all you do is talk about how there are "experts" with advanced degrees that somehow know the exact point to peg the minimum wages at - the one you agree with, of course. Yet other experts peg it at different points and you simply ignore those other experts. But they have those same advanced degrees. So, why? Are you only interested in testimony that supports your viewpoint?

So, again, I ask: Why not $25 an hour?

And saying "Because the experts say $10.10 an hour" is NOT an acceptable response.

If raising the minimum wage to $25/hour meant that fewer people went to college, then the starting salary of $45K per year for college graduates would have to go up because there would be a shortage of college graduates. Supply and demand, right? So the market would correct and you would increase college graduate wages as well, thereby offsetting at least some of the effect of raising the minimum wage to $25/hour.

Everybody does better. So, again, I ask: Why not $25 an hour?

If you want to know one way to raise wages across the board, read below.

I already answered your stupid $25/hr question earlier. If you'd care to read it. Not once did I defer to "experts", and I gave you several valid reasons. I am not saying that there are no negatives to having higher minimum wage, but for now economists believe that raising the minimum wage will help. Here, I'll quote my post again.

Originally Posted by shanm

Many many things wrong with your post.

You say he never suggested raising it to $25, then why the hell are you questioning him on it? Does that make any sense?

And for the minimum wage increase to 10.10 instead of 25, there's many reasons.
Firstly, lets say you went to college (Obviously you didn't, but for the sake of argument, let's say you did). The average starting salary for a college grad is around 40-45k. Raising minimum wage to $25/hr means few people will go to college if they can spend those 4 years earning a higher wage than they would even with a college degree. A professional accountant or engineer might start out at the wages you're listing above.

Secondly, just handing out undeserved money to everyone is not how the economy functions. If you give EVERYONE in a single-commodity economy $30,000, the price of the one commodity goes up by $30,000 as well. The higher the minimum wage, the more likely people will give up their jobs to enter the minimum wage market. That means more undeserved wage increases for everyone. NO ONE is saying that we should give money to people for work they haven't done. The work of a minimum wage earner is not of the same caliber as a professional accountant. The $25 argument is extremely naive. This is actually why economists even supporting the 10.10 min wage are against seattles $15 min wage.

The difference between salaried jobs and the minimum wage is that it is usually what most people start out on, especially in retail/sales jobs. It's a pedestal for them to get experience, go to college and earn a degree. But they can't do that when they are spending every waking minute of their lives working their ass off to support their families. They need time to maybe eat with their families, need time to attend classes, study and gain other skills that might get them OUT of earning minimum wage.

A lot of people work multiple jobs to support themselves on minimum wage. People who work at Mcdonalds, walmart etc, are more often than not working more than one shift. As such, the minimum wage is not raised year by year to reflect rising costs of inflation. Let's say that you live on chocolate bars costing $10, and your yearly wage is also $10. Next year, that chocolate bar will cost $11, while your wage might still be the same if you are on minimum wage. If not you, then the next person just entering the job market on minimum wage will not be able to afford the same chocolate bar that you lived on. Lower standards of living.

In conclusion, a LOT of statistical modeling and analysis goes into predicting the accurate level of minimum wage. For PhD applicants in economics you need 18 college credits (6 classes) in Mathematics to even enter the program. That's what they do. There's a lot of arguments for and against minimum wage. Among the "against" are reduction in jobs, inconclusive results on poverty, discouraging education etc etc. The $25 argument is NOT one of them. As of now, the consensus seems to be that raising the minimum wage will help, which is why many states are lobbying for it.

So far, not one of you can answer this. Do you think the economists lobbying for minimum wage increase benefit from it somehow? They are obviously not earning minimum wage. On the other hand, the politicians in the pockets of corporations like walmart certainly have something to gain from advocating against it.

.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by shanm

I already answered your stupid $25/hr question earlier. If you'd care to read it. Not once did I defer to "experts", and I gave you several valid reasons. I am not saying that there are no negatives to having higher minimum wage, but for now economists believe that raising the minimum wage will help. Here, I'll quote my post again.

You can't even read your own posts. You did nothing BUT defer to your hand-picked experts - all that statistical modeling and college credit hours to arrive at the finely tuned rate of $10.10/hour, right?

Do you ever notice that the finely tuned rate these experts come up with always ends with a 5 or 0? You know, $7.25 per hour, $10.10 per hour, $8.35 per hour. What are the odds, right? How come its never $9.22 per hour? $8.48 per hour? Is there some law of nature against that?

Or maybe - just maybe - these economists are influence by political considerations.

So, no, you did NOT answer the $25/hour question.

And regarding your statement that we cannot just "hand out money", why is raising the minimum wage to $25/hour "handing out money", but raising it to $10.10 hour NOT "handing out money".

In both cases, the people receiving the minimum wage still have to work to earn it. The only difference is the hourly rate. So how is this "handing out money" in one case, but not the other?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You can't even read your own posts. You did nothing BUT defer to your hand-picked experts - all that statistical modeling and college credit hours to arrive at the finely tuned rate of $10.10/hour, right?

Do you ever notice that the finely tuned rate these experts come up with always ends with a 5 or 0? You know, $7.25 per hour, $10.10 per hour, $8.35 per hour. What are the odds, right? How come its never $9.22 per hour? $8.48 per hour? Is there some law of nature against that?

Or maybe - just maybe - these economists are influence by political considerations.

So, no, you did NOT answer the $25/hour question.

And regarding your statement that we cannot just "hand out money", why is raising the minimum wage to $25/hour "handing out money", but raising it to $10.10 hour NOT "handing out money".

In both cases, the people receiving the minimum wage still have to work to earn it. The only difference is the hourly rate. So how is this "handing out money" in one case, but not the other?

Jesus Christ, you really are as stupid and hard-headed as they come. I did not "simply defer to the experts". I gave you valid reasons and then I directed you to the opinion of the expert economists, who overwhelmingly agree that raising the minimum wage would help. Economics is a science where opinion is almost always deferred to expert consensus. If you want me to say that your point is valid just because John Keynes argued otherwise , then sorry, I can't. Because that is not how economics works. What fucking "political reasons" can an economist have to raise the minimum wage? Are you just really that fucking dumb?
I spent a lot of time writing down those several different reasons why the $25/hr wage is outlandish and all you can do is repeat the question like a fucking retard. You're not even worth the time to argue with.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by shanm

What fucking "political reasons" can an economist have to raise the minimum wage?

Now who is dumb? Do you really think that economists are NOT influenced by politics?

Originally Posted by shanm

Are you just really that fucking dumb?

No, but apparently you are. See above.

Originally Posted by shanm

I spent a lot of time writing down those several different reasons why the $25/hr wage is outlandish and all you can do is repeat the question like a fucking retard. You're not even worth the time to argue with.

No, I did a lot more that repeat the question. You wrote down some gibberish about discouraging people from going to college and I pointed out that college graduates would also get a wage boost in the long term if the minimum wage was increased. You had no response to that.

I don't even agree with increasing it to $25 per hour. I'm just pointing out that the increase to $10.10 per hour is also bullshit. And you can't really explain why it is not.