Here is a brain teaser: the Minimum Wage

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Uh, no. Never did i advocate a $70,000 minimum wage. The point i was making, before you stepped in to attempt to bastardize it, is that there are reasons we don't want a $70,000 minimum wage. Not the least of which is, we want cheap stuff. And with cheap stuff...comes poor people.

We all want poor people. Only some of us choose to also spit on them.

Deal with it.

The actual number is arbitrary (something Old-Twerp ignorantly fails to grasp), Doofus, but the impact of a state mandated minimum wage has on employment isn't.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Doove

Uh, no. Never did i advocate a $70,000 minimum wage. The point i was making, before you stepped in to attempt to bastardize it, is that there are reasons we don't want a $70,000 minimum wage. Not the least of which is, we want cheap stuff. And with cheap stuff...comes poor people.

WHAT!!! Are you implying that the hypocrite IBB was taking your post out of context!! That he was contorting things!!!! NEVER!!!!!! Not HIM!!!!! He only accuses others of taking HIM out of context. Don't you understand, the Words of IB are the literal truth. They are today's generation equivalent of the bible or the quran. I am shocked that you would doubt anything that IB says.

You have destroyed my belief in one of the few dependable truths in the universe. Just slightly behind the Easter Bunny.

You bad, bad man, you!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The actual number is arbitrary (something Old-Twerp fails to grasp), Doofus, but the impact of a state mandated minimum wage has on employment isn't.

And the impact it has on kids and families living in grossly unsafe situations isn't either. The problem is, you care about only part of the consequences--and consider the rest of the people impacted as expendable.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

WHAT!!! Are you implying that the hypocrite IBB was taking your post out of context!! That he was contorting things!!!! NEVER!!!!!! Not HIM!!!!! He only accuses others of taking HIM out of context. Don't you understand, the Words of IB are the literal truth. They are today's generation equivalent of the bible or the quran. I am shocked that you would doubt anything that IB says.

You have destroyed my belief in one of the few dependable truths in the universe. Just slightly behind the Easter Bunny.

You bad, bad man, you!

It's a statistical fact that a mandatory minimum wage contributes to unemployment, Old-Twerp. Your attempt to deflect and misrepresent doesn't prove otherwise, Old-Twerp: so go screw yourself.

Originally Posted by Old-T

And the impact it has on kids and families living in grossly unsafe situations isn't either. The problem is, you care about only part of the consequences--and consider the rest of the people impacted as expendable.

In 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold. So there has been no real change in purchasing power, Old-Twerp. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Old-Twerp, it ain't any closer!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold.

So you agree the minimum wage should keep up with the cost of living?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's a statistical fact that a mandatory minimum wage contributes to unemployment, Old-Twerp. Your attempt to deflect and misrepresent doesn't prove otherwise, Old-Twerp: so go screw yourself.

I have been trying to be reasonably polite to you in this thread. Addressing what you said with minimal references to your personal disreputable character, inability to tell the truth when it doesn’t fit your agenda, or your ill functioning brain that can’t follow simple logic. But since you seem unwilling (or unable, hard to tell the difference between ill intent and mental deficiency in your case) I will add this paragraph just to redirect the conversation back to your level of sewer talk. I will start being civil if and when you show the inclination to do so.

But to your point, weak as it might be, I didn’t deflect anything. I pointed out that your “arbitrary” number deflected the discussion, not my post. And I pointed out that your view of “fair” results in malnourished, homeless families. Results in kids dying because the only place they can afford to live shares a wall with a meth lab. Results in perpetuating generations on welfare because it is too expensive for then to get a job--and then you gripe about the inevitable result of your applauded actions. Results in DEAD PEOPLE, and YOU DON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT, MUCH LESS GIVE A DAMN. No, to you it's all about one single statistic here or one political "win" for the Wackos over there.

If you want to discuss where the right break point is to truly reduce poverty, encourage work, and address the ENTIRE issue--not your pathetically simple “Lower minimum wages are good”, then I will gladly discuss it. If you want to talk seriously about how to move people off welfare and onto jobs by making sure they don't loose more in help than they earn, let's talk civilly. (Somehow I know your view: eliminate all aid and let the bastards starve--a view I do not consider serious discussion). But you give no indication that you care to do so. To you this—and everything—is another political football. Some day I really hope you wake up and understand this is not a game for the people who are unemployed and those who work but live lower down the poverty line than if they didn’t. You are without a doubt one of the most callous, despicable people I have ever interacted with.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Dim-retards" are left wing malefactors, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; so, you're only partially correct.

Dimatards have no political affiliation they are idiots like you. Hominid fucker.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Am i the only one who's curious as to where this guy learned math?

Check the price per ounce, Doofus; then, calculate a six ounce serving.

Originally Posted by Doove

So you agree the minimum wage should keep up with the cost of living?

Inflating wages inflates the cost of products, Doofus. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Doofus.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I have been trying to be reasonably polite to you in this thread. Addressing what you said with minimal references to your personal disreputable character, inability to tell the truth when it doesn’t fit your agenda, or your ill functioning brain that can’t follow simple logic. But since you seem unwilling (or unable, hard to tell the difference between ill intent and mental deficiency in your case) I will add this paragraph just to redirect the conversation back to your level of sewer talk. I will start being civil if and when you show the inclination to do so.

But to your point, weak as it might be, I didn’t deflect anything. I pointed out that your “arbitrary” number deflected the discussion, not my post. And I pointed out that your view of “fair” results in malnourished, homeless families. Results in kids dying because the only place they can afford to live shares a wall with a meth lab. Results in perpetuating generations on welfare because it is too expensive for then to get a job--and then you gripe about the inevitable result of your applauded actions. Results in DEAD PEOPLE, and YOU DON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT, MUCH LESS GIVE A DAMN. No, to you it's all about one single statistic here or one political "win" for the Wackos over there.

If you want to discuss where the right break point is to truly reduce poverty, encourage work, and address the ENTIRE issue--not your pathetically simple “Lower minimum wages are good”, then I will gladly discuss it. If you want to talk seriously about how to move people off welfare and onto jobs by making sure they don't loose more in help than they earn, let's talk civilly. (Somehow I know your view: eliminate all aid and let the bastards starve--a view I do not consider serious discussion). But you give no indication that you care to do so. To you this—and everything—is another political football. Some day I really hope you wake up and understand this is not a game for the people who are unemployed and those who work but live lower down the poverty line than if they didn’t. You are without a doubt one of the most callous, despicable people I have ever interacted with.

Your so called *poor* in the U.S. are for the most part over-feed and fat; their housing and food are subsidized; they have X-Boxes with big-screen TVs and they have cars with money left over for cigarettes, alcohol and illicit drugs, Old-Twerp. Establishing some arbitrary number as a minimum wage has a negative impact on employment, Old-Twerp. It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute -- the worker still suffers, Old-Twerp. So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine, Old-Twerp.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Dimatards have no political affiliation they are idiots like you. Hominid fucker.

You need to look in the mirror to see a real "dim-retard", Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's a statistical fact that a mandatory minimum wage contributes to unemployment, Old-Twerp. Your attempt to deflect and misrepresent doesn't prove otherwise, Old-Twerp: so go screw yourself.

You moronic idiot, where did I claim that a MW increase had nothing to do with unemployment? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What I said was the current MW is not set at a place to allow a working parent to provide a minimally safe environment for their kids.

If an increase in MW puts one more unemployed but raises two above the REAL poverty line, I would count that as good. If it unemploys two and moves one above the line, I would count that as bad.

Do you have all the relevant data? I do not, but I have a number of instantiations that support my view. If you argued the opposite, fine. Without data we can disagree on the predominant factor. But no, you refuse to even acknowledge a point that might show you to be a closed minded arrogant know it all bastard.



In 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold. So there has been no real change in purchasing power, Old-Twerp. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Old-Twerp, it ain't any closer!

Sure. THAT is a reasonable commodity to refer to. Coke is a critical element to a safe environment for kids. Right. And Coke is representative of the entire set of commodities needed for a safe life. Talk about deflecting.

And since you are such a master of logic I don't need to point out that the fact two events exist does not show cause and effect. I never said that increasing the MW has resulted in cheaper carbonated beverages. Now fewer people proportionally under the true poverty line. But I am not so dumb or misguided to believe poverty is driven be a single factor--as you seem to want to believe.

Originally Posted by Doove

So you agree the minimum wage should keep up with the cost of living?

I doubt he cares whether it does or not.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Inflating wages inflates the cost of products, Doofus. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Doofus.

And you want cheap stuff. I think i've pointed that out a few times now.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your so called *poor* in the U.S. are for the most part over-feed and fat; their housing and food are subsidized; they have X-Boxes with big-screen TVs and they have cars with money left over for cigarettes, alcohol and illicit drugs, Old-Twerp. Establishing some arbitrary number as a minimum wage has a negative impact on employment, Old-Twerp. It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute -- the worker still suffers, Old-Twerp. So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine, Old-Twerp.

Ah yes!! No stereotyping in your bigoted brain. Nope.

The one part of this stupid rant I agree with is that the current MW (and all MW discussions I have seen) establish a relatively arbitrary dollar value. Did you not read my previous post, or were you unable to comprehend it? Or, more likely, did you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your nice neat wanna-be world?

And are you REALLY saying, "It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute"? Be careful, the RWW community will toss you out if you keep talking like that. You REALLY don't care if it's the gov't or an employer? Personally, I do see a difference. I would much rather have people working.

As to, "So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine", it just reinforces what I have been saying all along, you really don't care about the expendable underpeople. You are not about morals, you are about "winning". Good for you. Bravo. You are pathetic.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Ah yes!! No stereotyping in your bigoted brain. Nope.

The one part of this stupid rant I agree with is that the current MW (and all MW discussions I have seen) establish a relatively arbitrary dollar value. Did you not read my previous post, or were you unable to comprehend it? Or, more likely, did you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your nice neat wanna-be world?

And are you REALLY saying, "It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute"? Be careful, the RWW community will toss you out if you keep talking like that. You REALLY don't care if it's the gov't or an employer? Personally, I do see a difference. I would much rather have people working.

As to, "So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine", it just reinforces what I have been saying all along, you really don't care about the expendable underpeople. You are not about morals, you are about "winning". Good for you. Bravo. You are pathetic.

It's you lib-retards that profess to be for the "working class" while simultaneously maintaining an open-border status encouraging illegal aliens to cross over that are the bigger problem, Old-Twerp, and your whining doesn't change the fact that state mandated wages negatively impacts employment.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Check the price per ounce, Doofus; then, calculate a six ounce serving.

Inflating wages inflates the cost of products, Doofus. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Doofus.


Your so called *poor* in the U.S. are for the most part over-feed and fat; their housing and food are subsidized; they have X-Boxes with big-screen TVs and they have cars with money left over for cigarettes, alcohol and illicit drugs, Old-Twerp. Establishing some arbitrary number as a minimum wage has a negative impact on employment, Old-Twerp. It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute -- the worker still suffers, Old-Twerp. So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine, Old-Twerp.




You need to look in the mirror to see a real "dim-retard", Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You are the poster child of dimatards In Bred Hankering the resident cocksucker.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's you lib-retards that profess to be for the "working class" while simultaneously maintaining an open-border status encouraging illegal aliens to cross over that are the bigger problem, Old-Twerp, and your whining doesn't change the fact that state mandated wages negatively impacts employment.

WOW!!!! Talk about deflecting. Was this a thread about open boarders? I must have missed that part.

And by the way, I am very much NOT for open boarders. I am for stopping illegal aliens coming into the US.

I am for a reasoned discussion about those who are already here--especially those than have been here, paying taxes, contributing to the community. It is not a simplistic problem and it doesn't have a simple answer.

I am also for a serious discussion about people like the Tohono O'ohdam, to come up with a fair set of rules for their situation.

But that seems to belong in a different thread.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Check the price per ounce, Doofus; then, calculate a six ounce serving.

Inflating wages inflates the cost of products, Doofus. The carrot is still at the end of the stick, Doofus.


Your so called *poor* in the U.S. are for the most part over-feed and fat; their housing and food are subsidized; they have X-Boxes with big-screen TVs and they have cars with money left over for cigarettes, alcohol and illicit drugs, Old-Twerp. Establishing some arbitrary number as a minimum wage has a negative impact on employment, Old-Twerp. It doesn't matter whether it's an employer paying less or the government siphoning off income to redistribute -- the worker still suffers, Old-Twerp. So you can take your moralistic BS and put it where the sun doesn't shine, Old-Twerp.




You need to look in the mirror to see a real "dim-retard", Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

OK NOW... THE MELTDOWN BEGINS ANEW!