Here is a brain teaser: the Minimum Wage

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What the hell is the difference between two individuals earning $35,000 each at two different jobs than one individual earning $70,000 only to be taxed $35,000 to give to someone who is unemployed, Doofus, because that's the direction you lib-retards are taking society? Which one is really "more fair and equitable", Doofus, while you pretend someone in Vietnam won't provide the same labor for $15,000?

Someone get that man a drool bucket.

if you can't figure out the difference, Corpy, then you need to quit that job in the coal mine and take four minimum wage jobs. That ought to pay for the lithium and shock therapy.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What the hell is the difference between two individuals earning $35,000 each at two different jobs than one individual earning $70,000 only to be taxed $35,000 to give to someone who is unemployed, Doofus,

The difference is that the 2nd example never happens, you idiot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

The difference is that the 2nd example never happens, you idiot.

You lib-retards are at least half way to putting the second example into full effect, Doofus.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You lib-retards are at least half way to putting the second example into full effect, Doofus.

You dimatards are so busy fucking it up the liberals will never have a chance.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by rodog44

The want the minimum wage to funnel more money to unions. Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up the unions get a raise. When they controlled everything they didn't need to raise it because they were paid off with the stimulas. And that, you stupid liberal motherfuckers is the ANSWER.

Lots of things are linked to min wage, either hard wired of indirectly. But min wage does not directly increase most union wages which are already well above that. If what you are really complaining about is the union rates, then attack that--not the MW.

Most min wage workers are not unionized, or if they are they have a pretty weak union (else their wages would be above MW).

So it seems you logic train is definitely off the track here.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What I got from your post is that middle class people are a indispensable part of your socialist love affair. You want us to pay for the permanently dependent generational poverty sofa slug leaches that your party created.

We want to help the helpless...
How? But ensuring they make so little they can never get their heads above water? You might understand the economics of rural hick town USA, but you clearly don't comprehend the economics of the working poor in many places in this country. You want to pay welfare to fewer people? Then give them economic reasons to work. Contrary to what you want to believe there are many, MANY people working multiple jobs and what they make doesn't cover child care, transportation, safe (not luxurious, just safe) housing for their kids, and healthy (again, not luxurious, but not junk) food.

If someone can feed and house their kids they will do so. The MW as it is today means that for many of them the only options are welfare or illegal professions. Why is it so hard for some of the RWWs to comprehend that they are encouraging exactly the wrong behaviors? The LW extremists aren't a whole lot better, they are equally myopic and stupid--just taking a different path to get there.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What the hell is the difference between two individuals earning $35,000 each at two different jobs than one individual earning $70,000 only to be taxed $35,000 to give to someone who is unemployed, Doofus, because that's the direction you lib-retards are taking society? Which one is really "more fair and equitable", Doofus, while you pretend someone in Vietnam won't provide the same labor for $15,000?

Let's just point out two "minor" problems with your argument.

First, who makes $35K on min wage? That would require a min wage of about $17. Where does that exist? Or someone could work 80 hr weeks at min wage so they can't raise their kids with personal interaction. So are you in favor of kids left alone? I'm sure the local gangs will step right in to take care of after school child care. Speaking of school, I am sure that a total lack of parents helping with school work will greatly improve grades and reduce drop-out rates. What your kind of "logic" leads to is the complete destruction of the family that the internal combustion engine started. How can the "Family Values" crowd NOT be for a livable MW? Don't they realize their myopia makes hypocrites of them all?

Second, your Viet Nam comment. Yes, VN (or India, Bangladesh, etc.) is a significant factor. So, to prevent that, it would be logical that you would be for strong protective tariffs and a vigorous gov't intervention to force companies to hire American. You should also be vocally calling for increased gov't pressure to have more high-tech trade schools so the US workers can actually be competitive. And you should be for more of those Vietnamese workers coming over here to drive the supply/demand MW down even further. No, RWWs are fixated on the min wage instead of the root causes (so are LWWs, they are no better in the big picture).

The biggest difference is the LWWs do not want to start reinforcing personal responsibility. The RWWs want to enforce it all at once and really don't care if
lots of families die (literally) in the transition. The LWWs are bad, but the RWWs are worse.

Sure would be nice to see this discussion address the far more complex problem, and do it with a realization that the cure will take a generation--probably two, and in that period we are morally obliged to provide a safety net that encourages the behaviors we want. Not regress to debtor prisons and even more kids living on the streets. No, the RWWs here just want to make sure those homeless stay out of sight and die quickly so they don't stress the ERs.

But so long as both sides see it as a game--who "wins" or "loses" the next election, and people who die are nameless, faceless pawns who are expendable collateral damage--it won't happen.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Let's just point out two "minor" problems with your argument.

First, who makes $35K on min wage? That would require a min wage of about $17. It was Doofus that proffered a minimum wage earner should be earning $70K, so direct your BS at Doofus, Old-Twerp. Where does that exist? Or someone could work 80 hr weeks at min wage so they can't raise their kids with personal interaction. So are you in favor of kids left alone? I'm sure the local gangs will step right in to take care of after school child care. What your kind of "logic" leads to is the complete destruction of the family that the internal combustion engine started. How can the "Family Values" crowd NOT be for a livable MW? Don't they realize their myopia makes hypocrites of them all?

Second, your Viet Nam comment. Yes, VN (or India, Bangladesh, etc.) is a significant factor. So, to prevent that, it would be logical that you would be for strong protective tariffs and a vigorous gov't intervention to force companies to hire American. You should also be vocally calling for increased gov't pressure to have more high-tech trade schools so the US workers can actually be competitive. And you should be for more of those Vietnamese workers coming over here to drive the supply/demand MW down even further. No, RWWs are fixated on the min wage instead of the root causes (so are LWWs, they are no better in the big picture).

The biggest difference is the LWWs do not want to start reinforcing personal responsibility. The RWWs want to enforce it all at once and really don't care if
lots of families die (literally) in the transition. The LWWs are bad, but the RWWs are worse.

Sure would be nice to see this discussion address the far more complex problem, and do it with a realization that the cure will take a generation--probably two. But so long as both sides see it as a game--who "wins" or "loses" the next election, and people who die are nameless, faceless pawns who are expendable collateral damage--it won't happen.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You dimatards are so busy fucking it up the liberals will never have a chance.

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

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Won't it be great if every person on the minimum wage (3% of Americans) made over $75,000 a year?

Originally Posted by Doove

Then tell us why it would be so bad if people on minimum wage made $70,000/yr, teach.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What the hell is the difference between two individuals earning $35,000 each at two different jobs than one individual earning $70,000

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It was Doofus that proffered a minimum wage earner should be earning $70K, so direct your BS at Doofus, Old-Twerp.

Hmmmm....let's check the facts:

1. I commented on $35K, not $70K. The person who referred to $35K was YOU. Yep, you can't even remember which stupid statement you made.

2. While you are correct that Doove was the first to reference $70K, it was actually JD's stupid original post that set the bar at $75K.

Therefore, my claim that YOUR $35K comment was stupid still stands (or are you now going to claim someone else posted $35K? If so, please reference it.) At $70K or $75K it just gets more stupid.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Hmmmm....let's check the facts:

1. I commented on $35K, not $70K. The person who referred to $35K was YOU. Yep, you can't even remember which stupid statement you made.

2. While you are correct that Doove was the first to reference $70K, ir was actually JD's stupid original post that set the bar at $75K.

Therefore, my claim that YOUR $35K comment was stupid still stands (or are you now going to claim someone else posted $35K? If so, please reference it. At $70K or $75K it just gets more stupid.

It was a statement predicated on Doofus' remark that you now ignorantly choose to take out of context, Old-Twerp. So learn to read or go screw yourself, Old-Twerp.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Hmmmm....let's check the facts:

1. I commented on $35K, not $70K. The person who referred to $35K was YOU. Yep, you can't even remember which stupid statement you made.

2. While you are correct that Doove was the first to reference $70K, it was actually JD's stupid original post that set the bar at $75K.

Therefore, my claim that YOUR $35K comment was stupid still stands (or are you now going to claim someone else posted $35K? If so, please reference it.) At $70K or $75K it just gets more stupid.

The numbers I picked have no real meaning. They are an illustration that if you can raise the minimum wage so someone can make $10 an hour ($20,800) then why not raise the minimum wage to $36 an hour ($75,000). The democrats are on record saying that raising the minimum wage helps both the economy and the country so why not. The other argument is that if they believe so strongly in the minimum wage then why didn't they raise it when they had complete control? It is a hypothetical if you will. (If you don't understand something then just ask)

If you want to be more realistic then let set the bar at the poverty line is $23,850 for a family of four (2014). So a wage earner needs to make $11,50 an hour and he (or she) gets no vacation for the year. Which makes it even more interesting. If it only takes this small amount to do the job of eliminating poverty then why aren't the democrats calling for in increase to $12 an hour? Seems that would eliminate poverty across the board. Of course the government factors in Medicaid, Obamacare, and other government programs.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/?p=25416

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So learn to read

that's good advice for you IB.

learn to comprehend what you read.

dipshit.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JCM800

that's good advice for you IB.

learn to comprehend what you read.

dipshit.

It's quite obvious you are incapable of comprehension, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout; so --

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It was a statement predicated on Doofus' remark that you now ignorantly choose to take out of context, Old-Twerp.
Out of context? No, not true.
(1) You were the first to use the $35K figure, AND argued that two people receiving $35K was a better thing.
(2) The whole thread is about min wage, is it not?

So what did I take out of context? No, you are just realizing how illogical your post was and how dumb it makes you look--so now you are trying to deflect responsibility. Very un-RWW of you.


So learn to read or go screw yourself, Old-Twerp.

Ah yes, typical IBB. It looks like you are finally beginning to comprehend that if you try to compete intellectually with me you lose, so you give up any intellectual pretense and resort back to the oh-so-clever "screw yourself" comment. All I did was (accurately) quote you, and this is how you reply?

I do believe I will have to reassess my thought that you were incapable of learning.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Ah yes, typical IBB. It looks like you are finally beginning to comprehend that if you try to compete intellectually with me you lose, so you give up any intellectual pretense and resort back to the oh-so-clever "screw yourself" comment. All I did was (accurately) quote you, and this is how you reply?

I do believe I will have to reassess my thought that you were incapable of learning.

That is a very proper reply to assholes like you that purposefully choose to distort and misrepresent what was said, Old-Twerp. Doofus proffered the hypothetical $70K income, and the response was wholly based on Doofus' hypothetical, Old-Twerp. If Doofus had chosen a different number, the response would have accordingly had a different numeric construct, Old-Twerp. The basic fact remains, there is no profit in raising the minimum wage when the result is higher unemployment which must, in turn, then be subsidized with still higher taxes, for the purpose of redistribution, on those who are still employed, thus lowering their actual income, Old-Twerp. So again, go screw yourself, Old-Twerp.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Doofus proffered the hypothetical $70K income, and the response was wholly based on Doofus' hypothetical,

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 - as it's to our benefit that they exist. Only some of us, however, choose to also spit on them for being so.

Deal with it.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The numbers I picked have no real meaning. They are an illustration that if you can raise the minimum wage so someone can make $10 an hour ($20,800) then why not raise the minimum wage to $36 an hour ($75,000). The democrats are on record saying that raising the minimum wage helps both the economy and the country so why not. The other argument is that if they believe so strongly in the minimum wage then why didn't they raise it when they had complete control? It is a hypothetical if you will. (If you don't understand something then just ask)

If you want to be more realistic then let set the bar at the poverty line is $23,850 for a family of four (2014). So a wage earner needs to make $11,50 an hour and he (or she) gets no vacation for the year. Which makes it even more interesting. If it only takes this small amount to do the job of eliminating poverty then why aren't the democrats calling for in increase to $12 an hour? Seems that would eliminate poverty across the board. Of course the government factors in Medicaid, Obamacare, and other government programs.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/?p=25416

The basic problem is that the "poverty" line is a poorly defined term that suffers greatly from the desire of politicians of both extremes (and others) to grossly oversimplify and mislead with numbers. The amount needed in NYC, or San Francisco, is very different than in rural Mississippi or Wyoming. There needs to be some serious discussion not about a mythical "poverty line" that applies to all, but rather about are the reasonable expectations for what "things" define the poverty level--is it 500 sq ft, 1000 sq ft, etc? What kind of food basket for a family of 2 small kids and a single mom? For a two parent family with one teenager? Transportation (without it, expecting a person to be able to hold a job is wishful thinking, but depending upon where you are talking it may mean a car or it may mean public transit). Child care--which is obviously very different for young kids vs HS aged. Until that conversation happens, how can we equate that ill defined substance into a dollar amount? And why would we expect it to be a single nation-wide number?

Even the fact that it is the poverty line is typically referenced to "a family of four", stuck in the two parent/two kids mindset, is outdated by 60 years or so.

I don't know the universal answer. But I do know that a min wage of $12 in many places will not cover minimally safe housing plus child care plus transportation. Child care itself can easily run $6+ per hour, and transportation another $2. Housing? Depending upon where you live, $6 per hour means your neighbor on one side is a drug dealer and on the other side a condemned shack.

To say, "if $12 per hour MW is good, why not $36 per hour" is blatantly absurd. The difference between $12/hr and $X/hr that allows a minimally safe existence is not at all the same difference as $X/hr and $36/hr. I don't know what X is, but I know it varies by location, and in many places it is much more than 12.

The other issue I have with your post--and with LWWs like Reid and Pelosi--is that economic stimulus is NOT what MW is all about. MW is about allowing our citizens who work to expect that will result in a minimally safe environment for their kids. Right now, it doesn't.