Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Now who is dumb? Do you really think that economists are NOT influenced by politics?
Did I say that? I asked for a "political reason" why an economist might consider increasing the minimum wage? Or do you think a Nobel prize winning economist is making that wage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
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.
The reason I've been quoting my post over and over again is because the answer is in there you dumb POS. I even highlighted the answer in red in post 57.
You CAN'T give everyone money. That reduces the value of money. The minimum wage issue isn't about giving engineers higher wages, it's about making sure that the people who are basically doing the lowest jobs have a consistent standard of living as Americans did in the past. and it has both positives and negatives just like every other decision in economics. Christ I have honestly never come across a more conceited and simultaneously and equally dumb motherfucker on this board. Go to the other forum "CEO cuts own wages", we're talking about the same issue. I have no time to repeat myself to a brick wall.
Even with all the data, the researchers never once asked how the costs of labor are offset.
I don't believe in raising the minimum wage and never will. I believe in the talented person getting something better than minimally skilled entry jobs such as skills in management, technical writing, engineering, teaching & etc. For companies to attract the best talent, they should be able to raise their own wages through benchmarking in order to remain competitive.
Ooops, I missed this thread when it first went up. The OP (undercunt) started it before he left eccie for a sex-change op and came back as wombhater, in which guise he started a similar thread (“CEO cuts own pay, raises workers' salaries”) advocating a higher minimum wage. Same shit, different day, same shitter, different handle.
Here is my problem. Undercunt and shammytard quoted a Dept. of Labor link claiming the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanm
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment.
There are lots of studies out there. There is even a study that studied all the studies and concluded something quite different than what the DOL is saying:
“University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He reports that 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."
It sure looks like somebody is lying – or, at minimum, deliberately deceiving us. Did the UC-Irvine economist deliberately overlook a slew of reputable studies that found no discernible effect on employment? Are there really 64 of them? Or did the DOL deliberately ignore all the studies corroborating a negative employment effect? I am leaning toward the second explanation for the simple reason that the DOL doesn't even acknowledge that any contrary studies exist!
Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has warned that a MW increase to $10.10 an hour would cost jobs! Why is the DOL marching to a different drummer?
Ooops, I missed this thread when it first went up. The OP (undercunt) started it before he left eccie for a sex-change op and came back as wombhater, in which guise he started a similar thread (“CEO cuts own pay, raises workers' salaries”) advocating a higher minimum wage. Same shit, different day, same shitter, different handle.
Here is my problem. Undercunt and shammytard quoted a Dept. of Labor link claiming the following:
There are lots of studies out there. There is even a study that studied all the studies and concluded something quite different than what the DOL is saying:
“University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He reports that 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."
It sure looks like somebody is lying – or, at minimum, deliberately deceiving us. Did the UC-Irvine economist deliberately overlook a slew of reputable studies that found no discernible effect on employment? Are there really 64 of them? Or did the DOL deliberately ignore all the studies corroborating a negative employment effect? I am leaning toward the second explanation for the simple reason that the DOL doesn't even acknowledge that any contrary studies exist!
Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has warned that a MW increase to $10.10 an hour would cost jobs! Why is the DOL marching to a different drummer?
.
Well undercunt, are you going to slither out from under your rock and speak about this?
Well undercunt, are you going to slither out from under your rock and speak about this?
Naaah, too cerebral and too much work for him to get to the bottom of it. Plus if he chimes in now he'll be admitting who he is. I was hoping someone else might have an explanation though.
Can someone link this academic paper to the sniveling wimp on this forum? I hear he also goes by the name LustyLad. If you see him, please tell him that I think he is a dipshit and he should man up for once in his life and apologize to everyone on this forum. I know he won't because he is, after all, "a sniveling wimp".
Can someone link this academic paper to the sniveling wimp on this forum? I hear he also goes by the name LustyLad. If you see him, please tell him that I think he is a dipshit and he should man up for once in his life and apologize to everyone on this forum. I know he won't because he is, after all, a sniveling wimp.
yes, also tell the "sniveling wimp" that. Any republican worth his salt worships Milton Friedman, but the "sniveling wimp" apparently has no idea who he is or what he stands for. I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. By that I mean he is a jihadi ISIS terrorist pretending to be an American. That would make a lot of sense.
Very good, shammy. What you sent me is a quality paper worthy of in-depth discussion. Quite impressive coming from a prickly, under-educated, inarticulate lowlife such as yourself. Full disclosure - I am already familiar with this paper. Your hero Paul Krugman brought it to my attention two years ago when it was published by his favorite left-wing think tank CEPR. Perhaps you would care to take the opportunity to give us all a quick summary of the author's findings and explain how they either support or controvert the competing claims (in post #64) of the DOL versus UC-Irvine economist David Neumark?
yes, also tell the "sniveling wimp" that. Any republican worth his salt worships Milton Friedman, but the "sniveling wimp" apparently has no idea who he is or what he stands for.
Too bad you missed the Webinar last night, shamfucker. It was free too.
If you're talking to me, I've discussed Friedman many times here, dipshit. Unlike your fellow libtards who (selectively) memorize “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in their madrassas, I have never worshiped any economist. In fact I have points of disagreement with nearly all of them. And unlike you, I can articulate how and why I disagree.
Can someone also tell the "sniveling wimp" that I will not address him on this topic again until he owns up to his bullshit on the other thread and finally posts the long overdue apology that he owes every single person on this board.
Until then I will treat him like the low-life dog he is and not give him any attention. sssstt!
Too bad you missed the Webinar last night, shamfucker. It was free too.
If you're talking to me, I've discussed Friedman many times here, dipshit. Unlike your fellow libtards who (selectively) memorize “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in their madrassas, I have never worshiped any economist. In fact I have points of disagreement with nearly all of them. And unlike you, I can articulate how and why I disagree.
.
And yet, you still thought that because he was dead, something that he proposed couldn't be used. As if his ideas died with him. You know ideas don't die with people, right? Jeez, imagine if that were true. Be a fucked up world.
Perhaps you would care to take the opportunity to give us all a quick summary of the author's findings and explain how they either support or controvert the competing claims (in post #64) of the DOL versus UC-Irvine economist David Neumark?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanm
Can someone also tell the "sniveling wimp" that I will not address him on this topic again until he owns up to his bullshit on the other thread and finally posts the long overdue apology that he owes every single person on this board.
Until then I will treat him like the low-life dog he is and not give him any attention. sssstt!
Can someone also please inform the "sniveling wimp" that he is not fooling anyone? He can quote his latest bing searches all he likes but the truth is, he is as ignorant as the sun is bright. He has already proven that by saying some of the most ridiculous retarded shit you will ever hear while simultaneously acting like a pompous know-it-all prick. Now "the sniveling wimp" wants to save face by hacking away at wikipedia articles and regurgitating them on here. He wouldn't know "economics" if Adam Smith, John Keynes and Milton Friedman rose from the dead and triple-penetrated his ass before giving him a dusty bukkake for the ages.
The "sniveling wimp" is not much brighter than a rabid junkyard dog, and must be treated as such.
Sssstttt Dog Ssssttt!
