gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Jeffrey Turner on 17 May 2007 12:30 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due >>>>> to some misguided altruism at other's expense. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... >>> >>> >>> >>> The explanation is organized labor. >> >> >> Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity > > > No. Well, at least you're terse in your ignorance. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Rudy Canoza on 17 May 2007 12:58 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys >>>>>>>>>> employment and hurts poor people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LMAO ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That would be better than being unenmployed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could *you* live on it ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The choice isn't between $3.00 an hour (or whatever wage the >>>>>> person can >>>>>> get) and some artificially pegged higher wage; the choice is between >>>>>> $3.00 an hour and ZERO dollars an hour. If the work a person does >>>>>> only >>>>>> brings in $3.00 an hour in revenue, the employer isn't going to pay >>>>>> $7.50 an hour, thereby losing $4.50 an hour (actually, much more >>>>>> after >>>>>> payroll taxes) for every hour the doofus works; the doofus will be >>>>>> fired. >>>>>> >>>>>> Advocates of minimum wage laws just don't get it: they destroy >>>>>> employment. If you really don't think they do, then why don't you >>>>>> advocate a $50 an hour minimum wage? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It destroys sub-poverty employment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It destroys employment, period. It keeps people who might earn some >>>> income from earning any income at all. >>> >>> >>> Of course you've got figures to back that up? I didn't think so. >>> >>> Let's see, the minimum wage went from $1.00 to $1.15 on September 3, >>> 1961. Unemployment rate, >> >> >> Bad try, sophomore. You can't look at the overall unemployment rate, >> sophomore - you have to look at the unemployment rate among people >> subject to the minimum wage. The unemployment rate among people >> subject to the minimum wage goes up. >> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html > > That stuff may baffle the rubes, but I'm wise. No, jeffy, you're not. What you are is an ideologue, an ideologue lacking any wisdom. The FACT, jeffy, is that looking at overall unemployment data, when what we're interested in is the unemployment rate of people affected by the minimum wage, is disingenuous at best, probably deliberately deceptive on your part, and in all cases evidence of your lack of wisdom. > Funny how the boss's > son-in-law never gets paid only what his work is worth. Prove it, sophomoric ideologue. > But to say that > the minimum wage increases unemployment is short-sighted at best. It's not what anyone said, sophomoric ideologue jeffy. What was said is that the minimumwage increases unemployment among people who were earning at or slightly above the old minimum. It does. > As > more money enters the local economy, there's more demand and more jobs > will be created. More money DOES NOT enter the "local" (???) economy, jeffy. How can more money enter the local economy, when people are losing their jobs? If three people were earning the old minimum, jeffy, and two of them are fired as a result of the increase, money is going to LEAVE the "local" [sic] economy, jeffy. You're in far over your head, sophomoric ideologue jeffy. You do not have any vision at all. > > As for their ONE set of data, for 1990/91, there was an overall economic > downturn during which unemployment rose from 5.4% in April, 1990 to 6.7% > in April, 1991 and eventually 7.7% in July, 1992. Not that that was > caused by the raising of the minimum wage. Unemployment had been in the > 5.2 to 5.4% range since April, 1989 - and except for one month at 5.0 > and two at 5.6%, since April, 1988. What Welch and Murphy show, jeffy, is that unemployment went up MORE among young people who would have been earning the minimum wage. >>>>> And keeps other wages from being >>>>> ratcheted down. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it puts downward pressure on wages of those who are working at >>>> or only slightly above the minimum by increasing the number of >>>> people out of work. >>> >>> >>> You really should study reality, >> >> I have. You should study some economics, *and* reality. You should >> stop trying to float irrelevant figures. > > Irrelevant? Like cherry-picking data from the middle of a general > economic downturn? No, sophomoric ideologue jeffy - irrelevant like in using overall unemployment data from the 1960s when the relevant measure is unemployment among people subject to the minimum wage. THAT kind of irrelevant, sophomoric jeffy. >>>> You really ought to study some labor economics before running your >>>> ignorant yap. >>> >>> >>> I don't feel like studying your religion. Reality is different. >> >> Thanks for admitting you prefer ignorance. > > Ignorance of ignorance is no vice. Ignorance of reality, something you demonstrate repeatedly, is a vice. >>>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It exists to help labor unions. It reduces the competition faced >>>>>> by unionized employees. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You want to be an exploited worker? But even states with "right to >>>>> [exploitation]" laws have minimum wages. >>>> >>>> >>>> You really are incoherent. Right to work - there is no such thing >>>> as "exploitation", in the emotionally laden sense you mean - doesn't >>>> get rid of labor unions. >>> >>> >>> A little more [snip foam] >> >> Evasion noted. > > So where are your numbers comparing union membership in "right to > exploitation" No such thing as "exploitation", sophomoric ideologue jeffy. Throw again. >>>> Low-wage/low-skill labor is a substitute for >>>> higher-wage/higher-skill unionized labor. Relative prices are what >>>> matter, as anyone who has studied economics - not you - knows. By >>>> raising the price of low-wage/unskilled labor relative to unionized >>>> labor, it makes the unionized labor look more attractive. If a >>>> business can hire one $22/hour union thug, or four $5/hour >>>> non-unionized high school dropouts who are as productive as the >>>> union thug, the employer will hire the four dropouts and save $2.00 >>>> per hour. But if the minimum wage laws require him to pay $7.50 for >>>> the dropouts when their labor only is worth $5.00, he'll fire all >>>> four of the dropouts and hire the union thug. >>> >>> >>> Amazing. And if he could hire 8-year-olds? >> >> Continued evasion noted. > > 100 jobs paying $22 an hour will create demand that will drive all sorts > of economic development. There won't BE any 100 jobs at $22 an hour for people whose net output is only worth $6 an hour, jeffy. There will be ZERO jobs at that wage for people like that, jeffy. > 400 jobs paying $5 an hour won't do much. It will do a hell of a lot more than the ZERO jobs at the untenable high wage, jeffy. jeffy, why do you think someone is better off having a supposed "right" to earn a so-called "living wage" of, say, $15 an hour, but no job, versus having a job at $5 an hour? How is zero income better than a positive income, jeffy? You really have no vision at all, jeffy, except of a wish to exercise power you are not mentally or morally qualified to exercise.
From: Rudy Canoza on 17 May 2007 12:59 sophomoric ideologue jeffy turner blabbered: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> sophomoric ideologue jeffy turner blabbered: >> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>>> sophomoric ideologue jeffy turner blabbered: >>>> >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except >>>>>> due >>>>>> to some misguided altruism at other's expense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The explanation is organized labor. >>> >>> >>> Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity >> >> >> No. > > Well, at least you're terse Economy is a virtue, especially when dismissing falsehood.
From: hancock4 on 17 May 2007 14:24 On May 15, 2:26 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > His comments don't make any sense. Even money that buys oil from the > Middle East isn't promoting terrorism. Imagine how pissed off Arabs > would be if the oil money was stopped. As it is, Saudi Arabia is > moderating its population by buying them off with its increased oil > revenues. The world's insatiable thirst for oil does contribute to terrorism. Saudi Arabia buys off troublemakers which is a bad policy in the long run, it is essentially giving in to blackmail and their troublemakers are quite wealthy and powerful as a result. Iran is a terrorism sponsor using oil money. Individuals in the middle east have gotten rich through oil and pass along their money to terrorist groups.
From: hancock4 on 17 May 2007 14:38
On May 17, 12:45 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" > It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is > also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let > a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union. Many years ago the U.S. realized that a pure free market unregulated economy resulted in severe unwanted effects, such as nasty business panics and the great depression. Accordingly, the govt has been "infringing" on business relationships ever since. Yes, it is a form of socialism in that it transfers some wealth from the rich to the poor. It also encourages--through direct and indirect subsidies--some business lines at the expense of others. In the area of highways, it was determined long ago it was better for the govt to build and operate toll and free roads rather than depend on the private sector to do so. Many old privately owned turnpikes were condemned and acquired by state govts. The debate since then has not been about whether or not to intrude, but rather the degree of intrusion. As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what the free market would pay. |