gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 11:32 Rudy Canoza wrote: > 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. Oh, the irony. > 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. I've already attacked that "argument." >> Funny how the boss's >> son-in-law never gets paid only what his work is worth. > > Prove it, sophomoric ideologue. Another Libertoonian refugee from reality, brimming to the teeth with irony. >> 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. Without any evidence, except during an economic downturn. >> 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. And if pink unicorns fly over your house, it's going to rain tomorrow. > 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 this is unusual? >>>>>>>>> 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. Continued evasion noted. >>>>> 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. Where's the cosmic wage and salary list? >> 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. Yeah, sure, it's been tried. > 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? Experience shows us that that's how you grow an economy. > You really have no vision at all, jeffy, except of a wish to exercise > power you are not mentally or morally qualified to exercise. Come back after you've studied some economic history. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: k_flynn on 18 May 2007 11:45 Rudy Canoza wrote: > k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > > On May 18, 7:42 am, John Mayson <j...(a)mayson.us> wrote: > >> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > >>> On May 17, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >>>> "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of > >>>> the common good." > >>>> -- Hillary Clinton, 2004 > >>> You do realize this quote is about letting Bush's tax cuts for the > >>> rich expire? > >> Is that any better? > > > > Yeah. Of course. > > No, you whiny leech. Yeah, you freeloader.
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 12:14 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> 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. > > Oh, the irony. You had to look up the word to know how to spell it, jeffy. >> 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. > > I've already attacked that "argument." No, you haven't, jeffy. You did some handwaving; that's all. It wasn't an "attack" at all. >>> Funny how the boss's >>> son-in-law never gets paid only what his work is worth. >> >> Prove it, sophomoric ideologue. > > Another Libertoonian refugee from reality, Evasion noted. >>> 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 minimum wage increases unemployment among people who were >> earning at or slightly above the old minimum. It does. > > Without any evidence, except during an economic downturn. Evidence presented, jeffy. The increase in unemployment was greater among those affected by the min. wage increase than it was among the general workforce. >>> 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. > > And if pink unicorns fly over your house, Typical snarky sophomoric sarcasm from a defeated ideologue. You very quickly abandoned your pretense of seriousness when confronted with facts and sound theory, 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 this is unusual? It is due to the minimum wage, jeffy - the very thing that is supposed to help them. It makes them worse off, jeffy. Your strident insistence on sticking with a policy tool that has perverse effects demonstrates you, and Hillary, do *not* have superior vision, jeffy. >>>>>>>>>> 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. > > Continued evasion None on my part, jeffy. There is no such thing as "exploitation", as you use the term in an emotional sense. >>>>>> 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. > > Where's the cosmic wage and salary list? Evasion noted. >>> 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. > > Yeah, sure, it's been tried. It has been implicitly tried every time the min. wage goes up and low-skill/low-wage employment goes down, 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? > > Experience shows us that that's how you grow an economy. No, jeffy. Experience shows exactly the opposite. Experience shows that the economy grows when government meddling in it is reduced. >> You really have no vision at all, jeffy, except of a wish to exercise >> power you are not mentally or morally qualified to exercise. > > Come back after you've studied some economic history. YOU try studying it, jeffy - from economists, not the ignorant sociologists and assorted other poets who have indoctrinated you.
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 12:50 Brent P wrote: > In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >>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. > > And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, > leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train them. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 13:54
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) 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 and the growth >>>>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I >>>>suppose? >>> >>>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. >> >>Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An >>infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a >>bad thing. > > What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is > "exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes > millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value > of your labour, you are being exploited? There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some say in how things are done based on their own expertise. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |