gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 23:11 k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, lied: > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch and shitbag, wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>>>>>>> So putting a quote in its actual context is what we like to call >>>>>>>>>>>>> "truthful." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> She wasn't talking about "taking" things away from society as a whole. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, she was and is. >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. You're lying. Look it up. >>>>>>>>>> I'm not lying, punk. >>>>>>>>> Yes. You are. >>>>>>>> Nope. Not lying, thieving freeloading punk. >>>>>>> Yes you are, >>>>>> Nope. I know everything about the quote... >>>>> Then you really should stop lying about >>>> Haven't lied, gentlemanly highly skilled professional who has made me look so foolish. >>> You have a very slow learning curve. >> Nope - I'm a lightning fast study. > > Hardly. Completely. >>> Your lie was apparent on its face and in your own admissions. >> None. > > Well, except for None. No exception. >> You ran out of steam pretty quickly, punk. > > I ran out of steam? Uh-uh. Uh-huh.
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 23:12 Brent P wrote: > In article <i0n3i.12249$j63.8686(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less >> And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as >> more capital equipment and/or a few >> higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a >> larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. > > Low wages kill automation. No kidding. In the early 1970s, a fully automatic car wash went up in the area near Glendale, CA where I grew up during the 1960s. By the late 1970s, when the first massive wave of illegal immigration had begun, the machinery had been ripped out, and in its place stood Mexican workers with rags and sponges, washing the cars as they were pulled through. I was almost surprised the carwash still had the machine to pull the cars through. > We could do with fewer people making more > money each with less pressure on our infastructure by using automation. > But instead illegal immigration is allowed to go on unchecked to keep > labor costs down. The drawbacks from massive immigration are many and very > significant to where the benefits are several times smaller than the > drawbacks, it's just that the two aren't felt by the same people.
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 23:24 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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 $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes >>>>>millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value >>>>>of your labour, you are being exploited? >>>> >>>>There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But >>>>profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some >>>>say in how things are done based on their own expertise. >>> >>>So everyone gets to be CEO for a day? >> >>Well, I'm not sure which god appointed one CEO, but I was thinking more >>of a collaborative effort. If democracy is good for countries, it >>should be good for businesses too. > > Actually, pure democracy isn't that good for countries. It turns out > that some people are better at running things than others. In fact, some > people are better at running certain things and others are better at > running other certain things. So that means that democracy where > everyone decides everything in a vote isn't probably a good way to run a > government. And we have representative democracy, you should note. Also > that is tempered with a constitution which adds in a tension of > stability. So how does that work for a company again? We don't have anything close to representative democracy in a company. Everything is top down. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 23:26 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > Brent P wrote: >>In article <i0n3i.12249$j63.8686(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>Brent P wrote: >>>>In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less >>> >>>And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as >>>more capital equipment and/or a few >>>higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a >>>larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. >> >>Low wages kill automation. We could do with fewer people making more >>money each with less pressure on our infastructure by using automation. >>But instead illegal immigration is allowed to go on unchecked to keep >>labor costs down. >> > > If you don't keep labour costs down, everything will be imported from > some place with low labour costs. Duh. Or do you want to block trade? That is a big problem with "free trade." Eventually the bulk of everyone has the standard of living of the poorest nation. Or Mississippi. --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 18 May 2007 23:39
Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> 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. > > Considering they "extrapolate" from one recession that included an > increase in the minimum wage, I don't see it as a strong argument. jeffy, they showed that the rise in unemployment among those people likely to be at the minimum wage was higher than it would have been. If there had been no rise in the minimum wage, jeffy, their unemployment rate would have increased, due to the recession, but it would have increased less. They showed that, jeffy. Every study shows that rises in the minimum wage increase unemployment among those who earn at or just above the old minimum, jeffy. >>>>> 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. > > Prove that the boss's son-in-law earns every penny and works his way > up? I don't need to prove that that happens in every case, jeffy. You seem to think you have some knowledge that it *never* happens. Prove it, jeffy. >>>>> 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. > > I gave three examples of unemployment not increasing after an increase > in the minimum wage. No, you didn't. "Unemployment" is too broad, jeffy - an attempt at lying. You have to show that unemployment didn't increase among those affected by the minimum wage. You wouldn't know where to start, jeffy. >>>>> 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. > > What facts? Facts showing that unemployment increased among those affected by an increase in the minimum wage, 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. > > Since you've got nothing but assertions, No. We have Deere, Welch and Murphy's data. >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > There's no such thing as exploitation? Correct. > You've got no knowledge of > history or of economics. Much deeper knowledge of both, but particularly economics, than you could even dream of having, jeffy. There's no such thing as "exploitation", jeffy - not in a market economy based on private property and a well developed legal system. No one compels anyone at gunpoint or any other form of illegal coercion to work at any job in the U.S. or Europe or any other developed economy, jeffy. Workers are free to move to some alternate employment they feel is better. Everyone working in a market economy, jeffy, feels he is better off than in whatever his next-best alternative might be. By definition, jeffy, there is no exploitation: no one is compelled to work at anything worse than his best possible alternative. You're overmatched - badly. >>>>>>>> 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. > > Excuse me, but worker productivity has been growing steadily over the > last several decades. So you must have some secret criteria for whose > work is "only worth $6 an hour." No secret. Growth in worker productivity *overall* doesn't mean that there aren't some jobs that, if done, only produce a value of $6 an hour. You really need to study some economics, jeffy. I have, and it is excruciatingly obvious that you have not. > >>>>> 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. > > Then you should have no trouble producing the data to show it. Deere, Welch and Murphy did, jeffy. jeffy: produce some data showing that *employment* rates among people earning at or slightly above the minimum wage remained the same following an increase. This should be entertaining. >>>> 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 mean based on Reagan's trillion plus dollars in accumulated debt? Evasion noted. >>>> 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. > > I've shown enough examples and numbers. You've shown zero, jeffy. |