gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Jeffrey Turner on 16 May 2007 23:53 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, Sept. 1961, 6.7; Oct. 1961, 6.5; Nov. 1961, 6.1; Dec. 1961, 6.0. Minimum wage went to $1.25 on Sept. 3, 1963. Unemployment rate Sept. 1963, 5.5; Oct. 1963, 5.5; Nov. 1963, 5.7; Dec. 1963, 5.5. Minimum wage went to $1.40 on Feb. 1, 1967. Unemployment rate Feb. 1967, 3.8; March 1967, 3.8; April 1967, 3.8; May 1967, 3.8. I don't think the numbers agree with your ideology. >> 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, it doesn't agree with your "theory." > You really ought to study some labor economics before running your > ignorant yap. I don't feel like studying your religion. Reality is different. >>>>> 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 ignorance and yours would probably outstretch the Mississippi. > 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? Your ignorance of labor history is only exceeded by your ignorance of economics. --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 16 May 2007 23:55 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? --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 16 May 2007 23:57 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, Sept. 1961, 6.7; Oct. 1961, 6.5; Nov. 1961, > 6.1; Dec. 1961, 6.0. Minimum wage went to $1.25 on Sept. 3, 1963. > Unemployment rate Sept. 1963, 5.5; Oct. 1963, 5.5; Nov. 1963, 5.7; > Dec. 1963, 5.5. Minimum wage went to $1.40 on Feb. 1, 1967. > Unemployment rate Feb. 1967, 3.8; March 1967, 3.8; April 1967, 3.8; > May 1967, 3.8. I don't think the numbers agree with your ideology. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 17 May 2007 00:44 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... > Try to explain it.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 17 May 2007 00:45
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. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop" |