gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 17 May 2007 00:47 Eeyore 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... > > Maybe Bill doesn't realise that if you *can* pay less than minimum wage there > will be ppl lining up to do just exactly that and take advantage of the > disadvantaged. > Really? You think that minimum wage is why companies don't pay three cents an hour? > It's hardly as if minimum wage is a job killer. In the UK, there's a lower > figure for kids AIUI that means thing like pare deliveroies can still exist > economically and those kids can get a bit more to spend on their interests. > The minimum wage is an infringement on both the employer and employee. What if the person wants to work but the employer can't afford the law's high rate?
From: Jeffrey Turner on 17 May 2007 01:24 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. --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 01:40 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 teh minimum wage goes up. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html >>> 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. >> 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. >>>>>> 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. >> 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.
From: Rudy Canoza on 17 May 2007 01:41 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.
From: Jeffrey Turner on 17 May 2007 12:28
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 teh minimum wage goes up. > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html That stuff may baffle the rubes, but I'm wise. Funny how the boss's son-in-law never gets paid only what his work is worth. But to say that the minimum wage increases unemployment is short-sighted at best. As more money enters the local economy, there's more demand and more jobs will be created. 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. >>>> 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? >>> 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. >>>>>>> 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" and non-"rte" states? >>> 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. 400 jobs paying $5 an hour won't do much. Maybe if you had gotten an education instead of an indoctrination you'd know that. A course in economic history wouldn't hurt. Start with a study of the laissez faire 1920s. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |