|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 3rd, 2005 03:50 PM | ||
| mburbank | Make everyone in the top one percent income brackett into Soylent Green. | |
| Nov 3rd, 2005 03:33 PM | ||
| Preechr | That too. | |
| Nov 3rd, 2005 12:45 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Hmm, I didn't really think I'd presented much of an argument. Personally, I say revoke the minimum wage and provide anyone willing to work with access to food, shelter, medical care, and clothing, and then we all go to a "pretend socialism works" party and dance the night away. La la la. |
|
| Nov 3rd, 2005 11:59 AM | ||
| Preechr | Yep. | |
| Nov 3rd, 2005 10:59 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
"...economy crashing. It was about unemployment resulting. " Economy and employment have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. Just because the economy isn't completely crashing(which will probably NEVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAPPEN, it can ALWAYS recover) doesn't mean it's not taking hits. What form might those hits take? Unemployment, maybe? I don't know what else you'd call a bad economy. Because the economy is so fucked up, in ohio the unemployment rate is shit. I mean come on man, use your fucking brain. Employment and economy are pretty well connected. Why? Because the economy relies on the employees, and the businesses(which rely on the employees). Remember how complicated the economy is..lots of variables... yea. Mr. econ101. I don't care about your magic number. I just thought it was funny when you presented it like it was some shocking thing, and wondered how exactly you thought it supported your argument that wages were increased by 21%(or a dollar) which was clearly stated in the article and in everyone else's post. I think what most people are confused about is the fact that there has been alot of Inflation and bad economy already, and alot of people can't really afford to live. Has there been an increase in wages? Nope. Like other people have said, there's alot of states where minimum wage is already higher, and most of those states are in better condition than the others. However, alot of states(like nevada) don't really need a higher wage, they already don't have state taxes which kind of balances things out. But then, who knows, even they could still be struggling. I wouldn't know, I don't live there. "Put up or shut up man, where is the solid numerical proof that minimum wages increases cure genital herpes?" While there is no cure for genital herpes, it is possible to control it. With an increase in minimum wage, you can afford the medicine you need. Please, vote for Jesus. |
|
| Nov 3rd, 2005 09:48 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Well, what's really amusing about this is that Preechr probably (if I may make the assumption) would be more inclined to agree with the argument you're making, rather than what me, Ziggy, or Kahl have been saying. You just sound like a dick making it. :/ |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 11:10 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Hey guys somebody posted back like 5 pages ago that he felt this debate wasn't going to further anyone's intelectual fancy but some other asshole decided to highlight one number that guys posted and arbitrarily decide that he meant it was a magic number and we're all gonna make a big deal out of it because thats how real debates work in the real world. And come to think of it, just for accuracies sake. My argument was never through the entire ocurse of this trhread about the economy crashing. It was about unemployment resulting. You decided the economy thing for yourself jackass. Econ 101 genrally always teaches that unemployment follows minimum wage increases. That was the purpose of my obnoxious econ 101 statement. But thanks for trying. So to follow suit in an apparently appropriate debate style since everyone hates mine so awfully much: Put up or shut up man, where is the solid numerical proof that minimum wages increases cure genital herpes? Huh? lotsa big talk but no answers. |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 07:04 PM | ||
| Preechr |
I'm noticing a pattern in Mr. Bubba's style of argument. Since no one seems to be able to understand what's being discussed at your admittedly high level, could you please make this easier on all of us and explain YOUR point of view on the topic instead of holding all the correct answers behind your back and making us all guess? Isn't what you're doing one of those... um... ad hominy thingies? I mean, I'm no stranger to being ignorant. I'd just love to find someone that both knows everything and is willing to tell me how it all works... |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 04:53 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
They pay more than minimum wage? I knew a few people who worked there who said they got no benefits and shitty hours/minimum wage, but maybe they were exagerating because they didn't like working in the worst walmart in town(it was one of the 24 hour ones). I've also heard mcdonald's pays their managers fairly well, though. Something like ten dollars an hour. |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 04:36 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Walmart is going through a massive PR overhaul right now. This same guy was lobbying Congress to reinstate the Voting Rights Act. Another smart thing Walmart has done-- They have jumped into the check cashing/money order business. Eventually, every Walmart may have a center like this in their big box stores, so when their employees (or anybody who uses it) cashes their check, well hey, look at all of this shit i can buy! I'm glad to see they aresupporting the increase. Somebody should tell him to re-take Econ 101. 
|
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 02:36 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Wal-mart CEO Lee Scott says we should raise the minimum wage, but he's smart enough to know where minimum wage earners spend their money. (source) Also, Wal-Mart pays it's lowest paid employee more than the national minimum wage, and it's yet to bankrupt them. |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 01:47 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
You mean it's possible to find mathematically significant numbers to calculate how much stress on the economy a certain action might(and i should mention I use the term might here very mightily) bear? Jesus. I didn't learn that in econ 101 and I haven't at all mentioned that in my previous posts at all and it couldn't possibly have been what i meant about a general number or anything like that. It couldn't have possibly been about gathering together the significant numbers. What you're saying is that this is significant to the employees. No shit, that's why it's a wage increase. You increase the employees wage. Thanks for cracking the mystery though. But hey, let's go a step further and pay attention to the problem at hand: Will this 21% wage increase effect the economy in a bad way? I doubt it. Nobody cares if this is significant to the employees(which is why it was rejected) they care if it's significant to the economy. So shut the fuck up already, learn to pay attention to what's actually going on. Everybody knows it's a 21% increase, why? because they said it's a one dollar increase when it was five dollars before(1/5, i think everyone understands fractions). But thanks for enlightening all of us with your magical percentages that are supposed to sway our feelings on this subject. 21% is a magical number because you've shown in absolutely no way how it's relevant to the actual case at hand, you've merely presented shallow knowledge(for no reason, because everybody could tell that the wages were increasing, that's why it was called a wage increase) that has absolutely no detail associated with it and no actual connection to the issue. It's like you're holding an electric plug in your hand with no socket in sight, wondering why your lamp won't turn on... My point about 21% possibly being ECONOMICALLY INSIGNIFICANT (notice how i didn't say wagefully insignificant) is like how the gravity of pluto is entirely irrelevant to the sun because the sun's gravity is so much bigger it makes pluto's gravity insignificant no matter how significant it is to the moons. Guberment/corporations=sun -- minimumwageworkers=pluto/moons I mean, that's just an example.. who knows if it's actually significant, a 21% increase could be very significant, but you can't show how which makes your point insignificant. I like how you debate an issue about the economy with information that may or may not bear any weight on it, though. That's really clever of you. 
|
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 12:36 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Jesus christ you really are a persistant little child. 21% IS NOT A MAGIC NUMBER IT IS THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PAY OF MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS. HERE, DO IT YOURSELF MORON: (6.25-5.15)/5.15 = 21.3% OMG MAGIC NUMBERS!!! WE CAN DO DIVISION HERE AT I-MOCKERY! I'M SUCH A HIGH AND MIGHTY JACKASS FOR THROWING MY DIVISION CAPABLE COCK AROUND BECAUSE I'M MR.NUMBERS HERE THATS RIGHT I CAN DIVIDE. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A MAGIC NUMBER I DID NOT SAY IT WOULD CRASH THE WHOLE FUCKING ECONOMY. IT IS SIGNIFIGANT. THAT MEANS NOT MINISUCLE AND ABLE TO BE OVERLOOKED. You are woefully stupid. |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 12:08 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Since you seem to say there's no magic number than how do you even know the economy would be fucked from raising minimum wage? It seems like you are arguing with your own opinion. You obviously can know absolutely nothing about it, you are merely regurgitating knowledge you "learned" in a class. By your own admission everything you said was a lie because there's no "magic number at which the economy crashes". You picked 21% as your magic number. :/ Thanks for arguing with yourself, though. I find it entertaining. "21 % is my magic number!" - captain bubba Remember, I was only asking for numbers because YOU presented them. Why did you present numbers if there's no magic number the economy crashes? Hypocricy? Stupidity? Ignorance? Please, let me know mr. it's too complicated to know that a number will crash the economy.  Now you have to ask yourself if I knew that there was no magic number and was just waiting for you to say there isn't and make your "21% point" pointless, or if I'm just smart enough to play it off. And what about what you say next, how will that factor in to how i feel about things. Is it what i want you to say? Am I planning out everything ahead of time? How smart am I, really? "You really seem to have no grasp of how complex what you'e discussing is" Unfortunately I do, I understand there's tons of companies who have employees hired, some small businesses some huge corporations. I understand they all have a certain amount of money, a certain amount of employees.. some hand out benifits, some rely on resources to gain money, some rely on their employees. Most of the one's that have alot of employees hired(basically, who this would effect the most) are places like walmart and mcdonalds. Do you want to tell me they don't have the money? Of course the economy is a complicated thing. It's a conglomeration of tons of companies and employees, who may or may not be relying on eachother or other outside influences. Thanks for stating the obvious, jackass. The idea of economy itself is ore of a lucid concept than anything else. There's also other influences that you haven't considered, especially on minimum wage workers, like welfare. Are you aware that one person can get 150 something dollars in food stamps a month in california? I find that funny since the minimum wage increase would tally out to being about 160 dollars a month. If minimum wage was raised, there's a chance that they would no longer be eligible to receive benefits(although, I haven't looked directly at the magic numbers). Funny how things can often balance themselves out... We have all these programs in place to help poor people, why not just make it so they aren't poor anymore, then all of these shitty programs to help them wouldn't be needed, and they would actually have some respect for themselves. Balance is nice. |
|
| Nov 2nd, 2005 10:37 AM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Nothing you've said makes me think you do either, Bubba.
|
|
| Nov 1st, 2005 10:28 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba | You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. There is no magical general number at which THE WHOLE ECONOMY COLLAPSES. You really seem to have no grasp of how complex what you'e discussing is. | |
| Nov 1st, 2005 05:17 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"so there is no magic number at which the economy breaks." that's why I said General number. Suffice it to say, if minimum wage was increased to a point that companies were paying out 143,431,542,653,875,536 dollars the economy would break. Words like GENERAL make the world go around, they are called Adjectives, they help describe a scenario in which your brain can grasp onto it and understand without looking illiterate. What I said was pretty clear. Anybody capable of thinking knows that there's going to be a certain point where it's going too far. Basically, if the amount being paid is more than the companies have to spend the economy is probably going to get fucked. Just so you know, it is possible to know that, "An increase of this number to this number would be safe, but anything past this could be dangerous". Obviously they must have left common sense out of economy 101. 
|
|
| Nov 1st, 2005 04:11 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
It's funny because economics is part math and part voodoo, so there is no magic number at which the economy breaks. I found an economist/policy maker who says what I feel about the issue though. Quote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2109190/ |
|
| Nov 1st, 2005 03:56 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I don't get it but I hope your laughter is making children everywhere feel blissful. | |
| Nov 1st, 2005 03:16 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
a general number to satisfy the question of if the economy would collapse or not. Lol. |
|
| Nov 1st, 2005 01:51 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I bet you grab your crotch alot and mumble praises to Hegel. | |
| Nov 1st, 2005 01:33 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Don't take it personally, Kev. Anyone not frothing at the mouth right now is too conservative for me. If it's any consolation, I hate other liberals almost as much as I hate anybody not frothing at the mouth. I'm just a crotchety old man. Compassionate crotchety, though. |
|
| Nov 1st, 2005 11:14 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
:LoL I'm going to make an lol because I'm nervous because I couldn't think of anything good to say but i feel like I've been robbed of my pride. What I meant is we don't need to know that it's going to be 1,425,892.345287927196417957415642179276 we just need to know if it's going to be roughly 1,500,000 because anything above 5,000,000 is going to fuck the economy over. A simple less than greater than scenario, sorry you find yourself being an asshole for no good reason, mr. ECON 101!@)*@&)*#&@) |
|
| Oct 31st, 2005 09:21 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 31st, 2005 07:56 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"I don't need to find this information because its inherit to the argument against me. If there are so few minimum wage employees that a 21% raise to all of them in the entire nation is in itself inconsequential then any argument for minimum wage also becomes a moot point as it must apply to an extremely extremely small minority." I don't really understand what you're getting at. The part about minimum wage arguments being a moot part because of a small minority base is pointless. It's not a matter of how many people are making money, it's a matter of how much MORE money they'd be making compared to how much the company has. I understand you probably understand this, and that is why I don't understand your point. The variables don't really matter in a case like this, all you need is a general number to satisfy the question of if the economy would collapse or not. Good day. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
