Congressional GOP Are Scum!

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

What if you can afford them, until that is your boyfriend decides to abandon you? And what about those babies born into that life?

Bad choice in boyfriend. Sex's most obvious consequence other than an STD is pregnancy. *well, not mentioning SUPER obvious orgasm, but I digress...* So, having a possible lifetime link with someone who would abandon you shows a severe lack of common sense. Sorry.

The only ones I do feel sympathy for are the children. They didn't choose that their parents made bad choices. However, with private and local charities, I really see no need for FEDERAL welfare. It's too big and clumsy, it's just not efficient, empirically speaking.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
You want to fix the minimum wage hike problem? It's incredibly simple:

Right now, iirc, the base salary of a congressman is ~$155,000/year. A person working full time at minimum wage, by contrast, makes $10,712/year. In other words, the current minimum wage is about 7% of the salary of a congressman.

Okay: fix it there, so that congress can't give itself a raise without raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage will be a living wage in no time.

Heh, this I agree with entirely, at least the point that congress shouldn't be allowed to vote themselves raises. Of course, if we ALL caused a big enough stink, perhaps they wouldn't. But the political apathy here is revolting.

What happened when it used to be a service. Beware the politician that WANTS the job. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew our politicians spend MILLIONS to be elected.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


How so?

If workers become less expensive, isn't it now easier to hire more of them? If the wage rate goes up, isn't there now more incentive to being working then there was previously?

Because if the workers get paid more they buy more stuff and create more jobs that way, also if jobs pay more you could get better workers working longer hours (maybe) and thus increasing productivity. That and a possible increase in inflation. There's a dozen other additional complicating factors I could bring up. You can't treat the supply and demand of labor like the supply and demand of bananas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because if the workers get paid more they buy more stuff and create more jobs that way, also if jobs pay more you could get better workers working longer hours (maybe) and thus increasing productivity. That and a possible increase in inflation. There's a dozen other additional complicating factors I could bring up. You can't treat the supply and demand of labor like the supply and demand of bananas.

If you have a price floor for bananas, you will have overproduction, which will result in more exports of bananas for cheaper prices. This may result in people overseas purchasing more bananas, resulting in a future generation which likes bananas more than the previous ones, while in the US less bananas may mean future generation will like them less than previous ones. You can't treat supply and demand of bananas like the supply and demand of (insert product here).



And working longer hours will not result in higher productivity. Productivity is about output in relation to input.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Because if the workers get paid more they buy more stuff and create more jobs that way, also if jobs pay more you could get better workers working longer hours (maybe) and thus increasing productivity. That and a possible increase in inflation."

Those are general equilibrium arguments, which all can be (and are) applied to many different economic subjects. It doesn't change the basic theory, rather general equilibrium and efficency wage considerations are worked into it.

Your statement about more consumption meaning more jobs is most likely incorrect in the long run, rather it is savings and investment which drive long run economic growth. Better workers resulting from better pay is covered in the efficency wage theory, inflation is a standard general equilibrium situation which dampens the effect of a wage experience.

But the standard supply and demand curve, the very basic stuff is only wrong if people behave irrationaly. It is true, as you point out, for a deeper understanding of the labor market there are other variables you need to work in, and so most labor economists go well beyond the simple supply and demand curves. Still, the simple curves can work well for discussing the issue on a simple level.

[mrmitchell]

Bad choice in boyfriend. Sex's most obvious consequence other than an STD is pregnancy. *well, not mentioning SUPER obvious orgasm, but I digress...* So, having a possible lifetime link with someone who would abandon you shows a severe lack of common sense. Sorry.

OMR, so what are you going to do when you get screwed? A kind of attitude like that is just begging for karma to come back and bite. You get stuck with kids after your wife, out of nowhere, leaves. You get laid off while some ass executive is making off with millions of dollars and two secretaries. You're in a car wreck, get paralyzed, and lose everything.

Bad choices! Shouldn't've had sex. Shouldn't've worked for a large corporation. Shouldn't be driving a car. Don't expect the government to help you out. You should've known better than to make an obviously bad choice like that. Sit and suffer it out for the rest of your life, 'cause noone's coming to help if the government isn't.

The only ones I do feel sympathy for are the children. They didn't choose that their parents made bad choices. However, with private and local charities, I really see no need for FEDERAL welfare. It's too big and clumsy, it's just not efficient, empirically speaking.

Obviously, if private and local charity worked, government redistribution programs would have never had to have been enacted in the first place.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

OMR, so what are you going to do when you get screwed? A kind of attitude like that is just begging for karma to come back and bite.

Definitely not whine and curse the stars/god/imps/rocks for "bad luck". I evaluate what I did wrong or didn't do right, and learn. **** has happened, but the fall out wouldn't have been so bad had I known then what I know now. It wasn't luck, as luck doesn't exist. Things happen, good and bad. Sometimes what you think is bad turns out good, and vice versa.

You should've known better than to make an obviously bad choice like that. Sit and suffer it out for the rest of your life, 'cause noone's coming to help if the government isn't.

Man, you and the other one are a very dramatic duo. You guys write screenplays? Yes, bad choices will make you suffer. Rest of your life? If you're weak, or your mistake was that bad. *driving drunk*

Obviously, if private and local charity worked, government redistribution programs would have never had to have been enacted in the first place.

Even with those, people have to want help. There is enough help out there right now, yet some still choose to live on the streets and not in shelters or halfway homes. To each their own. *shrugs* Not my life. And gov't redistribution programs are flawed for the basic reason they deny human/animal nature.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That you judge people to the level of scum doesn't reflect all that well on your own character.

Call 'em like I see 'em. And I've seen you judge folks before, so don't play Mr. Sanctimony with me.

If someone says things that indicate they are scum, I see no reason to believe otherwise. And saying that all poor people are lazy/stupid and therefore deserving of a menial existence is very much a scummy thing to say. It's the typical excuse put forward by selfish pigs.

[mrmitchell]

I'm guessing this guy has been authenticated before. Any settler that's so incediniary would be a target for dancing, even with half a year under his belt.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I seem to recall any number of hot button issues during the last election cycle. Chief amongst those was job creation and the outsourcing phenom. So what we have is a desire to increase minimum wage to accelerate that process and in so doing offer a viable if unenviable career path to people who decide not to take the necessary additional steps to upgrade their skill sets to allow them to be competitive in the world market.

Seems to me we are incentiing the wrong thing.

Oh, please! How does someone outsource the fry cook at McDonalds or the cleaning lady at the local hotel? That's the type of jobs that get minimium wage.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The left endorses making no money and not supporting yourself? Yeah, tell the people who lose jobs or cant get them because their labor isn't worth $7/hour how much you care for them...

Btw, whats the unemplyment rate in France now?

To be fair France's minimium wage is fairly modest and the main reason for the high unemploymnet is excessive regulation. It is very, very, very expensive & difficult to fire someone in that country so employers tend not to hire anyone unless it is totally unavoidable. Why hirer someone you can't fire when demand slacks?

The minimium wage is not the problem.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin

1. He only became violent several years after they married as a result of alcoholism after he lost his job.

2. Yes, there are a lot of people who are successfull without a college education, but those are the lucky ones, most people like that work hard all thier lives and never get anywhere. Why? because there are lot more people than there are oppertunities available. "Successful" equals lucky without at least a 4-year degree. Most "rags to riches" stories are really "I got lucky" stories.

For every rags to riches story there are at least a thousand "from sh!t to a decent life" stories, and these require above all some self discipline. In many cases they also require an honest appraisal of where one comes from and a willingness to break from ones background when that background is rife with self-defeating behavior. It is a path open to all, though all cannot take it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin

The point is, we are not in control of our lives. The workplace is a virtual dictatorship, and the government is controled by those same businesses who wish to see that the workplace remain a dictatorship.

Give me a break, comrade. No one has the energy, inclination or the power to keep you down, you're simply giving it to them. When you realize this you'll be on the path to making a positive difference. You'll also want to lose the paranoia eventually. Ghandi made a positive difference, but his paranoia ended up costing many thousands of people their lives. Believing the worst about people limits you more than them.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Oh, please! How does someone outsource the fry cook at McDonalds or the cleaning lady at the local hotel? That's the type of jobs that get minimium wage.

The point as I reiterated to Az is that this move causes an inflation of wage rate at all lower levels not simply minimum wage.

[Dinner]

There will be some inflkationary pressure but as we all keep hearing in the news the extreme competetion in the goods and services sector have robbed most companies of their pricing power. That means the inflationary pressure will be muted and partially off set by higher demand duing to consumers' rising income. There will still be some inflation but not as much as you are contending and it will be localized mainly in very low wage sectors.

Over all workers still come out a head dispite a marginal increase in inflationary pressure.