posted
First of all, if a post references both "blow" and The Real World, one can usually assume that I am joking. Sheesh. Perhaps I should have said he's done more Columbian nose candy than the cast of Diff'rent Strokes? Plowed more snow than the Alaskan DoT?
Secondly, he's George II to me because he's the second George. If and when Jeb runs for president, he'll be George III. I can hardly imagine what that non sequitor will do to you.
Hmm...George P. Bush vs. Karenna Gore in 2012 or thereabouts, anyone?
We've been through this before, Daryus. Again, exactly what do you suggest we do for these poor? Give me a comprehensive solution. Then get back to me.
I do agree that it means nothing if he did drugs that long ago, as does most of the population. But I won't stand for false accustaions.
Jay:
Me: "There aren't going to be that many unbudgeted dollars."
You: "Your evidence being?"
OK, rephrase: there aren't going to be that many unbudgeted dollars EVERYWHERE. There ARE going to be some stores that close because they can't handle the costs. There ARE going to be jobs destroyed. This you CAN NOT deny.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Ah, my dear Omega, you aren't taking into account the simple beauty of the demand side of the economic equation. An increase in the minimum wage would result in more spending money for many workers, who would then go out to eat more often. More burgers, more business, no jobs destroyed.
------------------ Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much..... ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Hey Jay...if your paycheck gets increased, but the cost of food goes up because the employer has to pay more to his workers, what ground are you gaining here? Increasing the minimum wage will only increase costs for a store owner(thus, to make a profit close to what they were making, they cut jobs and increase prices on services). Owners don't have minimum wages. But then again, company owners are the source of oppression in this country and should give up all that money anyways...they're too rich, aren't they?
posted
Go, Jeff! What good does it do anyone if wages go up, when prices go up along with them? They're in the same place they were to begin with. Then there's the people who get along on salary, who before might have been barely able to get along, now can't because of the increased prices.
And then there's the fact that just because a person on a tight budget has a LITTLE extra money, they're not going to start blowing it on overpriced food, especially if the prices go up. Besides, increased prices and increased wages for the exact same things, isn't that called inflation?
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
That is why Burger King and McDonald's is now too expensive to eat at. Forget about Denny's. It's getting to be $20 for two people to eat there.
------------------ Women are demons who make men enter hell through the gates of paradise.
posted
The example that caught my eye was the one regarding a 67-year-old man flipping burgers for minimum wage. (What can I say? I'm closer to retirement than almost anyone else here).
Someone who's 67 years old will very likely have some sort of retirement package or at least social security. If not, there are a wide variety of federal, state, and local relief packages available to the elderly. Flipping burgers would be a bonus, providing the aid packages don't deduct whatever he's earning from what he's eligible for (some do, some don't).
Increasing the minimum wage does tend to drive inflation. Note how many times Alan Greenspan has increased the prime lending rate (incrementally, but frequently) to prevent inflation over the last several years.
[small]Drat! I just looked at the clock and I'd better get ready for work.[/small]
I'll get back to this later. Gotta go!
~~Baloo
------------------ Beer lovers take note: Stroh's spelled backwards is "shorts."
posted
Swell. So increasing the minimum wage bring about inflation by putting more money in circulation. Blah blah blah, so we can disregard the fact that by raising the standard of living for the working poor that crime trends down and all the expenses used in that and other social controls also go down...
Ok then, someone has to tell me why the Republican proposed massive tax cuts the don't do the very same thing...only a different class of people get the immediate perk of the cash in the pockets AND the working poor are still dealing with the same issues and crime and it's expenses are still being paid for?
------------------ Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much..... ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Well I must say that the problems anywhere in the world are not a political leader's fault. The problems come from the 95 percent of the people of the U.S. being complete idiots. Everyone here likes sci-fi, so were not idiots...except for a few. But the rest of the world, I am afraid, are complete morons.
posted
God bless your well calculated, thoughtful and thoroughly insightful reasoning behind the downfalls of society. It's good that the world has people like you.
However, it seems to me that you're no better off yourself than the handfuls of morons you talk about.
Moron.
------------------ "What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad." - Dave Barry
posted
OK, Jay, now you're just being difficult. For the sake of the argument, I'll agree that raising the standard of living for the poor reduces crime, etc. What's your point? I've shown that increasing the minimum wage does NOT increase the standard of living for anyone.
As for your second paragraph, there were a couple spelling errors that make it kinda difficult to understand, but I'll take a stab at it. The "rich" (rich being defined as making more than $50 grand a year, and therefore not being a "working family", or so says Algore) would get the largest tax cut (cash-wise; the "poor" are actually getting a larger break percentage-wise) because they're the only ones paying any significant taxes to begin with! (The death tax comes to mind.) And when the people (ANY people) have more money in their pockets, they're more likely to buy a, say, McDonald's, and create jobs, thus helping the "poor". Not to mention increasing tax revenue, as in the 80's. It's called trickle-down theory. Look it up.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited August 25, 2000).]
quote:couple spelling errors that make it kinda difficult to understand
LOL!!!
petty little boy...
As to you other balderdash...
The trickle-down theory trickled down Ronald Reagan's pants legs and into his shoes cause that's all it's worth. You might want to investigate two thing in correlation (you might need to go to a library for this one), your above theory and the Great Depression.
And still, you've given me no real reason why putting money into the hands of the working poor brings about inflation and how putting money into the hands of everyone above them via tax cuts does not.
You keep trying though.
------------------ Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much..... ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited August 25, 2000).]
forgot a part in that second paragraph...dern my eyes.
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited August 25, 2000).]
posted
"And still, you've given me no real reason why putting money into the hands [of the poor] brings about inflation and how putting money into the hands of everyone above them via tax cuts does not."
Ah, is THAT what you were asking? Oh, well, then...
Again, you're looking at things WAY to simplisticly. You're not just talking about putting money in the hands of the workers. You're talking about forcing the OWNER to put HIS money in the hands of the workers. He's got to get the money somewhere, thus higher prices, thus inflation.
Whereas if you put money in the hands of the rich (and the poor, but for the sake of this argument... and it's really just not taking it in the first place, but again...), they create jobs, thus lowering unemployment. I don't think that'd affect inflation (I don't start my economics course for another week or so), but lower unemployment is always good.
The rest of your post was drivel, and shall be ignored as such.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited August 25, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
