Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Michele Bachmann
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMichele Bachmann
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:52
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Unfortunately, this is what you get without either a union or some sort of federal oversight.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop   Obviously, these still exist in developing countries and where possible still here in the US as undocumented immigrants either working off their travel to the US costs or finding whatever job they can.



Take it to the libertarian thread. I try to limit my craziness to it.

You can oversight it all you want, you'll just have a bunch of unhappy people who would rather be working in a sweatshop than starving. You can bring the government into it all you want, but that won't create the capital accumulation that phases out the sweatshops.


And didn't the US already accumulated enough capital to phase out the sweatshops and no minimum wage approach?


I'm not sure exactly what you mean. That is eventually how sweatshops were phased out.


Then why are you advocating them and no minimum wage? Did the capital vanish suddenly?


I'm advocating no minimum wage because of the unemployment it causes for poor and unskilled workers.

I don't see where I supported sweatshops.


That's theoretically correct, but as sweatshops are an extreme case of no minimum wage and with no minimum wage companies will tend to pay as little as possible, promoting no minimum wage means promoting a return to exceptionally low wages.

Anyway, to cut the minimum wage discussion, I don't think Textbook was considering this politician stupid because she supports no minimum wage. No minimum wage is serious sh*t and the point was that it's a bad thing when in the debate about it someone as stupid as the quotes in the OP show is involved.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:54
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:



That's theoretically correct, but as sweatshops are an extreme case of no minimum wage and with no minimum wage companies will tend to pay as little as possible, promoting no minimum wage means promoting a return to exceptionally low wages.

Anyway, to cut the minimum wage discussion, I don't think Textbook was considering this politician stupid because she supports no minimum wage. No minimum wage is serious sh*t and the point was that it's a bad thing when in the debate about it someone as stupid as the quotes in the OP show is involved.


You're making some huge logical leaps in your first paragraph. If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?

He was using the quotes to show her stupidity. I'm pretty sure that was exactly his argument.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:54
Originally posted by Gamemako Gamemako wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm advocating no minimum wage because of the unemployment it causes for poor and unskilled workers.


But it's just not supported by research on real minimum wage increases. Either the demand curve is grossly inelastic at these levels or it just costs a boatload more to pick up your $250MM plant and move it across state lines than you gain from lowering your operating cost by 0.004%. LOL


But it is supported by research on real minimum wage increases.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:56

Basic supply-demand economics.  The greater your skill set the more demand for what you have to supply.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:58
That post has what to do with this discussion?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:59
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant. 


Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?
Politics.


So in your fantasy world, if the government would just set the minimum wage at $100,000 a year, then everyone would be rich! It's so simple!
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:02
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant. 


Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?
Politics.


So in your fantasy world, if the government would just set the minimum wage at $100,000 a year, then everyone would be rich! It's so simple!
Obviously, that isn't the case because inflation would go through the roof and a loaf of bread would cost $100, etc., and all of those at the minimum level would still be in the same boat as they are now, because those that are now making $100,000 will now require $1,000,000 a year to match their skillsets. 
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:



That's theoretically correct, but as sweatshops are an extreme case of no minimum wage and with no minimum wage companies will tend to pay as little as possible, promoting no minimum wage means promoting a return to exceptionally low wages.

Anyway, to cut the minimum wage discussion, I don't think Textbook was considering this politician stupid because she supports no minimum wage. No minimum wage is serious sh*t and the point was that it's a bad thing when in the debate about it someone as stupid as the quotes in the OP show is involved.


You're making some huge logical leaps in your first paragraph. If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?

He was using the quotes to show her stupidity. I'm pretty sure that was exactly his argument.


The leap in my argument is about the companies tending to pay as little as possible, that's what you should be trying to prove as false. What you add isn't a contradiction of what I said.

Her stupidity was established then she was shown supporting a policy with deep impact on society (good or bad that's to be debated), I think that's pretty clear (like the fact that Textbook strongly disagrees with those policies).
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

That post has what to do with this discussion?
Answering this question.  If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?

Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant. 


Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?
Politics.


So in your fantasy world, if the government would just set the minimum wage at $100,000 a year, then everyone would be rich! It's so simple!
Obviously, that isn't the case because inflation would go through the roof and a loaf of bread would cost $100, etc., and all of those at the minimum level would still be in the same boat as they are now, because those that are now making $100,000 will now require $1,000,000 a year to match their skillsets. 


Don't bother replying that kind of "argument" Scott.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:06
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:



That's theoretically correct, but as sweatshops are an extreme case of no minimum wage and with no minimum wage companies will tend to pay as little as possible, promoting no minimum wage means promoting a return to exceptionally low wages.

Anyway, to cut the minimum wage discussion, I don't think Textbook was considering this politician stupid because she supports no minimum wage. No minimum wage is serious sh*t and the point was that it's a bad thing when in the debate about it someone as stupid as the quotes in the OP show is involved.


You're making some huge logical leaps in your first paragraph. If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?

He was using the quotes to show her stupidity. I'm pretty sure that was exactly his argument.


The leap in my argument is about the companies tending to pay as little as possible, that's what you should be trying to prove as false. What you add isn't a contradiction of what I said.

Her stupidity was established then she was shown supporting a policy with deep impact on society (good or bad that's to be debated), I think that's pretty clear (like the fact that Textbook strongly disagrees with those policies).


Supporting a policy with a deep impact on society is stupid? All those abolitionists were morons?

No the leap in your argument was saying that no minimum wage means a return  to exceptionally low wages. Of course companies try to pay as little as possible. Workers try to make as much as possible. It's no different.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:07
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

That post has what to do with this discussion?
Answering this question.  If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?



I think you missed the point of me posing it then.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:11
In 2008, Mulally earned a total compensation of $13,565,378, which included a base salary of $2,000,000, stock awards of $1,849,241, and option awards of $8,669,747.
 
That could put 271 people to work at $50,000 per year.  Or 848 people to work at the minimum wage of $16,000 per year.  I realize that this is taking the extreme to the other way, but one has to really wonder if this one man really contributes $13 million of benefit to Ford Motor company, or if they would be better off hiring 271 people to do his job at $50,000 each.  Given that they could probably find someone like the Llama who would be willing to do it for free so he could get the experience, I have just made Ford Motor Company $13 million in profit.  Stern Smile 
Back to Top
Gamemako View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:13
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


But it is supported by research on real minimum wage increases.


Lol @ first database hit. Lazy cite button.

ALLEGRETTO, S. A., DUBE, A. and REICH, M. (2011), Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50: 205–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2011.00634.x

I do like the rather pointed concluding remark on the paper.

Quote Put simply, our findings indicate that minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce employment among teens.
Hail Eris!
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:13
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:



That's theoretically correct, but as sweatshops are an extreme case of no minimum wage and with no minimum wage companies will tend to pay as little as possible, promoting no minimum wage means promoting a return to exceptionally low wages.

Anyway, to cut the minimum wage discussion, I don't think Textbook was considering this politician stupid because she supports no minimum wage. No minimum wage is serious sh*t and the point was that it's a bad thing when in the debate about it someone as stupid as the quotes in the OP show is involved.


You're making some huge logical leaps in your first paragraph. If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?

He was using the quotes to show her stupidity. I'm pretty sure that was exactly his argument.


The leap in my argument is about the companies tending to pay as little as possible, that's what you should be trying to prove as false. What you add isn't a contradiction of what I said.

Her stupidity was established then she was shown supporting a policy with deep impact on society (good or bad that's to be debated), I think that's pretty clear (like the fact that Textbook strongly disagrees with those policies).


Supporting a policy with a deep impact on society is stupid? All those abolitionists were morons?

No the leap in your argument was saying that no minimum wage means a return  to exceptionally low wages. Of course companies try to pay as little as possible. Workers try to make as much as possible. It's no different.


Who said supporting a policy with a deep impact on society is stupid? Confused

Also, please explain me how a construction worker's struggle to get a bit more than almost nothing in the case of no minimum wage would be influenced positively by an engineer's ability to obtain a good pay for himself?
Back to Top
Gamemako View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:15
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

In 2008, Mulally earned a total compensation of $13,565,378, which included a base salary of $2,000,000, stock awards of $1,849,241, and option awards of $8,669,747.
 
That could put 271 people to work at $50,000 per year.  Or 848 people to work at the minimum wage of $16,000 per year.  I realize that this is taking the extreme to the other way, but one has to really wonder if this one man really contributes $13 million of benefit to Ford Motor company, or if they would be better off hiring 271 people to do his job at $50,000 each.  Given that they could probably find someone like the Llama who would be willing to do it for free so he could get the experience, I have just made Ford Motor Company $13 million in profit.  Stern Smile 


That is to say, CEO markets are hugely sheltered from the labor market at large.
Hail Eris!
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:15
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant. 


Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?
Politics.


So in your fantasy world, if the government would just set the minimum wage at $100,000 a year, then everyone would be rich! It's so simple!
Obviously, that isn't the case because inflation would go through the roof and a loaf of bread would cost $100, etc., and all of those at the minimum level would still be in the same boat as they are now, because those that are now making $100,000 will now require $1,000,000 a year to match their skillsets. 
 
 
Thanks for making the point I was just going to: minimum wage laws spur inflation
 
Everytime the government forcibly injects itself into the market their are consequences.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:19
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

In 2008, Mulally earned a total compensation of $13,565,378, which included a base salary of $2,000,000, stock awards of $1,849,241, and option awards of $8,669,747.
 
That could put 271 people to work at $50,000 per year.  Or 848 people to work at the minimum wage of $16,000 per year.  I realize that this is taking the extreme to the other way, but one has to really wonder if this one man really contributes $13 million of benefit to Ford Motor company, or if they would be better off hiring 271 people to do his job at $50,000 each.  Given that they could probably find someone like the Llama who would be willing to do it for free so he could get the experience, I have just made Ford Motor Company $13 million in profit.  Stern Smile 
 
 
If we all got together and robbed Tom Hanks we could buy mansions for everyone on ProgArchives


Time always wins.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:21
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant. 


Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?
Politics.


So in your fantasy world, if the government would just set the minimum wage at $100,000 a year, then everyone would be rich! It's so simple!
Obviously, that isn't the case because inflation would go through the roof and a loaf of bread would cost $100, etc., and all of those at the minimum level would still be in the same boat as they are now, because those that are now making $100,000 will now require $1,000,000 a year to match their skillsets. 
 
 
Thanks for making the point I was just going to: minimum wage laws spur inflation
 
Everytime the government forcibly injects itself into the market their are consequences.


Exactly! You just admitted that raising minimum wage doesn't make people better off!
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:23
Originally posted by Gamemako Gamemako wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


But it is supported by research on real minimum wage increases.


Lol @ first database hit. Lazy cite button.

ALLEGRETTO, S. A., DUBE, A. and REICH, M. (2011), Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50: 205–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2011.00634.x

I do like the rather pointed concluding remark on the paper.

Quote Put simply, our findings indicate that minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce employment among teens.


So your methodology when you find conflicting reports is to just side with the one that affirms your point? Great job there. Someone get you in a lab.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.426 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.