Michele Bachmann
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=79674
Printed Date: February 23 2025 at 18:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Michele Bachmann
Posted By: Textbook
Subject: Michele Bachmann
Date Posted: July 11 2011 at 20:14
|
Recently signed a document which advocates the banning of pornography which began by saying that African Americans had better family structures in the times of slavery. Quite why this statement needed to be in anti-porn document isn't clear, it seems to me to be a thin excuse for a swipe at blacks to titillate her white supporters and to get at Obama. Or perhaps black families wouldn't break up if not for pornography. Here's the quote from the document.
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President." Well that's probably true isn't it, I mean when you don't have freedom and you have to stay in the same little wooden hut and can't make any choices about anything, probably everything in your life is more structured and stable. Also yes it is true that this situation where black families break up only started after a black president was elected. So props to her for having the insight to recognise that. She'll have the black vote on smash. On a sidenote, "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families." Who wrote this? Yep, African-American families were doing just fine until slavery came along and ruined things for them.
Bachmann's greatest hits: "And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it." "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." "[Gay marriage] is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that." "Normalization [of gayness] through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: 'I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.'" (This is probably my favourite.) "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States." (That's right. According to Bachmann, slavery was ended by the founding fathers.) |
Replies:
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: July 11 2011 at 20:29
|
I look forward to our nation's first batsh*t insane president. ------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 11 2011 at 20:36
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 11 2011 at 20:55
The pledge did not include banning pornography, that is what you get for relying on sensationalist reporters instead of reading it yourself. [url=http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf]The actual quote with footnote is
If they wanted to ban all porn, they would have said so: they had no problem putting anal sex in between homosexuality and group sex as one of the great ills of civilization. That reads to me more like THINK OF THE CHILDREN rhetoric that everybody knows is actually meaningless. They removed the slavery thing too, I guess they have some self-awareness. Michele Bachmann is never going to be President. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence. Human trafficking, child pornography and prostitution, pimping, sexual slavery and forced abortion are inherently coercive of vulnerable females. Infanticide and abortion are inherently coercive of the babies who are killed; as a matter of human rights, we reject any form of intrauterine or extrauterine child killing which is partial-birth; live-birth; post-viability; third trimester; involving fetal pain; taxpayer-subsidized; based on gender or disability or racial discrimination against the baby; without fully-informed consent; without disclosure of pregnancy care and adoption placement options; without disclosure of abortion‟s eugenic and racist history; involving a minor without parental knowledge or consent; in disregard of conscience objections of health care professionals and institutions; involving cloning or experimentation on non-consenting human subjects; involving dangerous abortifacient drugs; or for alleged necessities other than to save the life of the mother.Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 00:34
|
"Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.. "Many teenagers that come in should be paying the employer because of broken dishes or whatever occurs during that period of time. But you know what? After six months, that teenager is going to be a fabulous employee and is going to go on a trajectory where he's going to be making so much money, we'll be borrowing money from him." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, explaining why teenagers should pay employers for the privilege of working instead of receiving minimum wage. "If we allow businesses to be prosperous and accrue capital, they’ll be giving their employees more than they can even begin to imagine. But when we continue to tie cement blocks on businesses (like the minimum wage) and constrain them, they can actually do less than their employees." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and explaining why it actually keeps wages and benefits lower. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 00:39
|
The minimum wage is junk economics and does need to be done away with. That being said, Michele Bachman shouldn't be allowed near the oval office. That being said, neither should have the majority of Presidents from the last hundred years, or so. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 00:40
| She's like the vice principal who used to be kinda hot, with a voice that gives 'nasal' a new meaning. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 00:48
|
@ the OP We could search and pick controversial things (almost always out of context *nudge-nudge*) that pretty much every politician has done or said. You picking Michelle Bachmann is saying "yup, I'm not a conservative and they are insane" while trying to keep it low key. Both sides do it. Do you work for the media, by any chance? ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 00:54
|
As if the world needed another Sarah Palin. And this one comes with obvious religious, kook-vile affiliations too. Come back to the game when you drop God, or at least your bullsh*t social neo-conservatism. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 03:48
| Truth: No I don't think you could find such a dense volume of garbage from most politicians as you could from Michele Bachmann. I think she's genuinely stupid and even a bit psychotic. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 05:27
| LOL. |
Posted By: yanch
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 05:52
This.
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 08:24
That makes her different from Obama and W how? ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 08:25
Well, Obama isn't really stupid, but he may be psychotic, and W was just plain stupid. She just combines the best of both worlds. ------------- Hail Eris! 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 08:40
|
Don't blame the politician; blame the people who would vote for someone that says the nonsense that falls out of her mouth. That's the only reason she's going forward with these issues. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:03
You realize that every president we've ever had (and just about every presidential candidate) has expressed a belief in God, right? Or do you concede that most of the democrats have been lying about it to get elected? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:05
|
Obama is neither stupid nor psychotic.
He's turned out to be just another politician. Trying to broker deals that make the best of the situation handed him. He leans towards his team but for the most part (ironically) he's just another faceless Washington player.
I was hoping for more vision, courage, and leadership.
If you're going to call someone out, actually base it on reality. If you call everyone generic names, your comments are meaningless.
Bachman, from what I've read, is not actually stupid. She seems extremely deluded or a great liar. Where cultural delusion turns into psychosis is anyone's guess. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:25
If you're quoting this as evidence for your claim that Bachmann is stupid, I have to disagree with you. The minimum wage is a terrible idea and a huge source of unemployment. Any econ 101 course will tell you that a price floor causes a surplus (in this case of labor.) Removing it wouldn't completely wipe out unemployment (there are other factors like frictional unemployment to consider), nor would it be a good thing for our economy to have 0% unemployment, but it would reduce it considerably. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:28
|
You also learn in Econ101 that people don't care if minimum wage has negative effects, they're going to support it anyway because they just always assumed it was good.
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:32
 ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:48
|
The sad part is that whether or not it is good or not, a person certainly isn't going to get rich working a minimum wage job, and without the minimum wage and various other labor laws, history shows that businesses have no qualms about working people 100 hours a week at $1 an hour or some such paltry thing. Why anybody would work for that is beyond me, but I guess if you need a job and that is the best that you can get... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:15
|
A person certainly isn't going to get rich with no job, and I don't see history saying any such thing.
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:22
|
Unfortunately, this is what you get without either a union or some sort of federal oversight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop" rel="nofollow - 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:24
In business, there is no room for morality. Morality is economic suicide. This will never change. It is trivial to convince oneself that morally-reprehensible actions are not so when there is gain to be had, and it is often trivial to convince others to act against their own interests. Were they allowed to do so, people would doubtlessly sell themselves into slavery for the good of their children, and others would have no qualms about accepting that servitude, even claiming that they do the world a service along the way. As long as we expect people to exploit every hole, we can have a very reliable and prosperous economic system. We just have to be cognizant of the realities. ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:27
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. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:30
And didn't the US already accumulated enough capital to phase out the sweatshops and no minimum wage approach? |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:31
| That's the lady claiming to be related to me, right ? These tea party politicians is not my kind of coffee. Too many tecnocrats with great ideas and no human touch. In the 1970s, we called these kind of politicians for marxist-leninists. It seems like the wheel has gone full circle again and these tecnocrats are back in fashion again. God save America........ from them. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:33
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. That is eventually how sweatshops were phased out. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:37
|
I have worked for no pay many times in my life, either because I wanted to gain experience or contacts or skills. In some cases it was technically illegal, because it violated minimum wage laws. When I decided that it no longer served my interest to work these jobs, I quit. Would I have been better off if the government prohibited me from making this choice?
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:37
Then why are you advocating them and no minimum wage? Did the capital vanish suddenly? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:39
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. They're unnecessary in the US because of our economic conditions. In developing countries the situation is much different. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:44
|
Basically the argument is we can hire one person and pay them $8 an hour, or we can hire some other person who is willing to work for $4 an hour, or someone like TheLlama who apparently is independently wealthy and can afford to work for free. The theory goes that with the $4 or $8 that we save we will be able to hire 1 or 2 more people at $4 an hour and thus decrease the unemployment rate. 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. The reality is, the business owner will probably add the $4 or $8 saved to his pocket and use it to spend on a new stereo system in his Beamer or some such thing, which I suppose will lead to an increase in Beamer stereo systems and therefore provide some other lucky fellow a $4 an hour job at the Beamer factory making stereos. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:47
So you in your mighty wisdom have decided that society is better off by having one person with no income and another person with a meager income rather than having two or three people with more meager incomes? I'm glad you were able to deduce that by an appeal to class warfare and a poor understanding of how businesses are actually run. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:47
|
Minimum wage just sounds fair, specially to those who have no idea or training in economics. But once you learn more about the mechanics of it and the market, you know it's just a political measure that sounds good and works well for politicians because people think they are getting a safe cushion from Nanny government. Oh, it might even be good for those already working, but for the unemployed, the people that need help the most, is terrible, because it eliminates jobs that they could take. ------------- 
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:49
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:49
It was a pseudo Jim Crow and ageist law on the state level that attempted to marginalize the unskilled blackworker to the gain of the skilled white worker and to throw the young out of employment since they were undercutting the wages of older workers with more political pull due to their voting demographic. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:50
It would appear not. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:50
Then why stop at $8? Why not make it $16? or $64? |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:51
-------------
|
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:51
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%.  ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:52
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. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:54
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. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:54
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. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date 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. " |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 10:59
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! -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:02
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
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). |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:03
Don't bother replying that kind of "argument" Scott. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:06
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. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:07
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. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date 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.  -------------
|
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:13
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.
------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:13
Who said supporting a policy with a deep impact on society is stupid?  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? |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:15
That is to say, CEO markets are hugely sheltered from the labor market at large. ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:15
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. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:19
If we all got together and robbed Tom Hanks we could buy mansions for everyone on ProgArchives ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:21
Exactly! You just admitted that raising minimum wage doesn't make people better off! -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:23
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. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:25
You:
I didn't claim they were related. Since construction workers tend to make well over the minimum wage, that's a strange example anyway. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:25
Where the minimum wage generally comes in is for jobs where the skillset is such that there are many suppliers that are available to provide that skillset so therefore the employer can have their pick of the litter and pay to the lowest bidder, so to speak. The minimum wage basically throws a bone to the "little man", but providing them with a wage that is greater than they might otherwise be able to obtain.
This is of course where your argument comes in. Why should an employer have to pay more than what the market would bear? And the answer is to give the "little man" a fighting chance.
What it truly comes down to is there are two extreme theories to what would or could happen, and the reality is that the result would probably fall somewhere in between. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:29
And my exact point is that the significant rise in wages was not due to minimum wage but due to the increase in the productive capability of each worker. Thanks for the econ101 lesson though. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:30
And who said that teens were the most important demographic to look at? I would think unskilled adults would be a more relevant sample. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:32
-------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:33
-------------
|
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:36
This is all an absurd red herring. Minimum wage, if set high enough, would directly cause dramatic unemployment (and hilarious government-imposed oligarchy along with it). However, there is no case in U.S. history where we've gone near that point. A simply way of arguing this would be that the labor demand curve is not terribly elastic at current minimum wage levels and the supply curve is not terribly elastic at high income levels (i.e. super-low tax rates on the wealthy don't create a commensurate increase in jobs). If you were to increase the minimum wage to $15/hr or the top tax rate back up to 90%, you'd certainly balloon unemployment and strangle economic growth.
First, as I said, I selected the very first database search result. Furthermore, teens are the group most likely to be working minimum-wage jobs and would therefore show the largest increase in unemployment. This is especially true if we are to argue that unskilled adults typically out-compete the teens for those jobs. In that case, you'd see the effect exclusively in teen employment until there were almost no teens employed. ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:37
So, where exactly am I saying that supporting a policy with deep impact on society is stupid?
I don't know who earns the minimum wage in the US. Replace construction worker with someone who fits. Explain me then how in general the fact that some people earn well (and safely above the minimum wage) creates a chance of doing the same for those whose condition puts them in the situation to only earn the minimum wage and would earn even less if the minimum wage was abolished. |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:38
First, as I said, that was the first result displayed, and second, you're the one just dismissing research because it disconfirms your belief. You want me to give you a complete literature review so you can just ignore that too? ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:42
I've read many conflicting studies as I was a staunch minimum wage supporter a few years ago. I have no qualms with admitting I'm wrong . ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:43
Yes and as I was saying I knew the answer so you missed the point of me posing the question. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:45
I must be going crazy because it's written right there.
I'm not sure where I made the argument that this occurs, but a society with one wealthy person and a ten poor has a better fighting chance than one with 11 poor people. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:51
It is certainly true that beliefs horribly color economic research. You can make economics say almost anything you want if you make the right assumptions. A propos, currently reading a rather odd critique of the wage-squeeze interpretation of Indonesia's economic problems. I see the demand-side arguments a lot more frequently these days. Only marginally related; came up with search results. If you happen to have access to the journal, Chowdhury, A. and Islam, I. (2011), A Critique of the Orthodox Approach to Indonesia's Growth and Employment Problems and Post Keynesian Alternatives. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70: 269–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2010.00771.x Nevertheless, I'm going to have to put this off as I have more pressing issues at the moment, but I will certainly see later how many conflicting arguments I can find and rejoin the debate in the Libertarian thread. My current understanding of the issue is pretty much what the last paper argued: minimum wage in the United States is too low to have a real impact on employment. Setting that out there, I'll see if I can't offer good evidence for and against. ------------- Hail Eris!
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 11:56
There where? I see something completely different. You're not going crazy, it's your debating manners who are at an historical low.
That's how I tried to explicit your position that said " If absence of minimum wage laws would cause a return to exceptionally low wages, why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?" I keep asking you to explicitate how would the possibility of earning more affect positively those who would earn less than the minimum wage if the minimum wage was abolished, but with no success so far |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:02
I've made the argument many times that minimum wage is set below the market level for almost all jobs so that the argument is really moot however as a policy it should still be discouraged. It's hard to argue against the fact that certain no skill, low paying jobs have been completely wiped out due to it. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:06
Is there a language barrier here? I quoted exactly what I'm referring to. You don't need to ask me where. I just don't see how what I quoted can be interpreted differently.
I wasn't trying to make that point. I was pointing out that clearly other things affect the determination of wage and that for that reason a return to sweatshop labor would not occur in the absence of minimum wage as you were claiming it would. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:18
I don't see how it could be interpreted like that. And I know there's no language barrier. That's how you want to interpret it, but that's obviously not what it's saying. I know what I said.
I didn't say everyone's earnings will go down if the minimum wage is abolished or diminished, but that those who earn the minimum wage will earn less, without them being able to do anything about it (here I'm not thinking of teenagers for whom badly paid jobs are a temporary source of income). I don't know if the degradation of their income would be as bad as in the sweatshop era, but I don't see how this degradation could be denied either, and be considered an improvement. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:20
Damn, I missed two pages of minimum wage debate just because of a silly little job interview!  In a nutshell: By increasing minimum wage, cost of living goes up. Companies must pay workers more, and so pass this cost onto the consumer by raising prices. The biggest argument against minimum wage is that it doesn't improve any group's situation (certainly not permanently). Minimum wage keeps going up, but the number of impoverished Americans doesn't decrease.  The only way the government can make minimum wage "work" is to cap how much businesses can charge for goods and services, and dictate what companies citizens must buy from. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:20
|
I think the confusion could all come down to a single letter - because I think I misread Alex's comment the exact same way. Alex said (with some punctuation added by me): "Her stupidity was established, then she was shown supporting a policy with deep impact on society" But I think Pat and I read it as "Her stupidity was established when she was shown supporting a policy with deep impact on society" |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:23
^ Does that comma make than much of a difference? 
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:25
|
EDIT: I'm done here. Textbook, you're a troll. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:26
The panda eats shoots and leaves. The panda eats, shoots, and leaves. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:28
Not those commas, my comma.  |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:29
Too late, I already saw what you posted. Good thing you deleted it, though. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:31
It would have helped. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:31
 It seemed witty at first. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:33
Yeah that's what did it. Good eye. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:34
It can. It unfortunately did in this case. My apologies. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:34
|
She's bathsh*t insane, a moron and more recently...proving to be another mindless, cookie cutter politician. End of that story. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:35
I'm not denying that some wages would go down. I'm saying that the decrease in wages would lead to an increase in employment. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:35
I thought we all knew that from his first few posts on this site |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:35
Sorry for suspecting you then... |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:36
You obviously didn't see my pre-edited post. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:37
|
I've done work as an independent contractor that amounted to less than $3 an hour. It made a difference for us, even if it was peanuts. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:38
Nope, thankfully I missed this thread until now. I don't even want to know whatever was said on those first 4 pages! |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:40
It was the usual PA srs bsns |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:47
So it would look at first glance, yes, but if companies were free to systematically and gradually downgrade the salaries of bottom tier employees, I don't see what would stop them. Sure, not all would do it; I don't think that if you had a high-street shop you'd do that to your cashier, but from what I know this type of employment was long ago replaced by corporate business and their practices. The question is: in this scenario, would their earning go so down as to not really make much of a difference if they're employed or not anymore? I think yes. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:53
I must confess I've also seen minimum wage presented as a "tool for eradicating poverty". I find that ridiculous, the only way to eradicate poverty is economic growth followed by a reasonably fair redistribution of the value created.
True, but can paid services be brought in the same discussion with permanent jobs? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:53
There really isn't a wage that makes no difference. In fact such a wage couldn't be offered since businesses would just go unemployed. The fact that companies want employees leads to a wage. There's no need to get too cute with the analysis. Businesses can't indefinitely decrease wages or they would for all jobs. The fact that the minimum wage is below market equilibrium in most cases suggests that companies can't do this. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 12:54
If it makes no difference whether they are employed or not, then there's no reason for them to take the job. Wages will have to rise beyond that point to induce them to do so. -------------
|