- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,932
- Reaction score
- 657
- Location
- Shady Dale, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
sadly that is true from what I have seen.
getting paid 10 dollars for not really having any job skills is not a bad gig.
Reinforced with the opinion of a doer vs a bunch of people that have never left college and keep getting paid to preach to a new crop of debt ridden wide eyed suckerfish? Yes....I'll take the opinion of a man that knows what he is talking about because he has done it vs the opinion of a college professor that believes he knows what he is talking about any day.Those arent opinions. Those are facts.
So you decry opinions (which are actually facts of the matter at Berkley), but reinforce that with opinions? :lamo
:lamo
Keep on ignoring the overreaching points I presented.
Reinforced with the opinion of a doer vs a bunch of people that have never left college and keep getting paid to preach to a new crop of debt ridden wide eyed suckerfish? Yes....I'll take the opinion of a man that knows what he is talking about because he has done it vs the opinion of a college professor that believes he knows what he is talking about any day.
Oh yes! I forgot we must now ignore research and analysis of economists now!? :lamo Your argument is falling a part before your eyes!Reinforced with the opinion of a doer vs a bunch of people that have never left college and keep getting paid to preach to a new crop of debt ridden wide eyed suckerfish? Yes....
:lamoI'll take the opinion of a man that knows what he is talking about because he has done it vs the opinion of a college professor that believes he knows what he is talking about any day.
In those same article you personally are citing they are stating there isnt anywhere near enough time, research, and data to draw ANY of cthe conclusions of gain you are crowing about. You seek confirmation bias from like minded socialist 'theorists' because it is what you want to hear. And yes...we cant stress and emphasize enough...you seek your counsel from theorists...people that arent actual DOING anything.Oh yes! I forgot we must now ignore research and analysis of economists now!? :lamo Your argument is falling a part before your eyes!
Also you do realize this debate is about BERKELEY CALIFORNIA and if the RAISE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE is the REASON FOR THESE EMPLOYEES BEING FIRED
:lamo
1.)These two statements: "1.)UC "employs about 100,000 nonteaching staffers, most of whom already earn much more than $15 an hour" and finally 2.)Was paid for by "parking fees, hospital revenues and bookstore sales." are not opinions
2.)This is also not an opinion, this is making a statement of fact based off reports and analyis from cities who have raised their minimum wage "Reports from cities that have adopted significantly higher minimum wages in recent yearshave shown that higher wages have been manageable for businesses and have not led tolayoffs or slowed job growth.In both San Jose and San Francisco, for example, jobs in the restaurant industry grew fasterafter the minimum wage was increased than they did in surrounding cities and counties thatdid not raise wages. In SeaTac, Washington—the first city in the United States to fully transitionto a $15 minimum wage for workers in the hospitality and travel industries—predictedlayoffs and expansion-plan cancellations did not materialize, and in fact some business owners,who were previously opposed to the wage increase, have expanded operations. And inSeattle, which began phasing-in its $15 minimum wage in April 2015, initial signs are positive.The Seattle region’s unemployment rate hit an eight-year low of 3.6 percent in August2015, significantly lower that the state unemployment rate of 5.3 percent." 404 Not Found
But wait, I thought raising the wage would decrease jobs. So far we have not seen that. So now your excuse is "just give it more time". You are pulling out a lot of excuses for here.In those same article you personally are citing they are stating there isnt anywhere near enough time, research, and data to draw ANY of cthe conclusions of gain you are crowing about.
:lamo Oh boy. I forgot anyone that disagrees with you or presents facts that go against your narrative are the scary "s" wordYou seek confirmation bias from like minded socialist 'theorists' because it is what you want to hear.
This isnt a ****ing theorist! This is an economic analysis! :lamoAnd yes...we cant stress and emphasize enough...you seek your counsel from theorists...people that arent actual DOING anything.
Who would you turn to for employment?But wait, I thought raising the wage would decrease jobs. So far we have not seen that. So now your excuse is "just give it more time". You are pulling out a lot of excuses for here.
:lamo Oh boy. I forgot anyone that disagrees with you or presents facts that go against your narrative are the scary "s" word
This isnt a ****ing theorist! This is an economic analysis! :lamo
Also you do realize this debate is about BERKELEY CALIFORNIA and if the RAISE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE is the REASON FOR THESE EMPLOYEES BEING FIRED?
Who would you turn to for employment?
The question literally has everything to do with the conversation. You turn to theorists for your beliefs. Should you ever want an actual 'job' you wont be finding that job from the theorists and you might be better served listening to those that actually have real world knowledge and experience.This question literally has nothing to do with my post.
An economic analysis of a current situation is not theory.The question literally has everything to do with the conversation. You turn to theorists for your beliefs.
I have an actual job.Should you ever want an actual 'job' you wont be finding that job from the theorists and you might be better served listening to those that actually have real world knowledge and experience.
You continue to ignore the majority of the post :applaudJust sayin....
Is your employer a socialist? Is he a theorist?An economic analysis of a current situation is not theory.
I have an actual job.
You continue to ignore the majority of the post :applaud
No. My employer is a labor organization and I also do self employed work as well.Is your employer a socialist?
No.Is he a theorist?
Who would you turn to for employment?
Its a theoretical offering by an advocacy group trying to prove its points by cherry picking parts of articles while ignoring the rest. "It will be seven years before the $15 wage is fully in place. So far, at least, “you do not see prices up or jobs going away,” he acknowledged. “Seattle is having a construction boom so there’s a feeling of prosperity.” In their own sourced article, there is zero possibility of analyzing change because it hasnt yet occurred, and the employment climate is impacted by NOT minimum wage jobs.No. My employer is a labor organization and I also do self employed work as well.
No.
Also the paper you are getting held up on is not a theoretical paper. Its a fact sheet that analyzes trends and evidence. A cause (the minimum wage being raised) and effect (based off evidence what has it done to employment, etc). That is not "theory".
Do you even understand what "theory" is?Its a theoretical offering by an advocacy group trying to prove its points by cherry picking parts of articles while ignoring the rest.
And did you miss the rest of the cities they analyzed?"It will be seven years before the $15 wage is fully in place. So far, at least, “you do not see prices up or jobs going away,” he acknowledged. “Seattle is having a construction boom so there’s a feeling of prosperity.” In their own sourced article, there is zero possibility of analyzing change because it hasnt yet occurred, and the employment climate is impacted by NOT minimum wage jobs.
i think there's serious misunderstanding about the idea behind a living wage. It isn't to force companies to hire X # of workers. We assume they hire as few as possible no matter the wage, but that they should have to pay those they do hire a living wage. Thus a living wage cannot impact the # of workers, except maybe at bloated bureucracies. This is why seattle saw hardly any layoffs and no real price increase other than restaurants
A "living wage" is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that is not realistically attainable. What is a living wage, forcing McDonalds to pay $15.00 per hour to workers working 15-20 hours per week? Is $300 per week a living wage? What's next, a law outlawing part time jobs so that people really will be earning a living wage? Prices will rise in response to increases in the minimum wage, meaning that the poor will be spending more money wherever they go to shop or need services performed. The minimum wage is called the minimum wage for a reason - because it is the minimum needed to get by with. The minimum wage, no matter what it is, will never be a living wage, hence chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The left is in fantasy land if they think that companies already paying $20 per hour will raise their wages even higher in response to the minimum wage increase, meaning that the middle class will fall farther behind than they are now. What about high school kids graduating soon? Why go through all that hard work in going to college and taking on student loans if they can earn a living wage working at McDonalds right out of high school? What about automation cutting down jobs? For every action there is a reaction. The left wants to bury their heads in the sand and think that jobs lost to automation were going to happen anyway so they totally discount them, as if their liberal policies had absolutely nothing to do with pushing employers in this direction.
Our min wage was over $10/hr (adjusted for inflation) during the late 1960's. Are we not a richer more productive society today than we were then?
Why shouldn't all income classes share in our wealth? The rich certainly benefit from the technology improvements and infrastructure improvements that have been going on for well over a hundred years, do you resent the rich being wealthier also?
Not understanding your post. If our minimum wage is less now (adjusted for inflation) than in the 1960's, and we are a richer more productive society, what is it you want - a poorer, more non-productive society? Doesn't that tell you something all by itself?
"The rich certainly benefit from the technology improvements and infrastructure improvements that have been going on for well over a hundred years" - so? They paid for more of that than John and Jane Doe did!
I am jealous of the rich too but that's what this is all about, bottom line. The poor are jealous of the rich. At least admit that much. Just because I'm jealous of the rich doesn't mean it is their job to take care of me. I'm jealous of lottery winners. I'm jealous of doctors and lawyers. I'm jealous of sports superstars and Hollywood. I had my chance, just as every American does. I chose not to be a sports superstar or a movie star or a doctor or a lawyer. I didn't even try so I have no business forcing them to make up for my mistakes or my life choices. If I wanted it I should have gone for it. I didn't. My problem.
You and others who fight against increases in the minimum wage, including some who would like to see even the base rate abolished, are doing little more than fighting for a return to the "Good Ol' Days" of feudal servitude, of no public education for the poor, no public welfare system of any type - in fact too many who are supporting Trump would be among those most greatly affected by some of the measures he and others are advocating - though in their ignorance they refuse to accept such a reality.
You and others who fight against increases in the minimum wage, including some who would like to see even the base rate abolished, are doing little more than fighting for a return to the "Good Ol' Days" of feudal servitude, of no public education for the poor, no public welfare system of any type - in fact too many who are supporting Trump would be among those most greatly affected by some of the measures he and others are advocating - though in their ignorance they refuse to accept such a reality.
That's just not true. The free market determines the true minimum wage. You won't find many McDonalds or Walmarts anywhere paying $7.25 per hour because the free market shows them that they can't hire people for that. You're crazy if you think the right wants no education for the poor. In fact, we want the exact opposite. We want the poor to be educated so they don't make all the stupid mistakes they make now, with many dropping out of school or not going to college. The more educated they are the less we have to pay in government programs. I know of almost no one on the right, except for maybe Libertarians, who want to abolish welfare. We just want to get people off and working and eliminate the fraud, not keep them in an endless cycle of poverty, carried down from generation to generation.
Nice to know you support "education" but I constantly read rants from many who label themselves conservative, about our public education system and how we taxpayers shouldn't be spending so much of our money on those liberal indoctrination centers. Too many GOP-controlled legislatures are shifting public funds to charter schools run by for-profit focused corporations or to schools focused on certain religious beliefs.
A much larger amount is spent(wasted) on corporate subsidies and tax breaks than on welfare fraud.
We shouldn't be using tax payer money to finance liberal or conservative education. It should be for education period and keep the politics out of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?