• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Minimum wage war is a fool's gold

Maybe you should learn the difference between history and theory first. I just explained to you that this has HISTORICALLY been the case during a recovery. First the "McJobs" and then eventually the better jobs start opening up more as the economy stabilizes. You can google up the "Bush Recovery" and "McJobs" if you want to educate yourself.

K. Show me, historically, and not during periods of anemic recovery (Bush 41/43) but actual rebounding such as Clinton, Reagan, Truman. Or all of them, which of course would be more telling.
 
K. Show me, historically, and not during periods of anemic recovery (Bush 41/43) but actual rebounding such as Clinton, Reagan, Truman. Or all of them, which of course would be more telling.

Use the Bush model since Bush's recovery most closely mirrors this one with similar policies and similar anemic results. You can't argue on one hand that the economy is vastly different today and then on the other hand demand to be shown how it's the same as it's always been with examples from the Clinton, Reagan or Truman times.
 
The Economy does not directly translate into Jobs. For example, NOW.

K. Show me, historically, and not during periods of anemic recovery (Bush 41/43) but actual rebounding such as Clinton, Reagan, Truman. Or all of them, which of course would be more telling.
 
Or the income statement, but your knew that...:lol:

As a rule, Income Statement are aggregated. P&Ls tend to go deeper, so execs (example: me for 3+ decades) can see where the joy and pain are coming from, in a bit more detail.
 
Use the Bush model since Bush's recovery most closely mirrors this one with similar policies and similar anemic results. You can't argue on one hand that the economy is vastly different today and then on the other hand demand to be shown how it's the same as it's always been with examples from the Clinton, Reagan or Truman times.

K. What are numbers? Either quintiles, or percent at FMW is okay, and might show if history supports your thesis. I'm all ears.
 
Cracked several books, pops. I actually used to believe exactly as you do. But times change. Old ideas are just that, old ideas.

Which isn't to say wrong. But the problem is ongoing. Decent paying jobs aren't being generated at the same rate as crap jobs. In fact, we've been LOSING more decent wage jobs than we've been gaining.

We're turning into a nation of retail workers, and unless we want to be a poverty stricken nation of retail workers, something needs to change, and fast.

Your arguments may be correct, but that has nothing to do with minimum wage rates, unless you're also taking the position that you want to be a nation of highly paid retail workers and only tourists from petro states can afford to buy your goods.

High wage demands is what drove a lot of your manufacturing base offshore in the first place.

People need to take a little more responsibility for their own lot in life. Instead of toking up behind the 7-11 it might be a better idea for America's youth to think ahead about what they want out of life and work towards getting it. I do blame my generation for a lot of the me-now entitlement attitude that smothers innovation and hard work and we've raised a whole generation of spoiled brats who expect to leave college with their liberal arts degree and jump right into a six figure job because they're entitled. It's up to the younger generation to break out and be better than the generation that raised them.
 
As a rule, Income Statement are aggregated. P&Ls tend to go deeper, so execs (example: me for 3+ decades) can see where the joy and pain are coming from, in a bit more detail.

Thank you for more bullet points from your CV. Very helpful on an anonymous blog.

So the questions remain unanswered. Any idea what the gross sales of an average McDonalds is per year?
 
The Economy does not directly translate into Jobs. For example, NOW.

Correct; Consumer Expenditure tracks to it like they're on rails, except during the New Deal, when government spending was disproportionately high compared to PCE.
 
K. What are numbers? Either quintiles, or percent at FMW is okay, and might show if history supports your thesis. I'm all ears.

That's the problem with lefties. Throw them a bone and they want you to do all their homework for them. Get off your ass and do your own research if you want to refute all the "McJobs" drivel that was rampant during the Bush recovery.
 
The number one employer in the US is Walmart. The next two are temp agencies that cater to cheap, temporary, day to day labor. 1/3 of all the jobs added since 08' are retail, or temp, or part time.

Ignore these facts or not, it's you choice, pops.

Walmart hires everything from software developers to truck drivers. Most americans are employed in management and professional occupations. If we're going to talk about facts, then you should include all of them.
 
It's always the low-end jobs that are created first. Same thing happened during the Bush "jobless recovery"... once the jobs started being created, all the lefties were sniveling that they were all burger fllipping jobs. Eventually, they had to quit crying about that, too, because as the economy started to get it's equilibrium, the full range of jobs began opening up again.

Don't fret so much about the minimum wage jobs. They'll always be a very small part of our economy just like they are now (only about 3 percent of all jobs are minimum wage).
Isn't that...the opposite of trickle down?

How exactly are low wage jobs created before means of production?
 
Maybe you should learn the difference between history and theory first. I just explained to you that this has HISTORICALLY been the case during a recovery. First the "McJobs" and then eventually the better jobs start opening up more as the economy stabilizes. You can google up the "Bush Recovery" and "McJobs" if you want to educate yourself.
So, what you're saying is, when the lower end workers have more capital, our economy improves?



Good to know.
 
So to summarize, liberals want to force wage rates because:

1. Because they also force high redistribution on the welfare, unemployment, ss/mc side, you get to choose between democrat agenda A (pay welfare), or democrat agenda B (raise labor costs). What a brilliant false choice!

2. Have respect for entry-level wage earners!
... do we even need to address such an absurd comment?

3. Many if not most min wage earners are not college kids/students. This is true, min wage jobs are primarily low-skilled, entry-level jobs. It's a great fit for young kids who are getting their first job, or for someone who wants to just earn some money while working on their job skills or school, or a recently divorced individual who now has to enter the work force...you have to start somewhere. Interesting but hardly a justification for forcing private business to pay more for labor based on political pandering.

4. What happens if these are the only jobs hiring?
When this fantasy occurs (pigs fly), let us know. Until then, stop posting such irrelevant clutter.
If the fantasy were true and the only jobs hiring were min wage, people would be leaving in droves to other countries, likely developing ones who need skilled individuals and have a market for it. You know, like the Rest of the ****ING WORLD DID WHEN THEY IMMIGRATED TO THE U.S. Funny because if immigration was OK for them, why is it not OK for you to leave to go to the fantasy land where low skilled labor is highly valued in the marketplace?

5. The game is rigged!
The loser's motto?

==================
What's really sad is that liberals are posting stats like average age for min wage workers is 29 years old. Why do you condone, promote, and otherwise not first and foremost want to change a culture where people YOU PERSONALLY think should earn more, are working at ****ing min wage jobs at twenty nine ****ing years old? The libertarian response is "They are free to do it, stop telling them they don't make enough". The liberal response is brilliant, using taxpayer dollars to buy votes rather than their own money...
 
Thank you for more bullet points from your CV. Very helpful on an anonymous blog.

So the questions remain unanswered. Any idea what the gross sales of an average McDonalds is per year?

No. Not without googling it.
 
Folks here is a great example of what
I'm trying to say here!!

This guy took his time to write this fart ...rather than have a decent conversation....why should congress change when their supporters want exactly that?
I mean ..he really worked at this fart didn't he? Woo---wooo ...you got me ...I'm going to try and outwork your fart!! :lamo

This is exactly whats happening to the country ....and the problem is sssooo much more acute on the right.

While the left may be misled....like I pointed out in this thread ....the people on the right are in this constant attack mode ...always ready to cut off their dam nose to spite their face!!! They never miss an opportunity!!


Y'all know what ........go ahead ...keep screwing each other over ...and tear down up the country...I'll stand back!!

There is so much gap ...in the intelligence within the average Chinese than there is in Americans ....and they (Chinese) will soon be "the worlds only super power for it!!

Spoken like someone who shoots from the hip and has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

The Chinese STILL have to hack into our military mainframes in order to advance technologically.

You have to ask yourself WHY ???

What about their specific culture doesn't allow them to rise above on their own ?

You need to educate yourself on China.

They're worried sick about the health of their consumers because they have. BILLION people hundreds of millions of their citizens.
 
Last edited:
That's the problem with lefties. Throw them a bone and they want you to do all their homework for them. Get off your ass and do your own research if you want to refute all the "McJobs" drivel that was rampant during the Bush recovery.

I guess our problem is when folks say they know economics, and that others need to crack open a book; and then speak about historical numbers being this or that, they can with ease cite the numbers they're speaking of and not have to dance around dodging questions.

Tip: making **** up is not the same as cracking a book and learning about economics.
 
I guess our problem is when folks say they know economics, and that others need to crack open a book; and then speak about historical numbers being this or that, they can with ease cite the numbers they're speaking of and not have to dance around dodging questions.

Tip: making **** up is not the same as cracking a book and learning about economics.

It is what it is. This is the second round of "recovery" led by low-paying jobs being the majority of the new jobs "created". Or maybe you're saying that the democrats were lying when they were accusing the early stages of the Bush recovery being nothing but McJobs. If you think they were lying, go ahead and kick their arses. they deserve it. If you don't think they were lying, then stop naysaying just for the sake of political posturing.

The low-end jobs come first. They're the most affordable. It only makes sense. If you want to contradict, post numbers. Don't just sit there and tell me to "go fetch". Go find another sucker for that.
 
It is what it is. This is the second round of "recovery" led by low-paying jobs being the majority of the new jobs "created". Or maybe you're saying that the democrats were lying when they were accusing the early stages of the Bush recovery being nothing but McJobs. If you think they were lying, go ahead and kick their arses. they deserve it. If you don't think they were lying, then stop naysaying just for the sake of political posturing.

The low-end jobs come first. They're the most affordable. It only makes sense. If you want to contradict, post numbers. Don't just sit there and tell me to "go fetch". Go find another sucker for that.

Good info. Thanks. But once again, what's your source on that?
 
PS, Papa: books about economics tend to delve more into theory, occasionally citing aggregate stats in support of them.

So if you'd ever cracked such a book yourself, you could with ease offer one or the other, if not both.
 
Good info. Thanks. But once again, what's your source on that?

History. I lived through the Bush Recovery and all the political debates of the time. I guess you didn't. Or you have a short memory. Those are the two explanations that give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't seem like the type to follow the herd and just pretend you forgot all about the Bush recovery like most democrats are doing. Remember the sequence? Maybe if I remind you?

Stages of recovery.

1. Democrats shrieked "well wall street might have recovered but where are the jobs".

2. Democrats shrieked "well, OK, unemployment is down but all the jobs are minimum wage".

3. Democrats mumbled.... uh... nevermind the economy, let's talk about Iraq some more.
 
It is what it is. This is the second round of "recovery" led by low-paying jobs being the majority of the new jobs "created". Or maybe you're saying that the democrats were lying when they were accusing the early stages of the Bush recovery being nothing but McJobs. If you think they were lying, go ahead and kick their arses. they deserve it. If you don't think they were lying, then stop naysaying just for the sake of political posturing.

The low-end jobs come first. They're the most affordable. It only makes sense. If you want to contradict, post numbers. Don't just sit there and tell me to "go fetch". Go find another sucker for that.

I don't know about that.

The overall unemployment rate might be relatively high but the unemployment rate for people with a bachelors degree or better is relatively low and I don't know how much lower it is really going to go.
 
PS, Papa: books about economics tend to delve more into theory, occasionally citing aggregate stats in support of them.

So if you'd ever cracked such a book yourself, you could with ease offer one or the other, if not both.

Ditto. Apparently you don't know the numbers of the types of jobs that were created during the Bush recovery. Hint: it was "news" for awhile that it was primarily low paying jobs. Just like we have during these early stages of the anemic "Obama recovery".
 
I don't know about that.

The overall unemployment rate might be relatively high but the unemployment rate for people with a bachelors degree or better is relatively low and I don't know how much lower it is really going to go.

My point is that it's normal at this stage for low end jobs to be the ones being added. As the economy gets stronger and there's more demand for labor, better jobs will become available. It's simple supply and demand.
 
Back
Top Bottom