That is possible! I like you and respect you and even agree with you on some goals but your methods are not my methods.
I sometimes feel like Koheleth "Vanity of vanities. All is vanity".
We joust at issues which are likely unresolveable.
Fast Food workers protest and demand more money.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
That is possible! I like you and respect you and even agree with you on some goals but your methods are not my methods.
I sometimes feel like Koheleth "Vanity of vanities. All is vanity".
We joust at issues which are likely unresolveable.
And that response is the reason that, despite our differences, you're still one of my favorites around here.
Don't worry about it, Stripe. I don't think you are going to understand what I'm saying.
lain:
Last edited:
I was just asking you to quote the point Yorzhik had made that you were emphasizing. :idunno:
Thanks Dearie! I hate the polarization that seems to creep into any attempt to resolve the problems which beset our nation.
I am fiscally conservative but not stingy or grudging in my willingness to help those in need.
There is the necessity to look at immediate needs and how meeting them will work in the long term.
I'm totally with you, there.
I get that, I really do. The thing is, the economic case for keeping the minimum wage up is really pretty strong, and the costs are actually pretty small. I don't have a problem with legitimate ideological differences, but this is a case where what a lot of conservatives are saying will happen...just hasn't, historically.
Totally agreed there.
Well, he seemed to be arguing that in all cases, more government is worse than less government. Which seems to imply that the less government there is, the better, which if you take it to its logical conclusion, ends in anarchy. If that isn't what he was saying, I'd love to know what it was.
Perhaps if you responded to what he actually said rather than what he "seemed" to say, you wouldn't be so prone to creating straw men. :up:
how about "generally, less government is better than more government"?
I am fully aware that many of my comments on this website are often deliberately ignored. It seems to be because of the cognitive dissonance I try to evoke.
Also, Jesus of Nazareth had a lot to say about hypocrisy.
Imperial, militaristic Christianity has not yet found a reasonable way to respond to the Jesus revealed in the New Testament.
My post said that automation is not a viable possibility at this time. Outsourcing is still used to increase corporate profits.
It would seem to indicate that, wouldn't it? But the evidence against such a conclusion is out in the open. It is not math, per se, but it is the ways in which that math is used.
Higher salaries in the workforce are not really tied to the profitability of corporate interests"
From:
http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2014-03-10/will-minimum-wage-increase-cause-job-loss
Washington state is a good state to look at. They have higher wages, a higher minimum wage (and focus on this: they tie it to the cost of living, which means their minimum wage will automatically increase with the increase in the cost of living), but across the whole state, these factors are not offset by a higher cost of living.
In 2012, Virginia came in second and Colorado, third. These are the best places in the country to live and work, in terms of having a job, keeping a job, and making a living wage.
The question now is how Washington state can pay more and can have a higher minimum wage and not go down the tubes for it. Experts say that a higher minimum wage will increase spending, which will increase profit, which will increase investment, which will increase jobs, which will increase production…. and the cycle continues to be positive.
The only thing I think might be true about job loss requires me to think negatively about peoples motives. Would a business man who wants less regulation and lower taxes deliberately stop investing in a big way, making it appear the threat of higher taxes and regulations would hurt job growth? Would these business leaders be sitting back and saying, “When we get a Republican in office, we’ll pull out all that cash we’re sitting on and ramp up growth in investments and jobs.”
In other words, are big business leaders politically motivated in their decisions regarding investment and hiring? Apparently, business leaders in Washington—a blue state—do not do that.
PureX
Well-known member
I think what troubles me so much is that they ARE resolvable. They ARE being resolved by other nations. Some have even been resolved by this nation in the past. The one problem we can't seem to resolve is the massive deluge of deliberate lies and misinformation being spread by an ever-present media that obeys no rule but the rule of egotism and profit. The solutions to a lot of our nation's problems are just awaiting implementation. And yet all that happens is … nothing. Because the government is completely plugged up by corporate bribe money and insane partisan infighting. And the more frustrated we all become, the more we each blame the "other side", which is exactly what both sides want us to do, so they can do nothing, and worse than nothing, and not have to face their responsibility for it.
The problem is not government. The problem is the corruption of government. And that's a problem that we the people are supposed to be checking and correcting, but we can't so long as they keep us blaming each other and those "other guys" in office.
musterion
Well-known member
Very interesting. Sorry if it's already been linked. How Democrats use the MW issue to exploit the poor
I'm not sure what else he could be saying. And there's no real way to find out without asking him to clarify. I assume he isn't completely against government, despite what he said, but I figure he'll say so if that's the case.
Nope, and where you got that, i have no idea.
Excellent article.
journey
New member
Yes, I vote for this.
:AMR:
Yep.
Christians are defined by their acceptance of Jesus Christ as risen Lord and savior. There are no other varieties of Christian.
Yeah, and it is still irrelevant.
Oh, yeah?
You could just read the words. :up:
whitestone
Well-known member
I thought this was kind of neat,, http://www.1960sflashback.com/1960/economy.asp "If you click at the top of the page 1970,80,90,ect.,,and follow the food,gas prices ect. and then compare them to the min. wage http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm and match them with each other is gives a good picture of what happens each time the minimum wage is raised.
Now so what will raising it to 15.00 hr.,well probably the same that happened each time they ever raise it,that is within a few years the prices will all creep up and they will need to raise it again,,till were at (372.57 an hour and paying 223.00 a gallon for gas?),,,,
I think how ever the media shows it to us we either decide to take side A or side B on all these decisions it's kind of like that on every subject they show e.g. "is he guilty or not guilty?" one station will show us all the dirt if they believe and want us to believe he is. If a news station thinks he is innocent they will only show the news that proves he is innocent( He meaning any of the stories we saw on t.v.),,,
If they want us to vote for candidate A,then they show us good things about him and bad stuff about his competition, the next channel will do just the opposite if they like the other but they will always give us (two options A&B),,,and never show us (option C),,"because they don't want us to see it as an option",,,
So in the end in 1928 the min. wage was .25 an hour at 40 hours,so 10.00 a week,,today it's 7.25 at 40 hours a week,,so 290.00 a week,,,,,,,and what did it do,,,you cant buy anything more or anything less.,,,,,,,,,,,"WE GOTTA LOOK AT OPTION C,,THE ONE THEIR NOT TELLING US ABOUT",,,
Now so what will raising it to 15.00 hr.,well probably the same that happened each time they ever raise it,that is within a few years the prices will all creep up and they will need to raise it again,,till were at (372.57 an hour and paying 223.00 a gallon for gas?),,,,
I think how ever the media shows it to us we either decide to take side A or side B on all these decisions it's kind of like that on every subject they show e.g. "is he guilty or not guilty?" one station will show us all the dirt if they believe and want us to believe he is. If a news station thinks he is innocent they will only show the news that proves he is innocent( He meaning any of the stories we saw on t.v.),,,
If they want us to vote for candidate A,then they show us good things about him and bad stuff about his competition, the next channel will do just the opposite if they like the other but they will always give us (two options A&B),,,and never show us (option C),,"because they don't want us to see it as an option",,,
So in the end in 1928 the min. wage was .25 an hour at 40 hours,so 10.00 a week,,today it's 7.25 at 40 hours a week,,so 290.00 a week,,,,,,,and what did it do,,,you cant buy anything more or anything less.,,,,,,,,,,,"WE GOTTA LOOK AT OPTION C,,THE ONE THEIR NOT TELLING US ABOUT",,,