If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Massachusetts sets the state minimum wage to $11, suck it red state workers   (money.cnn.com) divider line 279
    More: Cool, Massachusetts, minimum wages, highest state  
•       •       •

736 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2014 at 2:45 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-20 09:45:08 PM  

mrshowrules: sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.

It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.


Happy Friday!

Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).
 
2014-06-20 09:48:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.


Do you have an example in the world or history of a thriving economy with no wage floors?
 
2014-06-20 09:48:45 PM  

mrshowrules: t made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also


I wish I had weed D:

Being sober sucks ass
 
2014-06-20 09:52:51 PM  
Also, totally off topic, but, this idea that welfare makes a dependent class...  (REALTIME DRUNK OBSERVATION)

Did you know that feral and wild cats don't typically meow?

But my house cat does.  See, meowing is a trick that cats learn to get our attention.

And he licks me.  Purrs.  Cuddles up on me.  As far as he's concerned, I'm mom.  Or God.  Or whatever.  I'm the one that keeps him from having to suffer in the cold, and he knows it.  He was a stray.  I keep him fed and warm, and he meows and purrs.

Is the idea that people that need help, and should be kept  from suffering in the cold so, uh, insufferable, that people believe we should, because then they'd be dependent?

If I tossed my cat out, and gave him the freedom of independence!  He'd be OK.  He's a good mouser.  He'd survive.

But now he's fat and happy.  Can't we come up with a system where everyone is fat and happy?  We can still leave the door open for those that want to brave the wilderness with their bootstraps.

OK, yeah, I'm kinda plowed.
 
2014-06-20 09:56:26 PM  
As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.
 
2014-06-20 10:00:39 PM  

cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.


How does that work out in the end?   Some states pay much better wages.  Competition good!

People leave the poor paying states to move to the better paying states.

The poor paying states wither, because no one is left to pay taxes, everyone is poor, except the very rich, who don't have to pay taxes.

These poor states need to be subsidized by the richer states.

Oh, yeah that's what already happens.
 
2014-06-20 10:06:03 PM  

sendtodave: mrshowrules: sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.

It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.

Happy Friday!

Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).


Happy Friday unto you.  Capitalism is a tool useful for the distribution of resources.  Socialism is another tool for the same thing.  One tool is good for one thing and bad for another.  Neither should be a goal in and of itself.  The goals is prosperity or at least it should be.
 
2014-06-20 10:09:42 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.

Who's that?


Sorry, DSC. Damn keyboard.
 
2014-06-20 10:11:34 PM  

cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.


Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.
 
2014-06-20 10:21:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.

Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.


That's right. I can move to another state.

If Massachusetts wants a big tax and spend government why should I here in No State Income Tax Texas and care one way or the other?
 
2014-06-20 10:22:36 PM  

mrshowrules: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

Do you have an example in the world or history of a thriving economy with no wage floors?


Industrial revolution United States. But dumb and irrelevant question anyway.
 
2014-06-20 10:23:48 PM  

sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.


I'd have to be pretty damn drunk to think that was a coherent statement.
 
2014-06-20 10:25:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.

They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.


Jesus cripes. "Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."
 
2014-06-20 10:28:43 PM  

cchris_39: cameroncrazy1984: cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.

Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.

That's right. I can move to another state.

If Massachusetts wants a big tax and spend government why should I here in No State Income Tax Texas and care one way or the other?


Because you're also American. Maybe you should move to a country that is smaller?
 
2014-06-20 10:29:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.

They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.

Jesus cripes. "Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."


So basically you have no logical response to that statement. Is that right?
 
2014-06-20 10:31:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But dumb and irrelevant question anyway.


Yeah, dumb and irrelevant because you can't defend the effects of the below-poverty wages on the population.
 
2014-06-20 11:14:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


Take what you can!  Give nothing back!  A pirate's life for us!

Seriously though.  A minimum wage exists to keep the little guy from getting fleeced.  You know this.  The economy in general does better when lots of people are working, lots of people are buying things, and lots of people are paying taxes.

If the wages go up by law businesses will have to get bootstrappy.  You know, the American way.

/the rest of your rhetoric is also old and busted.
 
2014-06-21 12:28:16 AM  
If the GOP were smart, they would concede to a raise in the minimum wage to Reagan-era equivalents, and then permanently tie it to inflation.

By letting it lag behind, it lets the Democrats occasionally raise the issue as one of fairness, and it also undermines the notion that lowering the minimum wage somehow improves the economy.  Because it's not inflation-adjusted, it's constantly being lowered without legislative action, and the GOP will inevitably lose every time it comes up provided the Democrats time it right.

It's like constantly slow-walking a guaranteed win to your political opponent and then acting shocked and outraged when they keep bashing you over the head with it at fairly regular intervals.
 
2014-06-21 03:19:24 AM  

jaerik: If the GOP were smart, they would...


Yeah I see the problem right there.
The argument that prices are intrinsically tied to the wages of the lowest earning workers is crazy. Every fiscal conservative should understand that prices are set where "the market will bear." That's your favorite catchphrase. The reason a burger cost say $4.25 is because that's what enough people are willing to pay for it. If he raises prices he doesn't make more money to cover increased costs, he makes less money because he's not selling burgers. If Bob could sell as many burgers for five bucks, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He's not waiting for an increase in minimum wage to make a bigger profit margin. But he can't, because there is not enough demand. This fact does not change when there is a change in overhead.
The GOP wants to make the argument that with an increase in cost, a businessman will set his prices so high that nobody can afford them anymore. Shame, just when the working poor get some spare cash to invest in the community grill, suddenly nobody can buy anything! All those hungry customers will be wandering around town with pockets full of useless money.
 
2014-06-21 03:53:40 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: The Massachusetts bill also raised the subminimum base wage for tipped workers to $3.75 from $2.63 currently.

Even that is an embarrassment but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I guess.


And thanks to Obamacare, you can get that eye poke treated now without going BK.
Yay
 
2014-06-21 04:32:54 AM  

Ablejack: The argument that prices are intrinsically tied to the wages of the lowest earning workers is crazy. Every fiscal conservative should understand that prices are set where "the market will bear." That's your favorite catchphrase. The reason a burger cost say $4.25 is because that's what enough people are willing to pay for it. If he raises prices he doesn't make more money to cover increased costs, he makes less money because he's not selling burgers. If Bob could sell as many burgers for five bucks, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He's not waiting for an increase in minimum wage to make a bigger profit margin. But he can't, because there is not enough demand. This fact does not change when there is a change in overhead.
The GOP wants to make the argument that with an increase in cost, a businessman will set his prices so high that nobody can afford them anymore. Shame, just when the working poor get some spare cash to invest in the community grill, suddenly nobody can buy anything! All those hungry customers will be wandering around town with pockets full of useless money.


Please tack this post to the top of the next ten minimum wage threads thank you and good night.
 
2014-06-21 08:04:52 AM  

SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.


I make 11 dollars an hour, and can more or less get by.

I can't imagine what it would be like to make 25.

I wish I lived in your world.
 
2014-06-21 08:44:23 AM  
So if the minimum wage worker gets a raise up to $11.00
 Then isn't the supervisor entitled to a raise for their superior skills and responsibility.
Let's not forget the plant manager .
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-21 10:17:04 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: So if the minimum wage worker gets a raise up to $11.00
 Then isn't the supervisor entitled to a raise for their superior skills and responsibility.
Let's not forget the plant manager .
[img.fark.net image 259x194]


Or have a minimum wage and a maximum wage; no more than, say, 15x (Just the first random number that came to mind) what the lowest-paid worker in the company makes. Want a higher salary? Pay your employees more. Or, if you're so "superior", you can figure out other ways to make more money.
 
2014-06-21 12:55:47 PM  

ginandbacon: $11 in most of Mass won't get you far, but this is a start.


That's why many MA workers live in NH instead.
 
2014-06-21 01:46:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

In the meantime, what is our minimum wage worker supposed to eat? Bootstraps? Unicorn steaks?

Do you even externalities, bro?

Whatever he eats isn't the concern of the economist. If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages.



I think an actual, honest, completely aboveboard and transparent federal wage subsidy for American citizens might be better than setting a minimum wage for employers. It would (I think) make labor less "sticky," so people would be freer to move to where better-paying jobs are.

But since I am not one that thinks a program should be rolled out to the nation on a guess, I think we could start giving people in Mississippi a 7.25/hr wage subsidy (in addition to whatever their employer pays) -- paid for by taxes, of course -- instead of unemployment compensation and a minimum wage, and see what happens to employment. If it doesn't work -- hey, it's Mississippi. We can always try another experiment.
 
2014-06-21 01:51:03 PM  

aevorea: ginandbacon: $11 in most of Mass won't get you far, but this is a start.

That's why many MA workers live in NH instead.


..and get socked with ridiculous property taxes and fees for everything.  One the balance sheet COL is pretty much the same in both states.  Rents are actually higher than in most of MA when compared to similar property values.

But most people don't really move to NH after doing a deep cost/benefit analysis on taxes.  It's more cultural and being able to wag your finger at that other group. 

Which is stupid, since New England is a tight regional economy and very dependent on each other.
 
2014-06-21 03:14:39 PM  

doczoidberg: SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.

I make 11 dollars an hour, and can more or less get by.

I can't imagine what it would be like to make 25.

I wish I lived in your world.


You both do. That's part of the problem with that attitude.
 
2014-06-21 11:27:16 PM  

sendtodave: Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).


You know how I can tell you never took anthropology?
 
Displayed 29 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report