So, You Want $15 An Hour?

[Into the Night]

It takes morals for communism to work. That is why we resort to Capitalism.

Communism doesn't work. It is theft. That is not moral.

 

[Into the Night]

Neither do I, but what're you gonna do?

You don't get to decide how to spend Besos' money.

Make it illegal to be wealthy?

Communism doesn't work. It is theft.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will only result in businesses raising their prices and passing the expense on to the rest of us.

Fascism doesn't work. It is also theft. Price controls do not work. They always cause shortages.

Plus, it hurts small, local businesses who already operate on thin margins.

A lot fewer of those, thanks to Democrats.

AFAIC, there should be an age cutoff. For the full minimum, there should be a minimum age requirement of 21. From 18 to 21 could be $10 an hour. Under 18 would stay where it is.

Price controls don't work. They always cause shortages.

Better to just raise taxes on the super wealthy.

Communism doesn't work. It is theft.

OK, fine.
Doesn't change reality.

Define 'reality'. Buzzword fallacy.

If a corporation doesn't offer a prospective CEO candidate the level of compensation he wants, the company runs the risk of losing him to the competition. Here in 'Murica, there's nothing illegal about working wherever you want and getting the best deal possible.

Fine. That's capitalism.

And all that aside, as I pointed out before, most of these huge compensation packages are derived from stock ownership.

So?

 

[Into the Night]

That is why equal protection of the laws matters; The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Employment is at the will of either party not only the employer or the State as the Richest under our form of Capitalism.

It is why, Government is social-ism.

Government is not socialism. Socialism is not a form of government.
Capitalism doesn't have a 'form'.
You cannot use equal protection laws to justify communism.

 

[Into the Night]

1. Raising minimum wage will not raise prices across the board. This has been debunked by economists. You can find out why online. It's not my job to educate you on the basics.

Correct. What price controls like this do instead is cause shortages, namely of jobs. People are laid off.

2. If a business can't afford labor costs, then that business can't afford to exist. It's as simple as that. Why does the small business get all your pity but the worker gets none of it?

So you justify putting a business OUT of business entirely and all those employees are now out of work. Nice solution!

 

[Into the Night]

Make him and his businesses pay taxes.

He does, dumbass.

 

[Nomad]

1. Raising minimum wage will not raise prices across the board. This has been debunked by economists. You can find out why online. It's not my job to educate you on the basics.

Yeah, because economists are never wrong.....

Don't bother burning up what few brain cells you own trying to educate me or anyone else as you've obviously failed to educate yourself.

2. If a business can't afford labor costs, then that business can't afford to exist. It's as simple as that.

And who the fuck are you to make such a pronouncement?

Obviously, the businesses in question were started during a time of cheaper labor costs and as such, built their business model around that. Suddenly jacking up that portion of their expenses could destroy everything they worked hard and sweated for.

Why does the small business get all your pity but the worker gets none of it?

You should educate yourself as to the difference between pity and empathy.

The group I have no pity for are teenagers who work part time after school to make money just to spend hanging out with their friends partying.

Also, if you were capable of paying attention to what you read, you'd understand that I'm not totally against that level of minimum wage. I just think there should be certain age limits with 21 being the requirement for the full amount.

But because you come across as such a typically angry little panty-pisser, I doubt common sense and reasoning will make a dent in the cloak of self righteousness you use to blind yourself with.

 

[Nomad]

You don't get to decide how to spend Besos' money.

Communism doesn't work. It is theft.

Fascism doesn't work. It is also theft. Price controls do not work. They always cause shortages.

A lot fewer of those, thanks to Democrats.

Price controls don't work. They always cause shortages.

Communism doesn't work. It is theft.

Define 'reality'. Buzzword fallacy.

Fine. That's capitalism.

So?

Fuck off, troll.

 

[danielpalos]

Communism doesn't work. It is theft. That is not moral.

Because it requires morals. False witness-bearing is immoral yet it seems like the only thing the right-wing knows.

 

[danielpalos]

Government is not socialism. Socialism is not a form of government.
Capitalism doesn't have a 'form'.
You cannot use equal protection laws to justify communism.

What State are you from? There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[Into the Night]

Because it requires morals. False witness-bearing is immoral yet it seems like the only thing the right-wing knows.

Communism doesn't work. It is theft. That is not moral.

 

[Into the Night]

What State are you from?

Washington.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws.

Void argument fallacy. Chanting.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And now, another view:




Minimum wage increases aren’t a job killer: Small business survey



Just 8% of small business owners say they will be forced to lay off workers as a result of the higher minimum wage, while 14% say they will be forced to cut worker hours, 14% say the higher minimum wage will result in less revenue for their business and 22% say it will result in less profit for them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/20/mini...ss-survey.html

That is nothing but a logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. By that, it argues that state increases in minimum wage--BY STATE--will somehow have the exact same effect as a massive increase in minimum wage mandated by the federal government. To be a bit more specific, take Arizona my state. The minimum wage is indexed to inflation and the cost of living index. As these rise, the state minimum wage rises and it's now a bit over $12 an hour. Employers handle the incremental increase on a yearly basis.

But, a sudden nationwide increase in the manditory minimum to $15 an hour is different.

Yes, that is 2019 but it's just as relevant. Take a state like Kansas. To suddenly raise the minimum wage there by nearly $7 an hour, virtually doubling wages overnight, would be crippling. We have no data for what happens when something like that is done. Or, in Nevada where minimum wage is often coupled to service jobs that rely on heavy tipping and can often exceed $15 an hour when that's accounted for. Same thing. Double the wage and watch people become far more reluctant to provide a big tip. That upsets the current dynamic in a major way.

"logical fallacy" ?!!?

Logical

- of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
a logical conclusion

- formally true or valid : ANALYTIC, DEDUCTIVE
a logical statement

- capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion
a logical thinker

fallacy

- a false or mistaken idea
- erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
- an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

Consequent

- DEDUCTION sense
- the conclusion of a conditional sentence
- following as a result or effect
- observing logical sequence : RATIONAL

Affirm

- VALIDATE, CONFIRM
- to state positively
- to assert (something, such as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
- to show or express a strong belief in or dedication to (something, such as an important idea)


You need a refresher course in sentence structure....that way you just don't string together words that essentially cancel out each other...."fallacy" is a constant retort of some other right wing wonk....used incorrectly, but he'd eat crap and call it ice cream before conceding such (if he's smart enough to recognize his error). Hopefully, you won't follow suit.


As to your misrepresentation of what was in my link....you essentially either did NOT fully read and comprehend, or you're just ignoring what you don't like and just proceeding with your narrative. Case in point, with regards to individual states:

The percentage of business owners who say they may be forced to cut workers or reduce hours are the same regardless of whether a small business owner is based in a state with or without a 2020 minimum wage increase.

One clear difference that shows up in the data is that small business owners who are based in states with minimum wage increases in 2020 are more likely than those based in other states to say the higher minimum wage will result in less revenue for their business (17% vs. 10%). But they are only slightly more likely to say it will result in less profit for their business (23% vs. 20%), indicating they can offset the cost in other ways.

These latest results show that small business owners in states who’ve recently raised their minimum wage have the same expectations around headcount as those in other states, with 63% of small business owners overall expecting their staff to stay the same size, 32% expecting it to increase, and just 5% expecting it to decrease.



A bit of a different outlook from your personal supposition and conjecture, n'cest pas?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. YOU insist upon treating your "hypotheticals" as a reasonably fact based declarations. As I've pointed out in our exchanges, that dog of yours won't fly. FYI, our legislators have the legal ability courtesy of the Constitution to change our national financial actions....they usually do this through the lobbying of various financial institutions or through the pressure/power of the people (i.e., the U.S. Labor Movement). And FYI, there is no "free market";

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...h-billionaires

You are missing the point of my (hypo)thesis. Anyone subject to US jurisdiction has recourse to the civil protections of our Constitutional law.

Your initial hypothesis has no place in reality, as I've demonstrated at least twice now. Your second sentence is a moot point that neither validates or enhances the stance you took at our initial point of contention. You keep claiming that I'm "missing" your point...but as the chronology of the posts shows, that is just a false statement of yours to mask insipid stubbornness instead of conceding a logical, fact based point.

It's over Danny ... we've done this dance. You want to to claim you are right, be my guest.

 

[Into the Night]

"logical fallacy" ?!!?

Logical

- of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
a logical conclusion

- formally true or valid : ANALYTIC, DEDUCTIVE
a logical statement

- capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion
a logical thinker

fallacy

- a false or mistaken idea
- erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
- an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

Consequent

- DEDUCTION sense
- the conclusion of a conditional sentence
- following as a result or effect
- observing logical sequence : RATIONAL

Affirm

- VALIDATE, CONFIRM
- to state positively
- to assert (something, such as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
- to show or express a strong belief in or dedication to (something, such as an important idea)


You need a refresher course in sentence structure....that way you just don't string together words that essentially cancel out each other...."fallacy" is a constant retort of some other right wing wonk....used incorrectly, but he'd eat crap and call it ice cream before conceding such (if he's smart enough to recognize his error). Hopefully, you won't follow suit.


As to your misrepresentation of what was in my link....you essentially either did NOT fully read and comprehend, or you're just ignoring what you don't like and just proceeding with your narrative. Case in point, with regards to individual states:

The percentage of business owners who say they may be forced to cut workers or reduce hours are the same regardless of whether a small business owner is based in a state with or without a 2020 minimum wage increase.

One clear difference that shows up in the data is that small business owners who are based in states with minimum wage increases in 2020 are more likely than those based in other states to say the higher minimum wage will result in less revenue for their business (17% vs. 10%). But they are only slightly more likely to say it will result in less profit for their business (23% vs. 20%), indicating they can offset the cost in other ways.

These latest results show that small business owners in states who’ve recently raised their minimum wage have the same expectations around headcount as those in other states, with 63% of small business owners overall expecting their staff to stay the same size, 32% expecting it to increase, and just 5% expecting it to decrease.



A bit of a different outlook from your personal supposition and conjecture, n'cest pas?

Semantics fallacies won't help you. His call was correct. You are making an affirming the consequent fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Your initial hypothesis has no place in reality,

He is not presenting a hypothesis. There is no theory stated here.

as I've demonstrated at least twice now.

You have demonstrated nothing other than your illiteracy.

Your second sentence is a moot point that neither validates or enhances the stance you took at our initial point of contention.

His 2nd sentence is not a valid sentence at all.

You keep claiming that I'm "missing" your point...but as the chronology of the posts shows, that is just a false statement of yours to mask insipid stubbornness instead of conceding a logical, fact based point.

Buzzword fallacies. Logic is not facts. A fact is not logic. It is not a proof nor a Universal Truth either.

It's over Danny ... we've done this dance. You want to to claim you are right, be my guest.

Yeah. You made these same fallacies before. Apparently you can't learn.

 

[American Man]

Yeah, because economists are never wrong.....

Don't bother burning up what few brain cells you own trying to educate me or anyone else as you've obviously failed to educate yourself.



And who the fuck are you to make such a pronouncement?

Obviously, the businesses in question were started during a time of cheaper labor costs and as such, built their business model around that. Suddenly jacking up that portion of their expenses could destroy everything they worked hard and sweated for.



You should educate yourself as to the difference between pity and empathy.

The group I have no pity for are teenagers who work part time after school to make money just to spend hanging out with their friends partying.

Also, if you were capable of paying attention to what you read, you'd understand that I'm not totally against that level of minimum wage. I just think there should be certain age limits with 21 being the requirement for the full amount.

But because you come across as such a typically angry little panty-pisser, I doubt common sense and reasoning will make a dent in the cloak of self righteousness you use to blind yourself with.

Lol. So you think that minimum wage should be tied to a worker's age? That's one way to exploit children, I suppose.

And, yes, if a business can't afford to stay in business, then that's not the worker's problem. If a business can only survive by paying its workers peanuts, and if having that same business is pay a living wage is what sinks the boat, then that business was in bad shape anyway.

 

[American Man]

Correct. What price controls like this do instead is cause shortages, namely of jobs. People are laid off.

So you justify putting a business OUT of business entirely and all those employees are now out of work. Nice solution!

Your argument isn't much different than the pro-slavery southerners' argument for slavery as a necessary evil. Yes, ending slave labor (or, in this case, extremely cheap labor) may hurt some small business in the short run, but in the long run it's better for all involved. However, not all small businesses are struggling to pay their employees a livable wage, nor is there a shortage of jobs for those who do lose their job at a small business.

Besides, now with the Great Resignation, people are leaving these crummy jobs for better-paying ones, so it's becoming moot. Business owners are passively aggressively whining about how "nobody wants to work," but the warehouse where I work is flooded with job applications. Why? Because my employer pays a living wage. Funny how that works.

 

[danielpalos]

Your initial hypothesis has no place in reality, as I've demonstrated at least twice now. Your second sentence is a moot point that neither validates or enhances the stance you took at our initial point of contention. You keep claiming that I'm "missing" your point...but as the chronology of the posts shows, that is just a false statement of yours to mask insipid stubbornness instead of conceding a logical, fact based point.
It's over Danny ... we've done this dance. You want to to claim you are right, be my guest.

All you have is appeal to ignorance of US Constitutional law. All you need is valid legal arguments. Right-wingers only know how to lie not argue.

 

[Into the Night]

Your argument isn't much different than the pro-slavery southerners' argument for slavery as a necessary evil.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

Yes, ending slave labor (or, in this case, extremely cheap labor) may hurt some small business in the short run, but in the long run it's better for all involved.

No one is forcing anyone to work at a particular job. Slavery did. If you don't want to work someplace, you are free to quit. A slave doesn't have that choice. You are making a false equivalence fallacy.

However, not all small businesses are struggling to pay their employees a livable wage, nor is there a shortage of jobs for those who do lose their job at a small business.

Irrelevance fallacy. You STILL have not figure out the concept of price discovery. Price controls don't work.

Besides, now with the Great Resignation, people are leaving these crummy jobs for better-paying ones, so it's becoming moot.

They are leaving largely because they don't want to live with the insanity of wearing masks anymore, and are being paid by the government TO NOT WORK. In other words, communism.

Business owners are passively aggressively whining about how "nobody wants to work," but the warehouse where I work is flooded with job applications. Why? Because my employer pays a living wage. Funny how that works.

Why work if the government pays you more to not work? That's communism for ya.

Communism is a form of socialism. It is theft. That theft is in the form of taxes and inflation so the government can pay the unproductive.

 

[Into the Night]

All you have is appeal to ignorance of US Constitutional law. All you need is valid legal arguments. Right-wingers only know how to lie not argue.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States itself. NO court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.