Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Your state and the recent elections

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 10:57:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Has your state seen Republicans oust Democratic incumbents this year? Has there been any controversial changes? Our new Governor, Scott Walker, has waged absolute war in Wisconsin. He killed a bill for a new high-speed (slow for non-American standards) rail line from Miliwaukee to Madison as soon as he entered office, and gave back like $700M to the fed to make a point. He then started killing the wind industry by giving property owners in rural areas authority to stop windmill projects in their local area (aesthetics -> property value), and now he is ready to set the National Guard on protestors because he's killing public sector unions, which were a pretty big deal in this state. "The proposal is massive in scope and would present a cultural shift in Wisconsin, which has a long history of organized labor and politically powerful unions that traditionally back the Democrats."

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...

It's safe to say this swing state will be going blue in 2 years.
no comment
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:12:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You would rather there be increased taxes?
Mitch Daniels has done a great job in Indiana, especially compared to Illinois where I'm from. Mitch pissed a lot of people off, privatizing toll roads and cutting spending across the board. But the truth is that He maintains one of the few states that stays in the black and he simply spends less money than he takes in. Democrats seem to have trouble with that.
http://www.theolympian.com...
He makes a lot of people mad whose programs he cuts but I think most people realize you can't live beyond your means.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:29:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:12:44 AM, lewis20 wrote:
You would rather there be increased taxes?

Well I'm not a public sector employee so I guess not! I am not the one getting the carpet slid out from under my feet. But it will happen sooner or later.
no comment
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:06:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
We almost did here in Oregon (almost saw a teaparty govener) and that would have been a nightmare.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:07:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:06:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
We almost did here in Oregon (almost saw a teaparty govener) and that would have been a nightmare.

Was he gonna make you guys pump your own gas or something?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:15:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:07:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:06:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
We almost did here in Oregon (almost saw a teaparty govener) and that would have been a nightmare.

Was he gonna make you guys pump your own gas or something?

cut minimum wage for watiresses (because they get tips, so that should be deducted from their pay), not to mention his total lack of balls (he blaimed everything on his accountant)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:52:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:15:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

cut minimum wage for watiresses (because they get tips, so that should be deducted from their pay),

There should be a minimum wage for everyone who can find a job. But if you can't find a job, you should be able to work for less than the minimum wage because that's better than nothing.

C:
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:52:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:15:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

cut minimum wage for watiresses (because they get tips, so that should be deducted from their pay),

There should be a minimum wage for everyone who can find a job. But if you can't find a job, you should be able to work for less than the minimum wage because that's better than nothing.

C:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you, but that is a different debate for a different thread.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:23:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:52:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:15:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

cut minimum wage for watiresses (because they get tips, so that should be deducted from their pay),

There should be a minimum wage for everyone who can find a job. But if you can't find a job, you should be able to work for less than the minimum wage because that's better than nothing.

C:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you, but that is a different debate for a different thread.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.

Whats the minimum wage there for waitresses, Federal minimum wage for them is 2.13 so long as they make at least minimum wage with tips. Which I think seems fair as most if not all tipped employees make well over minimum wage with tips.

http://www.dol.gov...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:35:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you,

That's why I had the goofy face.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.
Would probably lower food prices...

You'd support abolishing price controls setting oil at $100/bbl right?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:39:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 1:35:53 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you,

That's why I had the goofy face.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.
Would probably lower food prices...

Probably only a little, and not compared to how much their pay checks would go down.


You'd support abolishing price controls setting oil at $100/bbl right?

I know where you are going with this, but yes, I would (though other countries have the right to sell at their own value if they choose).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 2:39:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:35:53 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you,

That's why I had the goofy face.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.
Would probably lower food prices...

Probably only a little, and not compared to how much their pay checks would go down.

They will lower food prices exactly as much as the wages decrease under competitive environments.

But if you don't think the market is competitive, I have bad news for you. An uncompetitive employer is also, from hypothesis, and uncompetitive seller. So if you increase his employment costs, there is no reason why he cannot raise his prices (particularly if all his competitors are forced to do so too).

You'd support abolishing price controls setting oil at $100/bbl right?

I know where you are going with this, but yes,

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OIL INDUSTRYYY

I would (though other countries have the right to sell at their own value if they choose).

Wait, so countries have the right to self determination, but individual people don't. I think that's the opposite of rights theory...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:59:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 2:48:27 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 2:39:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:35:53 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

I'd disagree because companies will not hire so that you can't find a job, then hire you under minimum wage just to under cut you,

That's why I had the goofy face.

What Dudley wanted to do was lower waitresses minimum wage because they get tips, since they get tips as money, they don't "need" as much of a paycheck.
Would probably lower food prices...

Probably only a little, and not compared to how much their pay checks would go down.

They will lower food prices exactly as much as the wages decrease under competitive environments.

But if you don't think the market is competitive, I have bad news for you. An uncompetitive employer is also, from hypothesis, and uncompetitive seller. So if you increase his employment costs, there is no reason why he cannot raise his prices (particularly if all his competitors are forced to do so too).

Read up on supply and demand. If the cost to make goods increases (labor costs, taxes, or whatever), the price will only increase a portion of that increase (the % depends on how elastic the product is), the same is true for the reverse, if costs go down, prices only go down a portion of that.

So if a factory worker is paid $10 an hour and the price for 1 hour's worth of goods is $30 and you cut the worker down to $5 an hour, the price of the goods will drop by somewhere between $0 and $5 (likely about $3). So at most, the employee loses 50% of their paycheck, and the cost of goods (at most) drops 16%. So the employee gets screwed in that trade.


You'd support abolishing price controls setting oil at $100/bbl right?

I know where you are going with this, but yes,

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OIL INDUSTRYYY

I said I would.


I would (though other countries have the right to sell at their own value if they choose).

Wait, so countries have the right to self determination, but individual people don't. I think that's the opposite of rights theory...

We have no control over other nations, we've done this before, remember.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 3:04:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 2:59:23 PM, OreEle wrote:

Read up on supply and demand. If the cost to make goods increases (labor costs, taxes, or whatever), the price will only increase a portion of that increase (the % depends on how elastic the product is), the same is true for the reverse, if costs go down, prices only go down a portion of that.

So if a factory worker is paid $10 an hour and the price for 1 hour's worth of goods is $30 and you cut the worker down to $5 an hour, the price of the goods will drop by somewhere between $0 and $5 (likely about $3). So at most, the employee loses 50% of their paycheck, and the cost of goods (at most) drops 16%. So the employee gets screwed in that trade.

Durr I'm not arguing percentage decrease. I'm arguing absolute numbers. I fully agree that the cost would fall between $0 and $5 ($5 in a competitive market). And I never said that individual employees benefit from having their wages cut. I'm saying everyone who has to buy the product benefits.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OIL INDUSTRYYY

I said I would.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE OIL INDUSTRYYYY

Wait, so countries have the right to self determination, but individual people don't. I think that's the opposite of rights theory...

We have no control over other nations, we've done this before, remember.

Oh yeah. You tried to make it into an exercise in geopolitics even though the thought experiment ruled out significant international ramifications.

So yeah. Your political philosophy grants extra rights to governments that individuals don't have. So you subscribe to the opposite of rights theory.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 3:19:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 3:04:35 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 2:59:23 PM, OreEle wrote:

Read up on supply and demand. If the cost to make goods increases (labor costs, taxes, or whatever), the price will only increase a portion of that increase (the % depends on how elastic the product is), the same is true for the reverse, if costs go down, prices only go down a portion of that.

So if a factory worker is paid $10 an hour and the price for 1 hour's worth of goods is $30 and you cut the worker down to $5 an hour, the price of the goods will drop by somewhere between $0 and $5 (likely about $3). So at most, the employee loses 50% of their paycheck, and the cost of goods (at most) drops 16%. So the employee gets screwed in that trade.

Durr I'm not arguing percentage decrease. I'm arguing absolute numbers. I fully agree that the cost would fall between $0 and $5 ($5 in a competitive market).

That's based on elatisity of the market, not the competitiveness of it. Suppy and Demand automatically assume competitiveness in the market.

And I never said that individual employees benefit from having their wages cut. I'm saying everyone who has to buy the product benefits.

no, only those that buy the product AND did not have their pay cut, will benefit. Obviously the employee, even if they buy the product that they make, they are still worse off because of it.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OIL INDUSTRYYY

I said I would.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE OIL INDUSTRYYYY

The owners of the oil industry are not poor.


Wait, so countries have the right to self determination, but individual people don't. I think that's the opposite of rights theory...

We have no control over other nations, we've done this before, remember.

Oh yeah. You tried to make it into an exercise in geopolitics even though the thought experiment ruled out significant international ramifications.

No, you claimed your thought experiment did that, when it didn't.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 3:35:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 3:19:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

That's based on elatisity of the market, not the competitiveness of it. Suppy and Demand automatically assume competitiveness in the market.

I'm actually assuming inelasticity of produced goods, since the only factors before/after are price and not volume. If the goods were even slightly elastic, it provides an even better case for abolishing the minimum wage because it will increase the volume of goods and services provided in society.

And I never said that individual employees benefit from having their wages cut. I'm saying everyone who has to buy the product benefits.

no, only those that buy the product AND did not have their pay cut, will benefit. Obviously the employee, even if they buy the product that they make, they are still worse off because of it.

Wait, if they get paid $5 less, but products also costs $5 less, they break even.

And the majority of people are better off because they aren't affected by the minimum wage (see most american jobs and foreign consumers).

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE OIL INDUSTRYYYY

The owners of the oil industry are not poor.

That's why I said what about the POOR PEOPLE in the oil industry. All the manual laborers and small oil companies.

Oh yeah. You tried to make it into an exercise in geopolitics even though the thought experiment ruled out significant international ramifications.

No, you claimed your thought experiment did that, when it didn't.

A thought experiment does whatever you want it to. That's what a thought experiment is.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 4:15:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 3:35:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 3:19:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

That's based on elatisity of the market, not the competitiveness of it. Suppy and Demand automatically assume competitiveness in the market.

I'm actually assuming inelasticity of produced goods, since the only factors before/after are price and not volume. If the goods were even slightly elastic, it provides an even better case for abolishing the minimum wage because it will increase the volume of goods and services provided in society.

Yet lowers the potential customer base decreases in size. The more people that make less money (it was already shown that for those that are effected by the drop in price receive more harm then good), the more people that are less likely to be customers (because they lost more income, then prices dropped).


And I never said that individual employees benefit from having their wages cut. I'm saying everyone who has to buy the product benefits.

no, only those that buy the product AND did not have their pay cut, will benefit. Obviously the employee, even if they buy the product that they make, they are still worse off because of it.

Wait, if they get paid $5 less, but products also costs $5 less, they break even.

No they don't, that depends on the %. For example, if you make $40,000 a year and a new car costs $15,000, and both the car and your income drop $14,000 (so you make $26,000 a year and the car now only costs $1,000), you are better off because of the % of the drop, rather then the actual dollar amount.


And the majority of people are better off because they aren't affected by the minimum wage (see most american jobs and foreign consumers).

All jobs are effected by minimum wage, just about. If in a free market, 1 job should pay $4 an hour, and another should pay $6 an hour, if a minimum wage is applied at $8, the guy at $6 will want more then $8 because his job is more important then the $4 (which is now $8), so he may get upto $9 or $10 and likewise with a job that should have been $9.

Now the further you get from the floor, the less one is effected, but most Americans are still effected by it.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE OIL INDUSTRYYYY

The owners of the oil industry are not poor.

That's why I said what about the POOR PEOPLE in the oil industry. All the manual laborers and small oil companies.

The Oil companies make billions in profits and CHOOSE not to pay those profits to the employees. If we say that the oil has to be at a certain price, then the oil companies will still CHOOSE not to pass that along to the manual laborers, so that law would not reach the desired goals.



Oh yeah. You tried to make it into an exercise in geopolitics even though the thought experiment ruled out significant international ramifications.

No, you claimed your thought experiment did that, when it didn't.

A thought experiment does whatever you want it to. That's what a thought experiment is.

lol, yeah. It does whatever you want it to do, and you are surprised when people don't consider it valid.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 4:45:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 4:15:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 3:35:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 3:19:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

That's based on elatisity of the market, not the competitiveness of it. Suppy and Demand automatically assume competitiveness in the market.

I'm actually assuming inelasticity of produced goods, since the only factors before/after are price and not volume. If the goods were even slightly elastic, it provides an even better case for abolishing the minimum wage because it will increase the volume of goods and services provided in society.

Yet lowers the potential customer base decreases in size. The more people that make less money (it was already shown that for those that are effected by the drop in price receive more harm then good), the more people that are less likely to be customers (because they lost more income, then prices dropped).

But we've already established that if the market is competitive, the purchasing power fall will be exactly equal to the price fall. If the market is not competitive, we've also already established that the monopoly price changes proportionately if purchasing power changes. Stop trying to jockey between the two scenarios because they're both lose for you.

No they don't, that depends on the %. For example, if you make $40,000 a year and a new car costs $15,000, and both the car and your income drop $14,000 (so you make $26,000 a year and the car now only costs $1,000), you are better off because of the % of the drop, rather then the actual dollar amount.

Lol. The percent drop is higher but that's totally irrelevant. Would you rather earn 40k/year and have a 30k cost of living, or earn 20k a year and have a 10k cost of living. Durrr...

And the majority of people are better off because they aren't affected by the minimum wage (see most american jobs and foreign consumers).

All jobs are effected by minimum wage, just about. If in a free market, 1 job should pay $4 an hour, and another should pay $6 an hour, if a minimum wage is applied at $8, the guy at $6 will want more then $8 because his job is more important then the $4 (which is now $8), so he may get upto $9 or $10 and likewise with a job that should have been $9.

No. You don't get what you want just because its unfair. And the vast majority of even unskilled workers earn above the minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov... So suck it.

The Oil companies make billions in profits and CHOOSE not to pay those profits to the employees.
Can I see your source on the rate of return on investment for the oil and gas industry? Then can I see the success rate for oil projects?

If we say that the oil has to be at a certain price, then the oil companies will still CHOOSE not to pass that along to the manual laborers, so that law would not reach the desired goals.

No no no. I said there are small and medium sized oil companies too.

Also, higher oil prices do translate into higher wages for employees. See petro engineers here. http://www.aag.org... I couldn't find data for field hands.

lol, yeah. It does whatever you want it to do, and you are surprised when people don't consider it valid.

^implying that thought experiments aren't thought experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 5:38:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 4:45:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 4:15:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 3:35:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 3:19:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

That's based on elatisity of the market, not the competitiveness of it. Suppy and Demand automatically assume competitiveness in the market.

I'm actually assuming inelasticity of produced goods, since the only factors before/after are price and not volume. If the goods were even slightly elastic, it provides an even better case for abolishing the minimum wage because it will increase the volume of goods and services provided in society.

Yet lowers the potential customer base decreases in size. The more people that make less money (it was already shown that for those that are effected by the drop in price receive more harm then good), the more people that are less likely to be customers (because they lost more income, then prices dropped).

But we've already established that if the market is competitive, the purchasing power fall will be exactly equal to the price fall.

No you haven't. Supply and Demand begs to differ. It will fall by a portion, depending on the how elastic the market is.

If the market is not competitive, we've also already established that the monopoly price changes proportionately if purchasing power changes. Stop trying to jockey between the two scenarios because they're both lose for you.

No they don't, that depends on the %. For example, if you make $40,000 a year and a new car costs $15,000, and both the car and your income drop $14,000 (so you make $26,000 a year and the car now only costs $1,000), you are better off because of the % of the drop, rather then the actual dollar amount.

Lol. The percent drop is higher but that's totally irrelevant. Would you rather earn 40k/year and have a 30k cost of living, or earn 20k a year and have a 10k cost of living. Durrr...

...ug, I'll hold your hand. It is benefitial because your income dropped 50%, while your cost of living dropped 67%. Because cost of living dropped by a higher %, that is benefitial to the person.

If a house costs $400,000 and you make $100,000 a year, then the hose drops to $320,000 and you pay drops to $20,000 is that benefitial (you had the same dollar change)? No, why? Because your income dropped by a higher % then the house did.

So we can conclude that if your income drops by a lower % then the price of goods, that is benefitial. And if your income drops by a larger % then the price of goods, that is not benefitial.

Can we agree on that?

If we can, then we can go back to the person working in the factory (who's pay was cut from $10 to $5 an hour) and the product fell from $30 to $25 (just for the sake of argument). We can see that the price of the goods fell by a lower % then the wage of the worker, so it was ultimately not benefitial, and if this non-benefitial policy is implemented across the country, then it will be ultimately not benefitial to everyone that it happens to.



And the majority of people are better off because they aren't affected by the minimum wage (see most american jobs and foreign consumers).

All jobs are effected by minimum wage, just about. If in a free market, 1 job should pay $4 an hour, and another should pay $6 an hour, if a minimum wage is applied at $8, the guy at $6 will want more then $8 because his job is more important then the $4 (which is now $8), so he may get upto $9 or $10 and likewise with a job that should have been $9.

No. You don't get what you want just because its unfair. And the vast majority of even unskilled workers earn above the minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov... So suck it.

They make over minimum wage because of exactly why I said they did... because their job is more important then the other job that was raised to minimum wage, so they need to be paid above it. Oi...



The Oil companies make billions in profits and CHOOSE not to pay those profits to the employees.
Can I see your source on the rate of return on investment for the oil and gas industry? Then can I see the success rate for oil projects?

http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://finance.yahoo.com...


If we say that the oil has to be at a certain price, then the oil companies will still CHOOSE not to pass that along to the manual laborers, so that law would not reach the desired goals.

No no no. I said there are small and medium sized oil companies too.

Exxon made over $40 billion (after tax) in a single year, meaning that their profit is not a limiting factor in how much they pay their employees, so trying to make sure they make money is not going to fix any issues.

It is also shown that if a company is well organized (in this industry) that it can be profitable, so controling prices on the entire market is not going to fix organization flaws in the small companies. Alternative solutions can be come up with to assist them if they truely need it.


Also, higher oil prices do translate into higher wages for employees. See petro engineers here. http://www.aag.org... I couldn't find data for field hands.

Wow, that seems to match inflation (meaning that there is minimal growth in actual pay). Also, as seeing as the companies have been seeing much greater profit over the last 10 years then the raises they've given their employees. I'd have to disagree.

Also, seeing that many companies saw huge falls in their profits (some, as much as 50%) without cutting into employee paychecks that much, also shows that the price of oil has only a minute effect on pay.

Obviously, if oil becomes dirt cheap, there won't be enough profitability to pay people, however, once a certain profit is reached, the excess profit does not make its way down to the worker, but to the pockets of investors.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 5:57:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 5:38:07 PM, OreEle wrote:

No you haven't. Supply and Demand begs to differ. It will fall by a portion, depending on the how elastic the market is.

Well, if the market is totally inelastic, you'll get exactly what I've been saying will happen. If it is partially elastic, then there will be an increase in volume at the lower price.

If the market is not competitive, we've also already established that the monopoly price changes proportionately if purchasing power changes. Stop trying to jockey between the two scenarios because they're both lose for you.

^This

...ug, I'll hold your hand. It is benefitial because your income dropped 50%, while your cost of living dropped 67%. Because cost of living dropped by a higher %, that is benefitial to the person.

No. Wellbeing is not measured by pct incomes. You either have $10k disposable income, or $10k disposable income. Its the same amount.

If a house costs $400,000 and you make $100,000 a year, then the hose drops to $320,000 and you pay drops to $20,000 is that benefitial (you had the same dollar change)? No, why? Because your income dropped by a higher % then the house did.

Err no because pay is annualized. Compare rates to instantaneous prices more plz!

They make over minimum wage because of exactly why I said they did... because their job is more important then the other job that was raised to minimum wage, so they need to be paid above it. Oi...

Oh great. So now everything is because of the minimum wage. How do you know that competition isn't responsible? How do you know what the equilibrium wage rate would be? Larf.

The Oil companies make billions in profits and CHOOSE not to pay those profits to the employees.
Can I see your source on the rate of return on investment for the oil and gas industry? Then can I see the success rate for oil projects?

http://finance.yahoo.com...
One company.

http://finance.yahoo.com...
One company
http://finance.yahoo.com...
One company.

I'm asking about an industry! There's a reason I didn't research really successful waiters and throw them at you!

But you also failed the second part of my request - which was to see what proportion of oil ventures fail. Because if the profit rates are 100%, but you fail 50% of the time... that's not very impressive. Looking at companies like BP only tells us what success looks like, not the overall health of the industry which is what a price fixing scheme would effect.

No no no. I said there are small and medium sized oil companies too.

Exxon made over $40 billion (after tax) in a single year, meaning that their profit is not a limiting factor in how much they pay their employees, so trying to make sure they make money is not going to fix any issues.

Herp derp derp derp. What about the small companies?

You should also consider that high profits are the reason capital was put up in the first place. Why would investors risk their money for shoddy returns? You going to tax lotteries 95% now?

It is also shown that if a company is well organized (in this industry) that it can be profitable, so controling prices on the entire market is not going to fix organization flaws in the small companies. Alternative solutions can be come up with to assist them if they truely need it.

Small companies don't have systematic organizational flaws.

Wow, that seems to match inflation (meaning that there is minimal growth in actual pay).
But why would inflation cause wages to rise if companies don't share profits?

Also, as seeing as the companies have been seeing much greater profit over the last 10 years then the raises they've given their employees. I'd have to disagree.
Please cherry pick more successful oil companies. What if I just turn around and show you oil companies that have failed?

Also, seeing that many companies saw huge falls in their profits (some, as much as 50%) without cutting into employee paychecks that much, also shows that the price of oil has only a minute effect on pay.

Its called hedging.

Obviously, if oil becomes dirt cheap, there won't be enough profitability to pay people, however, once a certain profit is reached, the excess profit does not make its way down to the worker, but to the pockets of investors.

Investors who did no work. Double larf.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:29:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
About waitressing, it would help them out a lot more simply to be under less stress than given more money. They could do well with the money they have if they weren't beat to sh*t by ignorant as5holes all day long who apply stressful leverage on the wait-staff using money. You see, patrons feel that the dollar empowers them to whatever they want NOW (but who doesn't under CAPITALIZM)! The customer is always right when they complain, and servers know that if the customer complains then their manager is going to start stressing them out more. It's not uncommon to see waitresses crying and having nervous breakdowns in the back of the restaurant from the experience. A lot of the money they make is spent frivolously on stress-relief like cigarettes and alcohol. Additionally, their taxes are usually garnished heavily because the wage is not enough to offset the taxes from the tips. So waiters are put in a very precarious financial position where money dribbles in and is spent quickly on stress-relief, and paychecks and taxes are practically null. Ironically, many people still choose this profession over being stuck in a factory staring at the wall all day.
no comment
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:06:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 8:29:31 PM, Caramel wrote:
About waitressing, it would help them out a lot more simply to be under less stress than given more money. They could do well with the money they have if they weren't beat to sh*t by ignorant as5holes all day long who apply stressful leverage on the wait-staff using money. You see, patrons feel that the dollar empowers them to whatever they want NOW (but who doesn't under CAPITALIZM)! The customer is always right when they complain, and servers know that if the customer complains then their manager is going to start stressing them out more. It's not uncommon to see waitresses crying and having nervous breakdowns in the back of the restaurant from the experience. A lot of the money they make is spent frivolously on stress-relief like cigarettes and alcohol.

Where are you getting this? Makes no sense at all, air traffic controllers are stressed and they don't blow their money on pall malls & evan williams.

Additionally, their taxes are usually garnished heavily because the wage is not enough to offset the taxes from the tips. So waiters are put in a very precarious financial position where money dribbles in and is spent quickly on stress-relief, and paychecks and taxes are practically null. Ironically, many people still choose this profession over being stuck in a factory staring at the wall all day.

Again...what? They make more money than any minimum wage worker, before or after taxes. I don't know where you are gettin this stuff.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:56:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:06:19 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/16/2011 8:29:31 PM, Caramel wrote:
About waitressing, it would help them out a lot more simply to be under less stress than given more money. They could do well with the money they have if they weren't beat to sh*t by ignorant as5holes all day long who apply stressful leverage on the wait-staff using money. You see, patrons feel that the dollar empowers them to whatever they want NOW (but who doesn't under CAPITALIZM)! The customer is always right when they complain, and servers know that if the customer complains then their manager is going to start stressing them out more. It's not uncommon to see waitresses crying and having nervous breakdowns in the back of the restaurant from the experience. A lot of the money they make is spent frivolously on stress-relief like cigarettes and alcohol.

Where are you getting this?

I used to be a waiter; I lived it.

Makes no sense at all, air traffic controllers are stressed and they don't blow their money on pall malls & evan williams.

Stress causes inefficiency. Wasted money, bad habits, social problems -> snowball effect. I don't know much about air traffic controllers but I have a feeling they are not as belittled by the general public like waiters and treated as bottom-rung citizens. They also probably get more satisfaction out of being an integral part of an operation moving state of the art million-dollar aircraft than someone being ordered back and forth relentlessly to refill the chocolate milk for someone's kid. I don't blame you for not recognizing this; after all there is a reason I have to let you know how it is. If you have any pearls of wisdom about air traffic controllers then I am all ears because I have never seen one in action.

Additionally, their taxes are usually garnished heavily because the wage is not enough to offset the taxes from the tips. So waiters are put in a very precarious financial position where money dribbles in and is spent quickly on stress-relief, and paychecks and taxes are practically null. Ironically, many people still choose this profession over being stuck in a factory staring at the wall all day.

Again...what? They make more money than any minimum wage worker, before or after taxes.

Being frugile is a lot easier when your money is handed over increments of several hundred dollars than when you are dribbling it in. It's merely psychological, but true nonetheless. Having constant access to cash on hand requires extra discipline.

When taxes come and everyone is getting hundreds or thousands of dollars returned to catch up on bills, many servers get nothing or even have to pay in. You think all year long that your doing alright relative to everyone else, but then all of a sudden you are watching while everyone else gets a boost out of the hole and you get nothing. It sucks.

I don't know where you are gettin this stuff.

<---- Waited tables for 5 years of my life.
no comment