Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

I Was Wrong

jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:04:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ya. I was wrong about a bunch of things. I'm changing my mind:

1.) The War on Drugs is actually very effective and good for society. Drugs are bad. Therefore, the War on them is good.

2.) Rich people don't pay their fair share in taxes! Doesn't matter if we don't know what "fair share" means. Doesn't matter if it creates bad incentives. Incentives are just right wing lies. All we know is that it is a lot more than they are paying now.

3.) Fox News is the only biased news channel out there. It is the root of all evil.

4.) Republicans really do want to cut spending and cut government. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it in the past. They say they will, therefore they will.

5.) We need the TSA and NSA to smash civil liberties to keep us safe!

6.) The USA needs to intervene in every international conflict. Whenever we have done that, the consequences have been positive!

7.) The minimum wage is a wonderful thing. There are no job losses or unintended consequences. Economic laws don't exist. Supply and demand is a myth!

8.) Democrats really do a lot to help the poor. Doesn't matter if right wingers point out that the actual effects of their policies are bad. All that matters are the good intentions Democrats say they had.

9.) Global warming is the major problem facing the world right now and Obama's cap and trade would save the world.

10.) Health care is so much better when run by the government. Who cares about waiting times or quality? Government is just so much more fair!

11.) White men only achieve things because of white privilege and patriarchy. We need all white men to constantly feel bad about themselves regardless of background. They don't achieve anything on their own.

12.) We need big government to protect us from greedy businessman. Again, who cares about the consequences? All that matters is that we have politicians who claim to have our interest at heart!

At least I can see clearly now.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Looks like you missed it:

Pretty much the only people who oppose a minimum wage are economists and libertarians.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. I responded to you on the other thread. Why did you decide to post this slew of misrepresentations instead of replying back?

2. I gave you like 7 studies proving you're wrong on the minimum wage, and even pointed out that the CBO is on my side.

3. We still agree on war, civil liberties, and drugs, and that Republicans are horrible on the deficit.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:36:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:04:49 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Ya. I was wrong about a bunch of things. I'm changing my mind:

1.) The War on Drugs is actually very effective and good for society. Drugs are bad. Therefore, the War on them is good.

2.) Rich people don't pay their fair share in taxes! Doesn't matter if we don't know what "fair share" means. Doesn't matter if it creates bad incentives. Incentives are just right wing lies. All we know is that it is a lot more than they are paying now.

3.) Fox News is the only biased news channel out there. It is the root of all evil.

4.) Republicans really do want to cut spending and cut government. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it in the past. They say they will, therefore they will.

5.) We need the TSA and NSA to smash civil liberties to keep us safe!

6.) The USA needs to intervene in every international conflict. Whenever we have done that, the consequences have been positive!

7.) The minimum wage is a wonderful thing. There are no job losses or unintended consequences. Economic laws don't exist. Supply and demand is a myth!

8.) Democrats really do a lot to help the poor. Doesn't matter if right wingers point out that the actual effects of their policies are bad. All that matters are the good intentions Democrats say they had.

9.) Global warming is the major problem facing the world right now and Obama's cap and trade would save the world.

10.) Health care is so much better when run by the government. Who cares about waiting times or quality? Government is just so much more fair!

11.) White men only achieve things because of white privilege and patriarchy. We need all white men to constantly feel bad about themselves regardless of background. They don't achieve anything on their own.

12.) We need big government to protect us from greedy businessman. Again, who cares about the consequences? All that matters is that we have politicians who claim to have our interest at heart!


At least I can see clearly now.

What is this, your 4th list?

You know that making points isn't an argument, you have to back them up and defend them when people criticize? You can't just repost the same things over and over to increase their truth.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 6:05:30 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
1. I responded to you on the other thread. Why did you decide to post this slew of misrepresentations instead of replying back?

2. I gave you like 7 studies proving you're wrong on the minimum wage, and even pointed out that the CBO is on my side.

3. We still agree on war, civil liberties, and drugs, and that Republicans are horrible on the deficit.

You're right. Let's just pretend that the CBO didn't say that the minimum wage hike would lead to 500,000 jobs lost. It's so much simpler that way.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 2:46:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 1:52:04 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 6:05:30 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
1. I responded to you on the other thread. Why did you decide to post this slew of misrepresentations instead of replying back?

2. I gave you like 7 studies proving you're wrong on the minimum wage, and even pointed out that the CBO is on my side.

3. We still agree on war, civil liberties, and drugs, and that Republicans are horrible on the deficit.


You're right. Let's just pretend that the CBO didn't say that the minimum wage hike would lead to 500,000 jobs lost. It's so much simpler that way.

I offered you three posts explaining how you took that figure out of context, why the CBO didn't state that number as an absolute, and how even if it were true -- and it may be -- that it doesn't cast away the arguments I have been making. But I guess you'd rather post a new thread rather than respond to me because you realize you already lost that argument.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 5:07:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 1:52:04 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 6:05:30 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
1. I responded to you on the other thread. Why did you decide to post this slew of misrepresentations instead of replying back?

2. I gave you like 7 studies proving you're wrong on the minimum wage, and even pointed out that the CBO is on my side.

3. We still agree on war, civil liberties, and drugs, and that Republicans are horrible on the deficit.


You're right. Let's just pretend that the CBO didn't say that the minimum wage hike would lead to 500,000 jobs lost. It's so much simpler that way.

Since I know you can't be bothered to actually look at a fact, let me quote from the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov...):

"Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO"s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers."

They went on to label -500,000 as a central estimate, meaning the actual job losses could range from 0 to 1 million.

They continue:

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most"about 16.5 million, according to CBO"s estimates"would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

"The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO"s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates."

Oh, would you look at that? Sounds like the Keynesian Multiplier.

"Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion."

"Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law)."

So I'd hate to have to be the one to tell you that you haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about.....actually...you haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...

That was one of the seven or so studies I cited hahaha. I think it's a meta-analysis, too.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:28:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:36:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...

That was one of the seven or so studies I cited hahaha. I think it's a meta-analysis, too.

I'll ask you this.
When you say no effect on unemployment, is that the same as no effect on employment?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:28:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:36:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...

That was one of the seven or so studies I cited hahaha. I think it's a meta-analysis, too.

I'll ask you this.
When you say no effect on unemployment, is that the same as no effect on employment?

It depends on how you look at it. You could say, vis-a-vis the entire macroeconomy, that sure, the effect is fairly small -- lifting 900,000 people out of poverty is small when you consider that the US population is 318M people. The effects are obviously quite larger looking at the state and local rather than national level, and I think the study focused on the latter.

Now, if we took Robert Reich's idea and lifted the federal minimum to $15.....then we'd see an actual impact.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:39:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:34:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:28:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:36:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...

That was one of the seven or so studies I cited hahaha. I think it's a meta-analysis, too.

I'll ask you this.
When you say no effect on unemployment, is that the same as no effect on employment?

It depends on how you look at it. You could say, vis-a-vis the entire macroeconomy, that sure, the effect is fairly small -- lifting 900,000 people out of poverty is small when you consider that the US population is 318M people. The effects are obviously quite larger looking at the state and local rather than national level, and I think the study focused on the latter.

Now, if we took Robert Reich's idea and lifted the federal minimum to $15.....then we'd see an actual impact.

I'm not talking about poverty.
I'm asking if there is no effect on employment.
It is entirely possible for people to be working less hours, due to minimum wage increase, and there would be no change in unemployment.
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:39:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:34:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:28:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:36:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:18:37 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

The minimum wage has NO effect on unemployment

http://www.cepr.net...

That was one of the seven or so studies I cited hahaha. I think it's a meta-analysis, too.

I'll ask you this.
When you say no effect on unemployment, is that the same as no effect on employment?

It depends on how you look at it. You could say, vis-a-vis the entire macroeconomy, that sure, the effect is fairly small -- lifting 900,000 people out of poverty is small when you consider that the US population is 318M people. The effects are obviously quite larger looking at the state and local rather than national level, and I think the study focused on the latter.

Now, if we took Robert Reich's idea and lifted the federal minimum to $15.....then we'd see an actual impact.

I'm not talking about poverty.
I'm asking if there is no effect on employment.
It is entirely possible for people to be working less hours, due to minimum wage increase, and there would be no change in unemployment.

Are you asking whether it's possible? Sure, it's possible. It's even possible for people to voluntarily reduce their hours, as some are because of the ACA. The point is, that's rare, and the benefits -- e.g., reducing poverty -- outweigh the costs.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:41:15 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Are you asking whether it's possible? Sure, it's possible. It's even possible for people to voluntarily reduce their hours, as some are because of the ACA. The point is, that's rare, and the benefits -- e.g., reducing poverty -- outweigh the costs.

You aren't getting out of poverty if costs are going up and/or one is working less.
What do economists predict will happen due to the increase in labor costs? Who absorbs them?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:49:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:46:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:41:15 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Are you asking whether it's possible? Sure, it's possible. It's even possible for people to voluntarily reduce their hours, as some are because of the ACA. The point is, that's rare, and the benefits -- e.g., reducing poverty -- outweigh the costs.

You aren't getting out of poverty if costs are going up and/or one is working less.
What do economists predict will happen due to the increase in labor costs? Who absorbs them?

Sure you are. People may work less because they no longer need to work 40 hours a week at two or three jobs to sustain themselves. Why work three jobs when one pays you a living wage?

It depends, again, on the industry. But let's take the most common industries that pay minimum wage -- local service sectors. So, restaurants, retail, etc. We know that WalMart can absorb them, as will McDonalds. Frankly, it's in our best interest if they pass them on because they would suppress their competition (since they effectively operate a cartel) a heck of a lot less, but I doubt it. As for restaurants, they usually pay for by increasing their prices by pennies. At least now, that's probably unlikely, since local restaurants are probably the closest thing you'd get, other than maybe agriculture, to actual competition, so they probably could absorb the cost.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:59:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:49:56 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:46:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:41:15 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Are you asking whether it's possible? Sure, it's possible. It's even possible for people to voluntarily reduce their hours, as some are because of the ACA. The point is, that's rare, and the benefits -- e.g., reducing poverty -- outweigh the costs.

You aren't getting out of poverty if costs are going up and/or one is working less.
What do economists predict will happen due to the increase in labor costs? Who absorbs them?

Sure you are. People may work less because they no longer need to work 40 hours a week at two or three jobs to sustain themselves. Why work three jobs when one pays you a living wage?
Poverty =/= sustainment level. You should know that.
One can sustain themselves on less than poverty line.

Let's do some math.
$8/hr x 60 hours
$10/hr x 48 hours
They are still in the same boat, but working less. How are they magically out of poverty.

It depends, again, on the industry. But let's take the most common industries that pay minimum wage -- local service sectors. So, restaurants, retail, etc. We know that WalMart can absorb them, as will McDonalds. Frankly, it's in our best interest if they pass them on because they would suppress their competition (since they effectively operate a cartel) a heck of a lot less, but I doubt it. As for restaurants, they usually pay for by increasing their prices by pennies. At least now, that's probably unlikely, since local restaurants are probably the closest thing you'd get, other than maybe agriculture, to actual competition, so they probably could absorb the cost.

A one dollar raise in the minimum wage for walmart will cost approx $1.5 billion. (1 million worker x 30 hours x 52 weeks).
While they should be able to absorb a 10% profit decline, wear does that money come from? Holding assets for future growth? Stockholders? Probably the latter.
How does that effect pensions and IRAs, then?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:01:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:59:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:49:56 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:46:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:41:15 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Are you asking whether it's possible? Sure, it's possible. It's even possible for people to voluntarily reduce their hours, as some are because of the ACA. The point is, that's rare, and the benefits -- e.g., reducing poverty -- outweigh the costs.

You aren't getting out of poverty if costs are going up and/or one is working less.
What do economists predict will happen due to the increase in labor costs? Who absorbs them?

Sure you are. People may work less because they no longer need to work 40 hours a week at two or three jobs to sustain themselves. Why work three jobs when one pays you a living wage?
Poverty =/= sustainment level. You should know that.
One can sustain themselves on less than poverty line.

Let's do some math.
$8/hr x 60 hours
$10/hr x 48 hours
They are still in the same boat, but working less. How are they magically out of poverty.

It depends, again, on the industry. But let's take the most common industries that pay minimum wage -- local service sectors. So, restaurants, retail, etc. We know that WalMart can absorb them, as will McDonalds. Frankly, it's in our best interest if they pass them on because they would suppress their competition (since they effectively operate a cartel) a heck of a lot less, but I doubt it. As for restaurants, they usually pay for by increasing their prices by pennies. At least now, that's probably unlikely, since local restaurants are probably the closest thing you'd get, other than maybe agriculture, to actual competition, so they probably could absorb the cost.

A one dollar raise in the minimum wage for walmart will cost approx $1.5 billion. (1 million worker x 30 hours x 52 weeks).
While they should be able to absorb a 10% profit decline, wear does that money come from? Holding assets for future growth? Stockholders? Probably the latter.
How does that effect pensions and IRAs, then?

Ehh, math lol.

I disagree with those numbers, but I'll respond to you tomorrow after I finish my exam.

(No this isn't a dodge, I promise lol).
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:09:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:07:05 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
I made one point: all else equal, minimum wage increases unemployment. That is undeniably true and CBO backed me up on that.

Jeez man, stop trying to debate Progressive. Every point he makes is spot on. You actually don't know what your talking about.

Ya. Jif. Thanks for the totally unbiased evaluation

Now, back in reality, I'm actually winning this debate. We can throw links at each other all day long but that would be a waste. I actually use logic.
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:47:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars
The minimum wage is $7.25 meaning that Costco is not legally obligated to pay $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco still pays them that anyways and is still competitive

Please tell me again how the minimum wage is necessary for businesses to pay employees decently
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:53:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 8:47:56 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars
The minimum wage is $7.25 meaning that Costco is not legally obligated to pay $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco still pays them that anyways and is still competitive

Please tell me again how the minimum wage is necessary for businesses to pay employees decently

For one, wage theft is a huge problem. Lassai-Faire folks who want to eliminate all federal wage standards and regulations would have no problem with companies stealing from workers while fat cats get multi-million dollar bonuses.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Furthermore, if we were to raise the min wage. we could get so many employees off welfare and food stamps saving tax payers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 8:53:59 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:47:56 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars
The minimum wage is $7.25 meaning that Costco is not legally obligated to pay $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco still pays them that anyways and is still competitive

Please tell me again how the minimum wage is necessary for businesses to pay employees decently

For one, wage theft is a huge problem. Lassai-Faire folks who want to eliminate all federal wage standards and regulations would have no problem with companies stealing from workers while fat cats get multi-million dollar bonuses.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Furthermore, if we were to raise the min wage. we could get so many employees off welfare and food stamps saving tax payers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

As reliable a source as thinkprogress is, not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:40:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:53:59 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:47:56 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars
The minimum wage is $7.25 meaning that Costco is not legally obligated to pay $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco still pays them that anyways and is still competitive

Please tell me again how the minimum wage is necessary for businesses to pay employees decently

For one, wage theft is a huge problem. Lassai-Faire folks who want to eliminate all federal wage standards and regulations would have no problem with companies stealing from workers while fat cats get multi-million dollar bonuses.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Furthermore, if we were to raise the min wage. we could get so many employees off welfare and food stamps saving tax payers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

As reliable a source as thinkprogress is, not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them

Nice job at an ad hominem: attack the source and not the actually discussion at hand.

"not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them"

Perhaps you are correct. not paying workers more is worse than stealing from them - it is a form of slavery.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:53:07 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:40:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:53:59 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:47:56 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 8:33:35 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars.

Please tell me again how raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Let's just consider the following:

Costco pays on average $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco has excellent benefits that other stores do not offer
Yet the cost is cheaper than most other places and the CEO still makes over 4 million dollars
The minimum wage is $7.25 meaning that Costco is not legally obligated to pay $21.00/per hour per employee
Costco still pays them that anyways and is still competitive

Please tell me again how the minimum wage is necessary for businesses to pay employees decently

For one, wage theft is a huge problem. Lassai-Faire folks who want to eliminate all federal wage standards and regulations would have no problem with companies stealing from workers while fat cats get multi-million dollar bonuses.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Furthermore, if we were to raise the min wage. we could get so many employees off welfare and food stamps saving tax payers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

As reliable a source as thinkprogress is, not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them

Nice job at an ad hominem: attack the source and not the actually discussion at hand.

"not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them"

Perhaps you are correct. not paying workers more is worse than stealing from them - it is a form of slavery.

So, paying workers a wage they voluntarily agreed to work for is a form of slavery. Do you know what slavery is?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:42:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 8:53:59 PM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:

For one, wage theft is a huge problem
Increasing wages doesn't actually change that. And if it did... Holy crap, wages are higher, better have a lower payment rate ^_^.

Also..

http://thinkprogress.org...
Your article is including all violations of pay laws, not merely failure to pay the agreed wage. Paying someone under the table, I would imagine, is a violation of wage laws somewhere.

Lassai-Faire folks who want to eliminate all federal wage standards and regulations would have no problem with companies stealing from workers
I don't know of anyone who has no problem with companies failing to pay the agreed wage.

Furthermore, if we were to raise the min wage. we could get so many employees off welfare and food stamps saving tax payers money.
That's voodoo math that comes from excluding the money you are required at gunpoint to pay from taxes. On net, taxpayers do not save money, and lose value from efficiency losses.

not paying workers more is not the equivalent of stealing from them
If we were to only include cases of failure to pay the agreed wage-- I disagree with ya on this one jim.

So, paying workers a wage they voluntarily agreed to work for is a form of slavery.
The source doesn't back him, but AA is clearly speaking of NOT paying that wage that was agreed upon.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.