Pay Is Too Damn Low

Today is the anniversary of NOT raising the minimum wage. Again. Four years ago, the federal minimum wage topped out at $7.25 an hour as a result of a law signed by President George W. Bush. A full-time worker earning the minimum wage now pulls in a salary of about $15,000 per year, far below a living wage. If Congress doesn’t send President Obama legislation to sign by the end of his second term, he will be the first president since Ronald Reagan who didn’t raise the minimum wage at all.

“McBudgeting” video is from Low Pay Is Not OK. Apologies to Jimmy McMillan for making a variation on his famous slogan.

More info: The American Dream Has Turned into a Grueling Quest for Survival for Millions of People

  1. #1 by Nathan Erkkila on July 24, 2013 - 11:58 pm

    Soon the decrepit hand of the GOP will lose its grip, but for now, they sure are acting like children.

  2. #2 by brewski on July 25, 2013 - 7:11 am

    Why is pay too damn low?

    How about too much artificial supply provided by the corporatist/lefty alliance?

    How about not enough demand caused by capital being chased out of the country?

    Why was I paid above minimum wage to flip hamburgers when I was 16? Did they pay me more because they were more nice then? Why didn’t they just pay be the minimum allowed by law?

    How much would you pay someone who is illiterate, doesn’t speak any English, has no skills, is slow, is not productive, can’t work with others well, etc.? If someone only produces $7 per hour of value of work would you yourself pay him $10 per hour? Would you yourself pay someone more than they produced?

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on July 25, 2013 - 8:54 am

    President Obama wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 and index it to inflation.

    Raising the minimum wage: The right thing to do, the smart thing to do

    The 1968 minimum wage was the equivalent of $10.74 in 2013.

  4. #4 by brewski on July 25, 2013 - 9:06 am

    Thank you for not answering any of my questions.

    • #5 by Richard Warnick on July 25, 2013 - 9:12 am

      Your questions don’t make any sense. If someone isn’t worth $10/hour, don’t hire them. But anyone who works full time ought to be paid enough to live on. Low-wage employers like McDonald’s can only get away with it because of SNAP and other government assistance.

      • #6 by cav on July 25, 2013 - 9:14 am

        …while the .01% haul in exaggerated profits.

      • #7 by brewski on July 25, 2013 - 3:26 pm

        My questions are total sense and very straight forward. Your inability to answer any of them just shows me that you lost.

        If someone is worth $7 per hour and you would be willing to pay him $7 an hour, then a $10 minimum wage would mean he gets zero. How is zero better than $7 per hour.

    • #9 by brewski on July 25, 2013 - 3:32 pm

      Why would they pay 50 cents above the minimum wage if they didn’t have to?

      If the CEO made zero last year, he could have increased each of his employees pay by $0.004 per hour.

      • #10 by Richard Warnick on July 26, 2013 - 10:11 am

        The point is a guy who makes almost $14 million a year is lecturing his employees on how to live on $16,000 a year.

  5. #11 by cav on July 25, 2013 - 10:47 am

    That big new data collection center in Utah’s electric bill is guesstimated to be $40 million/yr.

  6. #12 by brewski on July 26, 2013 - 10:00 am

    1968 is an interesting year with regard to the supply of labor in the US. The labor market conditions then were very different from the conditions now.

    Percent of foreign born residents in the US
    1968 = 4.8%
    2013 = 13%

    Female workforce participation rate:
    1968 = 42%
    2013 = 57%

    Percent of population in military:
    1968 = Vietnam draft sucked hundreds of thousands of young men, pulling them out of the labor force
    2013 = 0.5%

    So you see, 1968 had very different labor market characteristics than today, which resulted in a historically tight labor market and historically high wages for young and unskilled workers. The high wages in 1968 were not due to legislative fiat. It was due to constrained supply.

    Liberal policies of more immigrants, more women in the workforce, and a smaller military will lower wages of the young and unskilled. It’s arithmetic.

    • #13 by Richard Warnick on July 26, 2013 - 10:07 am

      The arithmetic I’m interested in is a federal minimum wage that’s a living wage, indexed to inflation. No more “McBudgeting” that says you make enough money as long as you don’t spend anything on food, clothing, gas, or heat.

  7. #14 by brewski on July 26, 2013 - 10:24 am

    OK Sarah Palin.

    • #15 by Richard Warnick on July 26, 2013 - 3:46 pm

      You ran out of substantive arguments pretty quick this time.

      • #16 by brewski on July 27, 2013 - 5:56 pm

        Since you didn’t can’t and won’t answer any of my previous simple basic questions which you already capitulated on, then why would I need any more. A 5 – 0 win is still a win.

        • #17 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2013 - 6:08 pm

          The labor situation in 1968 is beside the point. If labor is scarce, then very few workers will be employed at minimum wage. However at all times the federal minimum wage ought to be a living wage (even if below poverty level). The alternative is a form of corporate welfare, in which taxpayers contribute to the profits of wealthy CEOs and investors.

          • #18 by brewski on July 28, 2013 - 11:27 pm

            “The labor situation in 1968 is beside the point. ”

            Huh?

            Then why do you keep pointing to the 1968 minimum wage if now you are telling me it is “beside the point”?

            Please say something coherent. Just once. Please.

  8. #19 by cav on July 26, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    The fantasy is that the box which costs nothing and lasts forever will fill all imagined needs. So, yes, Sarah Palin.

  9. #20 by cav on July 27, 2013 - 1:55 pm

    Tonight at 5pm Eastern, Senators Tom Harkin and Mark Begich will be on MSNBC’s Ed Show to discuss their plan to expand Social Security benefits.

    This is an important moment where progressives are going on offense and expanding the debate. To be successful, we’ll need to talk convincingly to our friends, neighbors, and representatives in Congress about the issue.

  10. #21 by brewski on July 27, 2013 - 6:01 pm

    Are they going to explain the math of Ponzi schemes at the same time?

  11. #22 by cav on July 27, 2013 - 6:43 pm

    I think they’ll be addressing the attempted theft of pre-paid retirement monies.

    Not every socially valuable policy is a Ponzi scheme. I’m going to have to stop giving you credit when it’s not due.

  12. #23 by Richard Warnick on July 29, 2013 - 6:32 am

    Everyone uses the 1968 minimum wage as a benchmark because it was a living wage then. Nothing to do with the Vietnam War or the percentage of women in the work force.

    • #24 by brewski on July 29, 2013 - 9:00 am

      Prices have nothing to do with supply and demand? Really?

      • #25 by Richard Warnick on July 29, 2013 - 10:11 am

        Webster’s definition of minimum wage:

        The lowest wage paid or permitted to be paid; specifically: a wage fixed by legal authority or by contract as the least that may be paid either to employed persons generally or to a particular category of employed persons.

        Has nothing to do with supply and demand.

  13. #26 by cav on July 29, 2013 - 9:36 am

    Are we talking ‘inflation adjusted USD’ in a time of exploding choice?

  14. #28 by Richard Warnick on July 29, 2013 - 1:41 pm

    Apple, Walmart, McDonald’s: Who’s the Biggest Wage Stiffer?

    All three companies pay the majority of their employees low wages: poverty-level wages. … The only question is who gets away with the most profits while their employees are forced to tap into public money — our tax money — for food stamps, healthcare and other assistance.

  15. #30 by cav on July 30, 2013 - 10:42 am

    It’s proven almost a fact: Once you start to charge $.68 extra, it’s almost impossible to ever lower that price again.

    Oh, the burgers could be made smaller I suppose, but the labor would likely not diminish. It’s a real problem in this business model.

    And, it must be remembered…$.68 here and $.68 there, and pretty soon you’re starting to talk ‘real money’! The banks certainly see it that way.

  16. #31 by brewski on July 30, 2013 - 4:46 pm

    So a 17% increase in real prices.

    So let’s take that 17% and apply it across all goods. 17% more for groceries, 17% more for clothes, 17% more for other goods. So in other words, your real disposable income will go down 17%.

    I’d like to see any Regressive run on that platform.

  17. #32 by cav on July 30, 2013 - 6:21 pm

    But you’ve doubled the minimum worker’s (at least those at McDs) wage!…for only 17% increase in the price of a burger!

    The wizardry of statistics. And I do get your point.

    But, as things have gone of late, the corporate heads will still be getting an overly large, and certainly undeserved slice of that $.68 (17%), because that’s just their ‘due’ as ‘captains’ of industry and ‘chieftains of our miraculous Business Model. There is NO substitute or better way.

    • #33 by brewski on July 30, 2013 - 7:50 pm

      Yes, I understand that. So everyone who makes around $15 already and is not affect by the increase for all of the minimum wage workers will indeed see their disposable income go down by 17%.

      What was that you were saying about the middle class?

      • #34 by cav on July 30, 2013 - 9:26 pm

        Had the Minimum Wage kept pace with inflation it would now be something like $17/hour and our economy would function every bit as smoothly as it did in the 1950s-60s?

        As the wages effectively decline, so to do the numbers that make the middle class the middle class. as they go down, down come the next level, the managers, and on and on.

        But the wealth IS accumulating in the pockets of the ‘Haves’ in shrewd, often illegal, immoral and heretofore unimaginable ways.
        You cannot argue with that.

        • #35 by brewski on July 31, 2013 - 8:38 am

          Only if you pick 1968 as your base year. Any other year before then it would be much lower. And the figure is $10.50 and not $17.

          In the booming 1950′s the figure was about $8.00 in today’s dollars.

          Minimum wage was never intended to make everyone middle class and it was never intended to provide a “living wage” or to support a family. You are comparing apples to oranges.

          There are lots of jobs and and lots of people who work part time while the do other things (go to school, raise children, etc.) and/or their income is the second, third, or fourth income in the household. Lots of these jobs are considered “entry level” meaning you are supposed to gain skills and move up. So all of these references to the minimum wage and supporting a middle class family are nonsensical.

          If you have proof that someone is earning their money illegally, then please contact the FBI.

          • #36 by cav on July 31, 2013 - 8:43 am

            “If you have proof that someone is earning their money illegally, then please contact the FBI”

            Oh, come on brewski…

            http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/jpmorgan-to-pay-410-million-in-power-market-manipulation-case/?hp

            The last para is the kicker.

          • #37 by Richard Warnick on July 31, 2013 - 9:37 am

            You still haven’t given a convincing reason why there can’t be a living wage for full-time employment. Not a middle-class wage, just a living wage.

            By under-paying their employees, low-wage employers are burdening taxpayers through SNAP and other programs.

          • #38 by brewski on July 31, 2013 - 10:00 am

            Tell me the number you want and I will show you why.

          • #39 by cav on July 31, 2013 - 10:18 am

            Surely you’re not suggesting that declining wages are being used as a tool by corporations to shrink their bottom line in pursuit of even greater profits. That just wouldn’t be realistic in the least..

  18. #40 by cav on July 30, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    Wealth on the other hand, has become a self-sustaining phenomenon – you don’t need customers or manufacturing or any of that obsolete 20th century shit anymore.

    Therefore, there’s no more need for working people. Or a middle class.

    The thing to do in the situation of having ALL of the money in one’ own pocket is to make it as easy as possible for the ‘poors’ (read: 99.99%) to kill each other off.

  19. #41 by Richard Warnick on July 31, 2013 - 11:17 am

    brewski–

    Here ya go: Living Wage Calculation for Salt Lake County, Utah ($9.43)

    Bernie Sanders debates conservative economist over living wage laws

    “I’m proposing that the wealthiest family in this country, the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart, not be subsidized by the middle class in this country,” Sanders said. “They’ve got to start paying their workers a living wage, not starvation wages, provide health care to their workers, not enable them to go on Medicaid.”

  20. #42 by brewski on July 31, 2013 - 12:37 pm

    OK,
    So lets assume we follow Sen. Sanders recommendation. A living wage of $9.43 + social security + medicare + health insurance. For purposes of this I will assume health care costs $4401 per year.

    So ($9.43 x (.062 + .0145)) + ($4,401/2000) = $12.35 cost per labor hour.

    Compared to ($7.25 x (.062 + .0145)) = $7.33

    Increase of $5.02 per labor hour.

    So the average Subway franchise net profit works out to $1 per labor hour in a year after paying all expenses.

    So explain to me where the $5.02 is going to come from?

    • #43 by Richard Warnick on July 31, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      That was Holtz-Eakin’s question, “Where would the money come from?” Well, right now the money is coming from taxpayers. If the low-wage exploiters were required to pay a living wage, the money could come out of profits.

      Subway franchisees pay a weekly royalty of 8% of gross sales. Subway CEO Fred DeLuca has a net worth of $1.5 billion. I agree that franchisees are getting screwed – but since Subway is a highly rated franchise, what does that say about restaurant franchises in general?

      • #44 by brewski on July 31, 2013 - 2:54 pm

        So your answer is what?

        • #45 by Richard Warnick on July 31, 2013 - 4:14 pm

          “If the low-wage exploiters were required to pay a living wage, the money could come out of profits.”

          That was my answer. Corporations are raking in big profits from low-wage franchise operations, but they object to paying a living wage on the basis of the small margins left to their franchisees.

          • #46 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 7:06 am

            There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses who do not pay any franchise fee to anyone. Those hundreds of thousands of small businesses often lose money and often make very little money. So there are no profits from which to get an additional $5.02 per labor hour. You are making this up and you are wishing facts which are not the case for small business owners.

  21. #47 by cav on July 31, 2013 - 12:44 pm

    People who make more than minimum, in the form of taxes, food stamp support, etc?

    IOW soshulizm directed solely by corporate greed.

    • #48 by brewski on July 31, 2013 - 1:02 pm

      Huh?

      • #49 by cav on July 31, 2013 - 5:05 pm

        brew, you asked where the $5.02 was going to come from…I intended to key in Donald Trump and Mitt Romoney, but People who make more than minimum, in the form of taxes, food stamp support, etc? ‘s what showed up on the screen.

        I blame you know who!

        • #50 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 7:07 am

          So where is it actually going to come from?

  22. #51 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 8:26 am

    First, let’s just follow it to see where it actually went, then its fair distribution shouldn’t be so challenging for one such as yourself.

    • #52 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 9:44 am

      I will take that to mean that you have no idea where a small businessperson making very little if any profit will get the extra $5.02 per labor hour. So you agree it will result in job losses. Thank you.

  23. #53 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 10:07 am

    brewski–

    First of all, you gave the example of a Subway franchise, not me. But most of the low-wage workers in America work for giant corporations owned by billionaires.

    Second, raising the minimum wage has never resulted in widespread job losses. Center for Economic and Policy Research:

    Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? (PDF)

    The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research – roughly since 2000 – to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employmentresponse to modest increases in the minimum wage.

    • #54 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 11:14 am

      Yes, I understand your point about franchise fees and how they could be lowered which would free up some money which could go to employees. The math on that could make sense.

      Subway was an example. You may be aware that lots of people work for small businesses which are not Subway and also that are not franchises at all.

      “But most of the low-wage workers in America work for giant corporations owned by billionaires.”
      Plainly false.

      ” raising the minimum wage has never resulted in widespread job losses.”
      So not widespread? So you admit it will result in some. Thank you. I’ll take it.

      • #55 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 11:22 am

        The number of people who are employees at companies with under 100 employees (in other words, not giant corporations owned by billionaires) is over 40,000,000.

        I guess you are telling those 40,000,000 people that they are expendable.

        • #56 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 11:47 am

          If you want to hide behind the franchisees, then your claim might be true. But companies like McDonald’s have a responsibility.

          According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 there were 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum, or 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Not 40 million.

          • #57 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 11:55 am

            And your point is?

  24. #58 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 10:08 am

    My business is still too small for those kinds of considerations. I always assumed it would come from some wingnut’s deep pocket. So I left a step or two out. The money’s out there, you just have to know where it is. Of course it’s jealously guarded.

    You can’t lose a job if you don’t have one – and the PTB are grabbing it all – with the minimum wage workers (and really all others) kow-towing – fearful of losing what little they have left. I guess that makes the already jobless conspirators, They simply went ‘Galt’. There was no downsizing, no off-shoring, no automation, no redundancy as mergers eliminated competition,and most of all no investment in a socially constructed safety net. Just Me, me,me. Makes a lot of sense.

    What I have no idea of is why the rich never seem to have enough. Is it possible that some Corporations really aren’t people – no morality, only a legal compulsion to reward the stock-holders?

  25. #59 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 11:00 am

    ” We conclude that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.”

    National Bureau of Economic Research

    • #60 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 11:52 am

      That’s what they always say prior to a hike in the federal minimum wage. And the predictions are always wrong.

      The problem is that a federal minimum wage that’s not a living wage enables employers to shift part of their labor costs onto taxpayers. This ought to be of concern to principled conservatives.

      • #61 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 11:54 am

        I give you the NBER and you give me your feelings.

        • #62 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 11:57 am

          I gave you the Center for Economic and Policy Research. With a link, and I quoted their conclusion.

          And don’t ask me what my point is when it’s crystal clear.

          • #63 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 12:20 pm

            No. Your point in that post is not clear at all. You may feel your own unstated implications, but when your facts are wrong and you don’t state your point, then it is as clear as mud.

            As for your facts being 100% wrong:
            “Employer-sponsored retirement plans (DB and DC; private-sector and government employers), IRAs (including rollovers), and annuities … assets totaled $19.5 trillion at year-end 2012, ”

            $19.5 Trillion of corporate America is owned by teachers and firemen and bus drivers and civil servants. Your statement about everyone working for giant companies owned by billionaires is just plain false.

            Your facts are wrong and your feelings are wrong. Do you know what “wrong” means?

          • #64 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 12:24 pm

            You don’t even know how to read your own sources. Your source said:
            “little or no employmentresponse to modest increases in the minimum wage.”

            So your example of a 68.5% (5.02/7.33) increase in the minimum wage does not fall within the “modest” definition of your study which you cited and you can’t read and you don’t understand.

            Nevermind that your source is an advocacy group and not an actual objective source.

            Your facts are wrong and your feelings are wrong. Do you know what “wrong” means?

          • #65 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 12:48 pm

            I just knew there was more than enough reason to be hatin’ on teachers and firemen. Grrrrr!

  26. #66 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 12:08 pm

    Much of the earlier times in labor markets were good because of the Soviet threat. Which meant that communism was a real alternative enemy / economy, so capitalists had limitations. Even the training of women in the US was helped by the fear that Russians were doing it.

    But wages stayed higher because of that threat. Now the threat is fundamentalist Islamists who don’t even charge interest.

    No wonder things are messed up.

  27. #67 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 12:36 pm

    I’m trying to get Standards and Poor to overstate my favorables rating and afford me the ability to up my leveraging ratio. Then $5.06 won’t see like such a bite.

    My lucky employees!

  28. #68 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 3:18 pm

    The proposal that is on the table in Washington is to raise the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to a still-measly $9.00/hour. This is a MODEST increase of $1.75, or 24% (NOT 68.5%). It would not have to go up even that much except that four years have gone by without any raise at all. The McBudget is proof of the absurdity of working full time for much less than a living wage.

    It’s simply incredible that anyone would be against this common-sense measure. The phony Willard (“Mitt”) Romney “corporations are people too” argument is nonsense because 71 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

    Corporations are currently sitting on mountains of cash that is not being invested in the economy. The $9 minimum wage will help pry loose some of that capital, contributing to the recovery from Bush’s Great Recession. The proposed increase in the federal minimum wage could increase the level of real gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 0.3 percentage points because it would put more money into the hands of households with a greater propensity to spend it, according to a recent Chicago Federal Reserve Bank analysis.

    • #69 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 4:06 pm

      I was using YOUR assumptions that YOU gave me and now YOU are weasely backing away from them.

      24% is modest? If grocery store prices went up 24% in a day would you call that modest?

      “It’s simply incredible that anyone would be against this common-sense measure.”
      It is simply incredible that you want to throw people out of work.

      If popular polling is your evidence, then I guess you MUST agree with this based on your faux logic:
      “75 percent of likely U.S. voters “believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver’s license, before being allowed to vote.”

      “Corporations are currently sitting on mountains of cash”
      The small employers who employ 40 million people are not sitting on mountains of cash. Those are the one you think are expendable. And why are some companies sitting on mountains of cash? Why would they do that? Is it possibly because it is not in their interests to spend under the current hysterical Authoritarian environment?

      From YOUR source:
      “We view the minimum wage as essentially
      a “tax and transfer” program. Firms that
      have to pay higher wages to their workers
      respond by raising prices on their
      goods and services. Higher prices on
      goods and services offset the income
      benefit for minimum wage workers and
      reduce the real income of non-minimumwage
      workers who did not get a wage
      increase”

      “We are skeptical that minimum wage hikes
      boost GDP in the long run.”

      Also, this paper does not address the question at all of how many people will lose their jobs, since you think they are just expendable.

      • #70 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2013 - 4:24 pm

        I cited a source earlier that said a living wage for Salt Lake County is $9.24 an hour. That was my benchmark for a living wage – obviously in other places it’s more.

        Earned income has been flat or declining for most working Americans. The so-called recovery from Bush’s Great Recession has replaced good-paying jobs with low-wage jobs. Meanwhile the cost of living has risen. A $1.75 an hour raise for the lowest-paid employees is not too much to ask.

        I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in. Employers who refuse to pay a living wage are making taxpayers subsidize their labor costs. Low-wage jobs are a burden for everyone except the billionaires raking in profits.

        Voter ID = voter suppression and poll taxes. If the question were asked honestly, a majority would be opposed.

        Look, every time Washington debates raising the minimum wage the PTB claim there will be a bad effect on the economy. And they are proven wrong every time!

        • #71 by brewski on August 1, 2013 - 9:51 pm

          False.
          You cited Bernie Sanders with a quote saying you wanted a living wage PLUS healthcare. Let me refresh your memory:
          “They’ve got to start paying their workers a living wage… provide health care to their workers”

          So not only are you wrong about your basic facts, you are wrong about yourself. You truly have taken wrongness to new depths.

          I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in. Many small business don’t make any profits at all. Many small businesses make very small profits. $5.02 per labor hour or $1.75 per labor hour will result in many people losing their jobs. What part about math don’t you understand? Did you go to the 3rd grade or had you dropped out by then?

          ” If the question were asked honestly,” Hahahahahahahaa!

          “And they are proven wrong every time!”
          Your link proved me right. I’ll take the win.

          • #72 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2013 - 9:06 am

            Once again, what’s wrong with a living wage? How can any employer pay less than a living wage to full-time workers, in good conscience?

            Faux concern for jobs is always the cover story when the PTB don’t want to give minimum wage workers a raise. It’s gotten tired by now – there is no connection between minimum wage and job losses.

            Time for taxpayers to stand up and stop subsidizing low-wage employers. Paying for SNAP, Medicaid etc. to support the families of workers who are getting screwed is rewarding corporate bad behavior.

          • #73 by cav on August 2, 2013 - 10:51 am

            Republicans have worked hard for a large semi-destitute labor pool, and a great many Democrats haven’t even put up token resistance to this agenda. Some even helped. So, success!

            And / but:

            1.) The only entity that hires for the sake of hiring is the government. While these jobs may be time limited, they are still a paycheck and a job.
            2.) No private company hires more people without needing more people.
            2b.) They will do anything possible to avoid that need – including abusing and misusing current employees.
            2c.) high unemployment makes 2b more possible AND it depresses wage increases – another plus for corporations.
            3.) Government jobs DO exist and this means the government does create them. The fact that they became and are union jobs makes them even more of a virus – needing to be wiped out for the ideologues.

          • #74 by brewski on August 2, 2013 - 1:20 pm

            “Once again, what’s wrong with a living wage?”
            It is arithmetic.

            “How can any employer pay less than a living wage to full-time workers, in good conscience?”
            It is arithmetic.

            ” there is no connection between minimum wage and job losses.”
            False. It is arithmetic.

            If you don’t like making too little, then increase your skills and get another job.

  29. #75 by cav on August 1, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    With only $85 Billion A Month . . . for a few years . . the S&P 500 and Dow can be manipulated to close at new highs.

    Free Markets yea!

    But the lowly…forgetaboutit/

  30. #76 by cav on August 2, 2013 - 9:19 am

    edit

  31. #77 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2013 - 11:51 am

    Unemployment Rate Falls To 7.4 Percent Thanks Partly To Low-Wage Jobs

    Temps accounted for nearly 8,000 of the jobs added in July, and along with retail and restaurant workers made up more than half of the employment gains. Low-wage workers have been a big part of overall job growth since the recession officially ended in 2009, a pattern economists say is normal early in an economic recovery but usually doesn’t last this long.

    “The strong growth in low-wage industries is what happens when the economy is this weak,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “It’s unbelievable that four years later we’re still saying a robust recovery has not begun.”

    If you’re a billionaire CEO making money from cheating the people who work for a living, this economy is going great.

    • #78 by brewski on August 2, 2013 - 1:21 pm

      Yes, Obama is a fail.

  32. #79 by brewski on August 2, 2013 - 1:47 pm

    “The U.S. needs comprehensive corporate tax reform that reduces the corporate tax rate, broadens the corporate tax base and modernizes the international corporate tax system. Comprehensive reform should be revenue-neutral, paid for by eliminating corporate tax preferences.

    A lower corporate tax rate would make it attractive for both domestic and foreign companies to invest more in the U.S., with beneficial effects on U.S. job creation, wages and tax collections, which , in turn, would help reduce the deficit.

    The combination of a lower tax rate and a broader tax base — achieved by eliminating corporate tax breaks and preferences — would reduce disparities in effective tax rates that advantage some economic activities at the expense of others and that distort investment decisions. Reform would also simplify the corporate tax code and reduce the high cost of tax compliance.

    Moving our antiquated international system of corporate taxation toward a hybrid territorial system would level the global playing field by ensuring that companies compete based on productivity and innovation, rather than differences in home country taxation.

    A cut in the federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent, about the average of the developed countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, would alone dramatically reduce the incentives for income-shifting by U.S. multinational companies by rewarding investment and job creation in the U.S.

    Right now, the U.S. is bypassing the chance for an economic renaissance because of its outdated corporate tax system. A comprehensive revenue-neutral reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, moves America to a hybrid international tax system, and eliminates tax breaks and preferences would achieve this goal without increasing the deficit. Indeed, by promoting faster growth, such a reform would contribute to long-run deficit reduction.”

    Dr. Laura Deangelo Tyson
    Former Chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. She is currently a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

  33. #80 by cav on August 2, 2013 - 6:19 pm

    people are afraid for their jobs and will take less money, benefits, and MORE abuse to keep them. You can have constant economic insecurity even if you’ve been in the same job for years. We all know that just about regardless of field, one day the ax might fall.

    Funny, those with all of the money, are the ones whining most about being insecure – even though Too Big To Fail has been polished to a diamond sheen.

  34. #81 by brewski on August 2, 2013 - 9:32 pm

    The best way to have a secure job which pays well is to have a skill which is both in high demand and short supply. That is why many of my wife’s students are in their 40′s who are taking courses to be pharmacists (to cite on example) when they were sheet metal workers.

  35. #82 by cav on August 2, 2013 - 11:18 pm

    I can accept there’s a ‘personal responsibility’ aspect to ones successes and failures, but denying the structural changes that have caused such damage to the ‘job world’ we had come to know , are also a big part of it. As are: growing population, automation, etc. Changes are a certainty, It would be nice if instead of being so invested in ‘getting mine’, we were thinking about what our economy ought to be looking like before we’re swamped by the atmospheric changes that are knocking at the window.

    I mean, how many sheet-metal workers can convert to being pharmacists before our economy can make no sheet-metal, but has an unhealthy plethora of drug pushing snake-oil salesmen?

    Oh, that’s right…we’re about to find out.

    • #83 by brewski on August 3, 2013 - 5:31 am

      The point is, no one else “owes you” a living. The best way to provide for yourself and your family is to gain skills that other people will pay your for.

      If you are a grown adult and the only job you can get is at McDonald’s and you have no other skills, whose fault is that?

      I worked fast food for 2 years. I got paid much more than minimum wage. It also taught me that I need to get some skills. I studied my butt off and became a CPA. I just got a 25% raise this week. Why did my employer just give me a raise? Did they do that because they are nice? Or did they do it because I am valuable to them and I have skills that they need, and I help them be successful?

      • #84 by cav on August 3, 2013 - 8:40 am

        You are / were no doubt of value to them, though one or two of them may have indeed been nice. That happens. But struggling against even a small raise in the minimum wage, as a society motivator while raking all available profits toward themselves and the otherwise non-productive ‘share-holders’, isn’t very reflective of a wish to help any of those struggling with student dept, having been downsized, automation, or for any of the reasons which are beyond the little guy’s control – themselves be successful.

        Is there no truth at all to the notion that the upward redistribution of wealth has widened the chasm between the nation’s rich and poor which has weakened demand and created conditions for a long-term, possibly irreversible slump.?

        Nothing remotely like that at play here?

        • #85 by brewski on August 3, 2013 - 9:46 am

          I can tell you that I have never worked for a nice employer and none of them paid me because of their generosity.

          Let’s suppose you are incredibly unskilled. Don’t speak any English at all. Can’t read or write in any language at all. Are slow. Unproductive. You don’t think that Richard’s assertion that no one make less than $9.24 PLUS employer paid for health care might cause the least employable to be priced out of their own job?

          • #86 by cav on August 3, 2013 - 10:59 am

            It is precisely because we are a society comprised of all kinds, your, illiterate, the aged, the infirm, that the ‘safety nets’ are so important. Neither can one live on the minimum wage, pay off education debts, raise a family, and stay informed about the minutia related to being a realized, active citizen – so certainly not everyone will. But it’s not as though these people (and goodness knows any one of them might be very close to you or me) do not exist and need support / consideration.

            Gotta go.

          • #87 by brewski on August 3, 2013 - 9:47 pm

            And a minimum wage does not do anything that you just said. A minimum wage is not a safety net. I am all for safety nets. But I am not for forcing the least employable to be permanently unemployed by statute. That is what a minimum wage does.

            Yes, these people need support. My next door neighbor works at Wal Mart. She is old and slow and could not get a job anywhere else that pays more and also expects more. That is why she works at Wal Mart. They are the only ones who will hire her. So if you demand that Wal Mart to pay more then they will demand more and the least productive will be let go. You will make my next door neighbor unemployed?

            Am I happy to pay for a safety net for her? Absolutely. But forcing Wal Mart to pay her more will have the effect of making her make $0.

      • #88 by cav on August 3, 2013 - 8:52 am

        From the New York Times

        “We went almost a century where the labor share was pretty stable and we shared prosperity,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.” For the great bulk of workers, labor’s shrinking share is even worse than the statistics show, when one considers that a sizable — and growing — chunk of overall wages goes to the top 1 percent: senior corporate executives, Wall Street professionals, Hollywood stars, pop singers and professional athletes.”

        From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount — while the top 1 percent of households garnered 65 percent of all the nation’s income growth.

        • #89 by brewski on August 3, 2013 - 9:53 pm

          I look forward to Obama proposing a law to mandate lower pay for Hollywood stars, lobbyists, TV anchors, talking heads, pop stars, rappers, and professional athletes.

          Observing what Prof Katz has observed does not mean that encouraging employers to get rid of people will make it any better. Just because there is a problem does not mean that any and all suggested solutions will work. There is such a thing as unintended consequences.

          Just look at Obamacare.

  36. #90 by cav on August 2, 2013 - 11:39 pm

    I could get behind jobs decommissioning nuclear power plants that are at risk, or have outlived their usefulness.

    Not every underpaid indentured servant needs to be flipping burgers.

  37. #91 by Just Wow! on August 3, 2013 - 12:24 am

    So much wonderful SPAM on this site..a veritable clearing house..log bless it..

  38. #92 by Richard Warnick on August 3, 2013 - 11:33 am

    Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July

    In this job market, I doubt that many illiterate, non-English-speaking people are getting hired (except by their relatives).

    The Obama administration can take part of the blame, but it was Republicans who crashed the economy in 2008 and Republicans who are doing their utmost to prevent recovery. NBC/WSJ poll finds support for Congress at all-time low.

    • #93 by brewski on August 3, 2013 - 9:59 pm

      You are wholly ignorant of the sort of people and the sort of work which is done in this country.

      I have seen it. It is here:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

      “but it was Republicans who crashed the economy in 2008″
      Factually untrue. We’ve been over this. It’s been proven. You are wrong.

      “The permanent government of the United States is no longer defined by party or a branch but by a profession comfortably encamped around the federal coffers. The result is that Washington has become the wealthiest city in the nation, and its relative position has actually improved over the past five years, during the worst recession in 75 years.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-root-of-washingtons-ills/2013/08/01/085392aa-fa15-11e2-8752-b41d7ed1f685_story.html

      Hmmm. Who has been in charge for the last five years. Let me think, who could it be?

      • #94 by cav on August 5, 2013 - 9:43 am

        Perhaps someone should point out that in the past we didn’t have as much ‘structural unemployment’ because the companies themselves had training for the positions they needed. IOW, the potential employee didn’t have to guess what the companies wanted or needed. And at that time the government wasn’t expected to pay for something that was the company’s responsibility. That as the government has deregulated corporations they have dropped their traditional responsibilities.

        So of course, that search has already moved out of the country.

        • #95 by brewski on August 5, 2013 - 10:59 am

          I think you have that half right. The first part where you say that companies did training themselves is true. But this isn’t because of government regulation. They did this because they had to since there was no other source of trained workers. So then government decided it was their job to provide trained employees so then the companies didn’t need to any more. So it wasn’t the lack of regulation which cause companies to stop training employees. It was the government stepping in on their own to do training which prompted the companies to stop.

          • #96 by cav on August 5, 2013 - 1:22 pm

            Was STEM the government’s doing? In any event the STEM thing is class-based. STEM means – brains – means the sub-human proles can’t possibly do it – means it’s their own intrinsic limits… so what can you do for them? They can’t survive in this, our modern world! The next conclusion is that we’re best rid of them, by disease and self-deportation. Limiting social & medical insurance is a pretty good start on this program.

      • #97 by Richard Warnick on August 5, 2013 - 8:11 pm

        I forgot. Faux News Channel says powerless Democrats and poor people crashed the economy; Republicans and Wall Street billionaires were their helpless victims. ;-)

        • #98 by cav on August 5, 2013 - 8:52 pm

          Leave the republicans and Wall Street billionaires aloooone!!!

          Their self-constructed ‘uncertainty’ as been insufferable punishment enough,

        • #99 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 7:13 am

          Subsidies create bubbles. Which part of that don’t you get?

  39. #100 by cav on August 3, 2013 - 2:27 pm

    I suppose the spammer ‘Wow’ specifically asked, in a written petition, to have his account cancelled. Wouldn’t have happened if the pay had been better. Oh well.

  40. #101 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 5, 2013 - 10:07 pm

    Richard Warnick :
    I forgot. Faux News Channel says powerless Democrats and poor people crashed the economy; Republicans and Wall Street billionaires were their helpless victims.

    Well to be technical, it was Clinton that signed the disastrous Gramm-Beach-Billey act of 1999.

    But otherwise, the Reagan era bank deregulations, Reagan era changes to corporate bankruptcy law designed to destroy pensions, Greenspan supply side theory ran Fed, zero percent interest rates during time with no leverage limits, the 2005 bankruptcy reform act, heavy lowering of the capital gains taxes, 2001-3 restructuring of executive pay to be more option oriented(enabled by bush tax cuts), 1999-2006 war on the regulatory agencies charged with regulating the trade of derivatives, etc…

    Now that is on the republican heads.

    Why brewski can’t admit that, Austrian economic religion, supply side religion and Chicago school economic religion has fully imploded on it self. well that surely is something that we perhaps will never understand!

    • #102 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 7:21 am

      Repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with the bubble and the crash. I have read a pile of analysis of the bubble and the crash from credible sources and none of them mention it as being a causal factor.

      I have specifically mentioned Greenspan many times as being responsible for the bubbles and the crash. Pay attention.

      The rules for options were passed by Democrats.

      It was Clinton, Rubin and Summers who waged the war on derivatives regulation.

      Your lack of understanding of history, economics, terms, and the English language are in full display.

      • #103 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 6, 2013 - 12:55 pm

        YAWNNN….

        brewski, you are displaying the very reason Glenden doesn’t put up with your shit.

        repeal of glass steagall and removal of leverage limits along with massive decrease of the powers of regulators to regulate.

        Krugman has pointed out the error in repealing Glass Steagall on multiple occasions, Mccain and a few other republicans have come to this sensible conclusion as well.

        The attack on Derivatives regulation started in the banking committee in the Senate after the republicans got wind of a rule proposal for new regulation on what became known as shadow banking.

        Yes Clinton was involved, a stain on his record. And Rubin and Summers are not democrats, they are the supply siders Clinton was forced to choose after being black mailed by the Fed, which was threatening to greatly increase interest rates to purposely dunk the economy ahead of the next election.

        Your lack of understanding of history, economics, terms, and the English language are in full display.

        • #104 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 1:23 pm

          YAWNNN…

          Another Authoritarian Censor. What is it with lefties and the need to trample on the first amendment?

          “repeal of glass steagall and removal of leverage limits along with massive decrease of the powers of regulators to regulate.”
          There is no verb in this fragment. Please learn English.

          “Krugman has pointed out the error in repealing Glass Steagall on multiple occasions, Mccain and a few other republicans have come to this sensible conclusion as well.”
          Krugman did not say it was causal.
          “How did we get into the financial crisis?
          Regulation didn’t keep up with the system. As the shadow banking system evolved, more and more of the world’s transactions were conducted by institutions that were not subject to traditional banking regulation. And because of the ideological environment of the times, there was no attempt to expand regulation. I think now it will be expanded, and securitization will be reduced, and mortgages in South Florida won’t be held in Norway. I think it will be interesting to see just how much of the financial innovation we’ve seen turns out to be regulatory arbitrage. Someone once said that buying these derivatives [which brought down the banks] was like buying insurance for the Titanic from someone on the Titanic.”
          See, no mention of Glass Steagall as being causal.
          You still have not explained how Canada, Japan, Germany, France, UK, etc all have universal banks but somehow uneducated people in the US keep jumping up and down about how bad they are. Are the French right wingers?

          Please stop using words like “supply siders” when you clearly don’t even know what it means. Have you made it to sophomore economics yet?

          Everything else you say is verifiably false. Look it up. You’re wasting my time, kid.

          • #105 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 6, 2013 - 2:39 pm

            This isn’t a public place, its a private blog forum that allows regulated public access, least you demand oneutah turn off the spam filter?!.

            Clearing out spammers, and trolls violates no amendments what so ever, and is a sign of practical encouragement of constructor discussion, not authoritarianism.

            And yes, Krugman has flipfloped around on glass steagall, but not on the wider gramm leach blily act,

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/the-gramm-connection/

            Robert Kutter is less kind to the glass steagall repeal,

            http://prospect.org/article/bubble-economy

            What exactly is your problem with how i use the term supply side, it entirely fits what a supply sider is and who they are.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

          • #106 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 3:51 pm

            Scroll up.
            This site labels itself:
            “Utah’s Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate”

            It calls itself a “public square” and it says this is the place for “debate”. Pretty tough to debate when one side just deletes the posts of anyone who pokes factual holes in their bullshit spin.

            Or is the tagline just another lefty con?

            You called both Rubin and Greenspan supply siders. They are not. They both argued in favor of tax increases.

            Your Krugman link did not say that repealing Glass Steagall was causal.

            Kuttner is not an economist.

            Kuttner piece is factually false on many levels. The biggest falsehood is that risky speculation caused the Great Depression. In fact, we know that it was the Federal Reserve Bank who caused the Great Depression.

            “Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry.”
            - Ben Bernanke

            Then Kuttner’s description of the recent financial crisis is also totally wrong. It was bad lending by banks (with the encouragement of our own government) which caused the crisis and dragged down the rest of us including underwriters. It was not underwriters who brought down safe banks.

          • #107 by cav on August 6, 2013 - 4:34 pm

            You’ve covered your ass now.

            W

  41. #108 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 7:29 am

    I actually agree that pensions should be “bankruptcy remote”. They should also always be fully funded. When I say full funded I mean that the “actuarial net present value” of the liabilities each year should be equal to the assets on hand.

    It is funny that pension plans run by Democratic states and municipalities don’t do this. In addition, is it deeply ironic that liberals are criticizing the law which says that the US Postal Service is required to have a fully funded pension plan. As though having a fully funded pension plan is a bad idea.

    Going further, I think pensions as they are constructed now in the US are a pretty bad idea. The lack of flexibility and portability and the use of completely unrealistic assumptions about people’s lives is really a disservice to the beneficiaries. Other countries handle the issue of retirement income in a much smarter way. The Australian superannuation plans are a much better idea.

  42. #109 by Richard Warnick on August 6, 2013 - 9:23 am

    Why One Fast Food Restaurant Pays Its Workers A Living Wage

    Brian Parker, the restaurant’s co-founder:… said his own experience making minimum wage at a job growing up motivated him to ensure his workers earned a living wage.

    …Media outlets and advocacy organizations recently criticized McDonald’s after the company released a sample employee budget that advised workers to get a second job if they wanted to pay their bills on McDonald’s wages.

    • #110 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 11:05 am

      All workers are not the same. Even workers at one fast food restaurant are not the same as other fast food restaurant. Any restaurant who pays $12 does not hire the same kind of employee who earns $7.40. I doubt the workers who have the $7.40 jobs could get hired at the places which pay $12.

      Does the $12 per hour place hire people who don’t speak any English and are illiterate?

      • #111 by Richard Warnick on August 6, 2013 - 2:13 pm

        McDonald’s workers are definitely a breed apart. According to the McBudget, they have no need of food, clothing, or heat. They must not own cars, because there is nothing in the budget for gas.

        • #112 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 2:27 pm

          If you planned on living a comfortable life working at McDonald’s, you have bigger problems than that.

          • #113 by Richard Warnick on August 6, 2013 - 3:29 pm

            When you say “comfortable life,” you mean being able to afford food and clothing? Of course they could just eat at McDonald’s and wear their uniforms everywhere they go.

  43. #114 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 6, 2013 - 4:33 pm

    Debate

    Noun,

    1. An argument, or discussion, usually in an ordered or formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision.

    2. An informal and spirited but generally civil discussion of opposing views.

    The very nature of debate is regulated, What you are doing is more akin to the Old French word that the word debate derives from.

    debatre (“to fight, contend, debate, also literarlly to beat down”), from Romanic desbattere, from Latin dis- (“apart, in different directions”) + battuere (“to beat, to fence”).

    Rubin and Greenspan are supply siders, One instance of something that contends to the otherwise does not change the whole of the rest of their career working towards the supply side religion they so fervently support.

    It was risky speculation that caused the great depression, millions of dollars of bought on margin investments in the stock market, overly leveraged banks, and unreasonable expectations about productivity gains from new technology in agriculture, and a slow down in industrial growth as productivity in manufacturing levelled off awaiting further technological advancement.

    The Fed had nothing todo with it.

  44. #115 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 6:24 pm

    All of my learned habits about debate I learned here. I started out on this site incredibly polite and rational. I was met with a barrage of slurs, insults, ad hominem attacks, and edits of my posts. So if you want someone to point the finger at, point it at Glenden, Cliff and Shane. They reap what they sow.

    So the Chairman of the Fed says it was the Fed’s fault. I will take his word for it over some marginally informed blogger. You obviously have a lot of studying to catch up on.

  45. #116 by cav on August 6, 2013 - 6:54 pm

    I, for one, value your partially informed, tea-party adherent , misguided offerings. If only you had a sense of humor.

    I still owe you a beer.

    • #117 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 9:18 pm

      Why do you owe me a beer?

    • #118 by cav on August 6, 2013 - 10:25 pm

      In my old age, I must be having a memory lapse. Forget I said anything.

  46. #119 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 6, 2013 - 7:09 pm

    “So the Chairman of the Fed says it was the Fed’s fault. I will take his word for it over some marginally informed blogger”

    It’s foolish to take the position of any political appointee at face value. Especially one so closely tied to such well funded interests.

    • #120 by brewski on August 6, 2013 - 9:18 pm

      It’s foolish to take the position of any freshman with an opinion over a Princeton economics professor with data.

  47. #121 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 6, 2013 - 9:51 pm

    Data?, Austrians don’t use data, they use “self evident” axioms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

    Its contrived bullshit, designed to promote an agenda by giving unworkable economic policy the illusion of being well thought of by “serious” people.

    Economics as practiced today, isn’t a science, its a cover to push bad policy.

    Until economic schools of though that actively use the scientific method come back into fashion, it will be hard to take anyone seriously.

    Post Keynesian school of economics as far as I know is the only one trying to actually study economics as opposed to being a front for political convince.

    Also Krugman just as it so happens, he is also an economics professor!!!!!, so if this is your measure for an individuals believability, maybe you need to rethink that no!?

  48. #122 by brewski on August 7, 2013 - 8:13 am

    Krugman is an economics professor. And he did not say that repealing Glass Steagall was causal to the fiasco.

    Why don’t you make a huge sign and carry it around which says “I have no fucking idea what I am talking about”. You would accomplish just as much.

    You don’t know what caused the Depression and you think that people who want to raise taxes are supply siders. What next? Communists are really conservatives? Any more shit you want to make up?

    Of course lots of people who want to push bad policy look for any sort of cover that serves their purpose. People will couch bad policy with religion, economics, etc. But don’t blame religion for others who push bad policy in their name. And don’t blame economics for others who push bad policy in its name.

  49. #123 by cav on August 7, 2013 - 9:32 am

    No one said ‘causal’ needs to be anything more than ‘enabling’, and while the idea may seem pedantic, none of your rant and name-calling is made any more substantive by making that mistake. It’s as though you yourself have some block that precludes your seeing any culpability in your rich bretheren’s approach to life.

    What’s up with that?

    There are a lot of people out there who will use any platform to advance their agenda (usually grabbing More Money), and as they achieve success, they are positioned to achieve even more. That is how the money has come to be in the pockets of so few.

    You don’t have to be Larry Summers to get that.

  50. #124 by brewski on August 7, 2013 - 9:49 am

    I give a huge amount of culpability to lots of people. But that culpability would be no less if Glass Steagall had not been repealed.

    I am also not a fan of people who say things which are verifiably false. Krugman did not say that repealing Glass Steagall caused the fiasco. To continue to lie about that is just…well….lying.

    That is what is up with that.

  51. #125 by cav on August 7, 2013 - 10:01 am

    None Dare Call It Bullshit.

    Last week, a jury in New York City convicted former Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre on six civil counts of securities fraud, for selling a toxic mortgage-backed bond to investors without disclosing that an architect of the deal, hedge fund Paulson & Co., also bet on its failure.

    The conviction means he’ll pay a fine and probably get barred from the securities industry, an industry he’s already left to pursue a doctorate. This is hardly the level of accountability that practically the entire country demanded to see, especially when you consider that it represents the sum total of legitimate crisis-related convictions, and a non-criminal one at that.

    “The SEC must stop chasing minnows while letting the whales of Wall Street go free,” noted Dennis Kelleher of the public interest group Better Markets.

    Despite this, the Tourre case matters. It should lead Washington to rethink the conventional wisdom that financial regulators and Justice Department officials have spread about these cases: that they’re impossible to prosecute. It’s not just critical for how we remember the last crisis; it also shapes how we should think about the next one, whenever it comes to pass.

    If you look at all the excuses for the total absence of prosecutions of major bank executives for their roles in nearly crashing the global economy, you find two major themes. First, the financial industry’s conduct was perhaps unethical but not technically illegal, especially since the peculiarities of securities law ensure that well-heeled bank executives will find some loophole to exculpate themselves from guilt. Second, juries will not be able to understand the hopelessly complex intricacies of the law, and will simply punt before agreeing beyond a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the bankers.

    BY DAVID DAYEN

    • #126 by brewski on August 7, 2013 - 11:20 am

      The fact that the want after Tourre and not the firm as a whole and not the senior executives is a crime.

      I guess all of those campaign contributions to Obama bought them all immunity.

  52. #127 by cav on August 7, 2013 - 11:12 am

    The Sequestration has forced the elimination of rationality.

  53. #128 by cav on August 7, 2013 - 11:15 am

    “Russia has stabbed us in the back, and each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife,” Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Aug. 1, after Russia defied U.S. requests and granted temporary asylum.

    Meanwhile 5 Yemenis were droned. For what? Who knows.

    We killed them, they must have been guilty.

    Veering dangerously off topic.

    • #129 by brewski on August 7, 2013 - 11:21 am

      Glenden is going to delete your posts.

  54. #130 by cav on August 8, 2013 - 8:45 am

    It could be spam, it could be translator fail, but there is a deeper, darker, more sinister possibility… ‘non-specific chatter’ our surveillance pros construe into Terra Terra Terra?

    Or am I the only one who does that?

  55. #131 by Richard Warnick on August 9, 2013 - 7:31 am

    Zapped the spam, but be assured the NSA has it stored in their vast databank.

  56. #132 by cav on August 11, 2013 - 6:19 pm

    Moyers and Company – Taming Capitalism Run Wild, with economist Richard Wolff.

    Really should be watched. PBS

  57. #133 by Richard Warnick on August 14, 2013 - 4:05 pm

    Congressman Fear Mongers On Minimum Wage: ‘You Guys Wanna Pay $20 For A Hamburger?’

    McDonald’s makes a tidy profit in places like Australia, where the minimum wage is $14.50, and France, where employers must pay at least $12 per hour. Australians are paying exactly 6 cents more per Big Mac than Americans. The French hamburger enthusiast faces a full 10-cent gouge over U.S. prices.

    • #134 by cav on August 14, 2013 - 4:35 pm

      It seems to me that it’s our minimum wage burger flippers that are effectively subsidizing the European burger costs (from a corporate perspective at least). If the globally based chiefs are going to continue making their yacht payments, there’s no way they’ll raise wages for the Murcan prole while keeping the costs in place. As it is those highly rewarded European workers are nicking corporate head and shareholder profits. Austerity bitches! Bust em nao!

    • #135 by brewski on August 14, 2013 - 4:39 pm

      False.

      You lie.

  58. #136 by brewski on August 14, 2013 - 6:42 pm

    This is a pretty good explanation of wages at McDonald’s around the world including Australia.
    From the left leaning ‘”The Atlantic”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-magical-world-where-mcdonalds-pays-15-an-hour-its-australia/278313/

    In short, you could pay McDonald’s employees $10 or $15 per hour. But if you look at how other countries have adapted to this you would find.
    1. Rely on younger workers who are exempt from those laws (as in Australia)
    2. Higher prices
    3. Few workers per store by using technology
    4. Fewer stores

  59. #137 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 14, 2013 - 10:22 pm

    “1. Rely on younger workers who are exempt from those laws (as in Australia)”

    Ridicules, workers age 16 to 18, simply do not make up a very large portion of the Australian work force, both Because it is such a limited age range, and because of a large portion of that group doesn’t enter the work force at those ages.

    I will also point out that their are limits on the hours they can work, further limiting the efficacy of using young workers.

    Of course this came from The Atlantic, so no shock they would make such stupid claims.

    “2. Higher prices”

    A 6% to 17% increase in price, totally worth it, the increase in purchasing power of those MCemployees will benefit the wider economy including MCdonalds. The reduction of use of welfare programs will save us all taxes, this will also save Mcdonalds money.

    “3. Few workers per store by using technology”

    I don’t see the problem here.

    “4. Fewer stores”

    This has more todo with population density differences, Europe has a much higher population density then Australia and there for can support more stores per unit of area.

  60. #138 by brewski on August 14, 2013 - 11:00 pm

    Gee, you say it is “ridiculous” so it must be so. You say the Atlantic is “stupid” so it must be so.

    You say that fewer workers is not a problem? How is fewer workers not a problem? I suppose it is not a problem as long as you aren’t the one losing your job. You are a callous soul to want to throw people out of work. What makes you this way?

  61. #139 by brewski on August 14, 2013 - 11:23 pm

    From Paul Krugman:

    “What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America” (as this book’s back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects…

    Since when do we think that cost increases are not passed on to customers if they are small enough? And the idea that employment “of the affected workers” will not suffer because the affected wages are only a small part of costs is a non sequitur at best. Imagine that a new local law required supermarkets to sell milk at, say, 25 cents a gallon. The loss in revenue would be only a small fraction of each supermarket’s total sales–but do you really think that milk would be just as available as before?”

  62. #140 by cav on August 14, 2013 - 11:40 pm

    Passing ‘Peak Oil, plus the costs of environmental remediation – which needs to occur more and more frequently, plus the increasing numbers of people who feel as though SUVs are a requirement, only server to shove the prices for fuel higher and higher.

    Population increases, off-shoring, and robotization among other things, are shoving the wages down down down.

    It’s a race to the dumpster for the masses, and as thing go, without a ‘consumer’ base, the rich will soon follow.

    Simple arithmetic.

  63. #141 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 14, 2013 - 11:55 pm

    increases in the minimum wage do not place downward pressure on employment levels.

    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2012/06/20/11749/the-facts-on-raising-the-minimum-wage-when-unemployment-is-high-2/

    And referencing point 1#, the 16-18 age population group that enters the workforce is simply so insubstantial that no business including McDonalds could site that as a cost saving measure. They make up no more then a few percentage points of the total workforce, And I suspect that most of those in this group would be farm workers not fast food workers.

  64. #142 by cav on August 15, 2013 - 12:08 am

    “Everytime you tweet a complaint about the 1%, you enrich the 1%.”

  65. #143 by brewski on August 15, 2013 - 10:44 am

    It is entertaining that your link cites studies that Krugman ridiculed by name. So are you now saying that Krugman is wrong?

    There are tons of studies which prove that higher minimum wage laws hurt the most vulnerable the most. And this makes logical sense. Of course if you raise the price for labor that those who are the least skilled will be the first ones priced out of their own jobs:

    “the employment consequences of the
    minimum wage has been settled conclusively, and this research
    proves that those consequences are felt most by young black males.”

    http://www.epionline.org/studies/even_5-2011.pdf

  66. #144 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 15, 2013 - 2:26 pm

    Taking people out of context again brewski,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html?_r=1&

    Google will blister your ass every time my young padowan.

    And I will match your right wing think tank link with a left wing think tank link.

    http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

    Mind you that left wing link, uses studies from respectable sources; Like Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, and MIT.

    That page alone lists at-least a dozen separate studies all from respected sources, You won’t find a single link to Liberty university, Trinity university, or Cato, or anyother junk study mill.

  67. #145 by brewski on August 15, 2013 - 4:20 pm

    Krugman is a right wing think tank?

    All you have done is that you have documented for me that Krugman is a hypocrite. You documented that he changes his position on the same topic when it suits his partisan bias du jour.

  68. #146 by brewski on August 15, 2013 - 4:28 pm

    Oh un-read one. Do you even read your own links? Your own links refer explicitly to “modest” increases to the minimum wage only. As Krugman already slapped this around before:

    ““What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America” (as this book’s back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects…

    Since when do we think that cost increases are not passed on to customers if they are small enough? And the idea that employment “of the affected workers” will not suffer because the affected wages are only a small part of costs is a non sequitur at best. Imagine that a new local law required supermarkets to sell milk at, say, 25 cents a gallon. The loss in revenue would be only a small fraction of each supermarket’s total sales–but do you really think that milk would be just as available as before?”

  69. #147 by cav on August 15, 2013 - 5:23 pm

    Insofar as the diminished cash-flow in to the Dairy industry impacted their promotion (Got Milk?), demand would be expected to drop as well (It IS a market – which has numbers of elements that are either masked by the marketeer, or simply overlooked by the buyer). Which to my way of thinking would be a good thing. Americans eat way too much cheese, drink way too much milk. It just isn’t healthy. But that’s another story. If you need something whitish and liquid, there are healthy substitutes.

    Same goes for burger meat. I bet there’s been an uptick in burger consumption since this minimum wage for the flippers began.

  70. #148 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 15, 2013 - 5:38 pm

    Again brewski,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html?_r=1&amp

    “Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.” — Krugman

    So brewski, do you have a link for that comment, I will not take anything you put forward on faith, you tend to take peoples comments out of context, or outright lie.

  71. #149 by brewski on August 15, 2013 - 6:04 pm

    Again RDH, we already established that Krugman flip flops.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/paul_krugman_th_2.html

  72. #150 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 15, 2013 - 7:08 pm

    An anonymous blogger linking to a shady website behind an anonymousizer service, with a purported article written by Krugman using a deeply conservative narrative.

    I think I will stick with the website I can trace the origin of, and know for a fact is the mouth of Krugman.

    and again,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html?_r=1&amp

    “Why is this true? That’s a subject of continuing research, but one theme in all the explanations is that workers aren’t bushels of wheat or even Manhattan apartments; they’re human beings, and the human relationships involved in hiring and firing are inevitably more complex than markets for mere commodities. And one byproduct of this human complexity seems to be that modest increases in wages for the least-paid don’t necessarily reduce the number of jobs.” — Paul Krugman

    And again,

    “Finally, it’s important to understand how the minimum wage interacts with other policies aimed at helping lower-paid workers, in particular the earned-income tax credit, which helps low-income families who help themselves. The tax credit — which has traditionally had bipartisan support, although that may be ending — is also good policy. But it has a well-known defect: Some of its benefits end up flowing not to workers but to employers, in the form of lower wages. And guess what? An increase in the minimum wage helps correct this defect. It turns out that the tax credit and the minimum wage aren’t competing policies, they’re complementary policies that work best in tandem.” — Paul Krugman

    • #151 by brewski on August 16, 2013 - 7:29 am

      RDH,
      I know you are too young and uneducated to know this, but not everything is on the internet. Apparently, the 1998 Washington Monthly issues are not. Go to the library sometime.

      From your quote above:
      “modest”

      • #152 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 16, 2013 - 1:25 pm

        http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html

        Gives a Publish date only, it does not list a source.

        Your link doesn’t even follow standard educate for siting sources, Never a good sign.

        Their is zero reason I should accept anything from this source.

  73. #153 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 15, 2013 - 7:08 pm

    moderation!!!!!!!

  74. #154 by cav on August 15, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    Ronald, it’s spelled S O S H U L I S M.

    And, welcome to the ‘club of the moderated’.

  75. #155 by Richard Warnick on August 16, 2013 - 11:14 am

    “McJobs” are not worth having. People need real jobs. Pretty good explanation of the low-wage issue on Alternet (emphasis added):

    By every measure, low wage workers are paid less now than they were from the 1950s-1970s. As economists at Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, if the minimum wage had, since 1968, increased to keep pace with to the Consumer Price Index – the best measure of purchasing power – it would now be be $10.57, $3.50 higher than it is. The minimum wage is also disgracefully low compared to productivity levels; that means that workers are making money, they just aren’t being allowed to keep much of it.

    So the question of whether fast food companies can afford to pay workers more is like asking whether slaveholders could afford to give up slavery – yes, it’s a pain to go from paying workers less to paying them a living wage. Bosses don’t like making that change. Some will go out of business, just as some plantations did after the Civil War. The same can be said of factories at the end of last century who were forced to give up child labor and observe safety laws: those were sometime expensive changes. But for the rest of society, such changes are good.

    Some people have argued about where a raise to $15 could come from. Judging from McDonald’s annual report, a raise would minimally affect the company’s massive profits. Some commentators worry about struggling franchises, but the raise could also come out of the considerable (and fixed) royalty they pay to McDonald’s headquarters – not out of franchise owners’ take-home pay.

  76. #156 by brewski on August 16, 2013 - 3:37 pm

    “By every measure, low wage workers are paid less now than they were from the 1950s-1970s.”
    The new supply of low skilled workers couldn’t have anything to do with that, could it?

    ” if the minimum wage had, since 1968,”
    What is magic about 1968? Why not 1960? or 1958? or 1964? What else was going in in 1968 that might have affected the wages of workers? Or is 1968 representative of anything or just random?

    “So the question of whether fast food companies can afford to pay workers more is like asking whether slaveholders could afford to give up slavery ”
    No. It isn’t like that at all. Slavery was a legal system where the government enforced some people to be owned by other people. Working for McDonald’s is not enforced by threat of lashing by the government. If you don’t like it you are free to leave. If you are low skilled then go get some skills. The analogy is about as relevant is saying oranges are to tangerines are apples are to dogs. It is nonsensical and so is the analogy.

    Also, it does not matter what anyone “can afford”. I can afford lots of things that I don’t pay more for. I paid $3.67 for gas today, but I could have afforded to pay $3.77. So what if I could have paid more. I have no obligation to pay more than the going rate. So this whole sentence of what McDonald’s “can afford” is irrelevant to wages entirely.

    • #157 by Richard Warnick on August 17, 2013 - 12:05 pm

      I knew we could count on brewski to stand up for greed. But in addition to greed there is such a thing as social responsibility.

      For example, if by paying a little more for gas you could fund renewable sources of energy and keep Planet Earth habitable, you might do that. I know I would.

      Similarly, McDonald’s could take an enlightened view and pay their employees a living wage in the USA as they do in other countries. But no, they are waiting for the government to force them to change their ways.

      • #158 by cav on August 17, 2013 - 3:29 pm

        And the government is waiting for us to find just the right phrasing of ‘Pretty Please’ – so as to not activate the NSA terrist / Occupy filters – and ‘force’ them to do (as they were elected by the preponderance of voters) what they said they would do, and are by oath to uphold the constitution, morally obligated to do.

      • #159 by brewski on August 17, 2013 - 11:39 pm

        Richard, you lie about yourself now.
        You have confessed that you have not put solar panels on your own roof and you can’t be bothered to take public transportation since it isn’t convenient for you.

        McDonald’s does not take an enlightened view in other countries. What evidence do you have that they are enlightened there and not here? They also use more technology and fewer employees in other countries. RDH has even confessed on this chain that he doesn’t see any problem with laying of workers. The whole McDonald’s in other country myth has already been debunked. Admit that you have lost and move on.

        • #160 by Richard Warnick on August 18, 2013 - 11:55 am

          McDonald’s seems to have a policy of doing the right thing when the law requires it. So let’s require it in the USA.

          Solar energy ought to be cheaper than energy from the grid, but in Utah it’s not.

          I love public transportation when it’s cheaper and quicker than driving. When I lived in New York our family didn’t even own a car.

          Utah public transportation is a different story. After many years, the TRAX system just got extended to Draper, and I rode from Draper to downtown SLC yesterday to try it out. But it took 20 minutes longer than driving, counting the drive from home to the Draper station.

          • #161 by cav on August 18, 2013 - 12:42 pm

            Using solar is something of a left-wing affair as yet. It goes with decentralization and democracy. The big solar parks and windmill farms are still in the privatized marketing sphere, but we’ll soon see through much of that. As the electricity infrastructure markets more and more brown and black-outs, and the fracking comes to more and more fiery faucets, and the meaning of ‘down-winder’ is broadened to include Fukashima (both winds away from and ocean currents away from), the smart money will definitely go for solar in every way imaginable.

          • #162 by brewski on August 18, 2013 - 2:40 pm

            “McDonald’s seems to have a policy of doing the right thing when the law requires it.”
            This is nonsensical.

            “Solar energy ought to be cheaper”
            And beer ought to cause weight loss.

            “I love public transportation when it’s cheaper and quicker”
            You mean only when it suits you.

            You are a hypocrite.

          • #163 by cav on August 18, 2013 - 5:04 pm

            This Fukashima thing is really terrifying!

            http://rt.com/news/fukushima-apocalypse-fuel-removal-598/

  77. #164 by cav on August 17, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    edit

  78. #165 by cav on August 17, 2013 - 4:08 pm

    Of course the greed, isn’t always on the part of the upper eschalon muckity-mucks. We also witness everyday, the steadily diminishing humanity of those fighting to hold jobs they don’t even want but fear the alternative (being unemployed) worse. People simply empty out. They are bodies with fearful and obedient minds. The color leaves the eye. The voice becomes ugly. And the body. The hair. The fingernails. The shoes. Everything does. Still, they wouldn’t entertain sharing or even stepping aside. The cable bill needs a payin’.

  79. #166 by cav on August 17, 2013 - 4:27 pm

    There was a time when workers would happily sing – out in the cotton fields.

    Weren’t those the days?

  80. #167 by Richard Warnick on August 19, 2013 - 1:12 pm

    brewski–

    I’m a consumer living in a consumer culture. We are always looking for products and services that offer convenience and low price. Convenience is important, because time is money. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

    Things being equal, I’ll take the socially responsible option. Costco instead of Sam’s Club, for example.

  81. #168 by brewski on August 19, 2013 - 1:37 pm

    Thank you for explaining to me that your principles can be bought pretty cheaply. That settles that.

    • #169 by Richard Warnick on August 19, 2013 - 3:09 pm

      If I was Ed Begley Jr. I could afford to be an early adopter of expensive renewable energy tech. But let’s face it, a handful of rich Hollywood types can’t create the economy of scale needed to bring down costs.

      This is where the government would come in, if our government wasn’t on the side of Big Oil.

      • #170 by brewski on August 19, 2013 - 4:23 pm

        So you want other people to pay for your principles. Thanks for the confirmation.

        • #171 by cav on August 19, 2013 - 8:34 pm

          In a market society such as ours, we should be able to do with our principles what ever we wish. Take the highest offer as it were. Isn’t that just the behavior our representatives have been modeling? There is no hypocrisy, only deal making.

          I blame Eric E. Burns – a safe bet in this atmosphere.

          • #172 by brewski on August 19, 2013 - 10:24 pm

            They made the movie “The Magic Christian” specifically about Richard.

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064622/

          • #173 by cav on August 19, 2013 - 10:48 pm

            Didn’t they open for Steppenwolf?

            Wrong Magic Christian.

  82. #174 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2013 - 10:35 am

    Returning to the topic of this post…

    Tell McDonald’s: Stop cheating employees with fee-laden debit cards

    Natalie Gunshannon, a 27-year-old single mom, worked at McDonald’s. But when she picked up her first paycheck, they gave her a JP Morgan Chase Payroll card. The card had a $1.50 fee for ATM withdrawals, a $10 inactivity fee after 90 days, and other transaction fees.

    In other words, she has to pay to access her earned salary. When Natalie asked to be paid with a simple check, they refused—and said this was the only way McDonald’s would pay her.

    • #175 by brewski on August 20, 2013 - 12:43 pm

      • #176 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2013 - 1:06 pm

        No. The point is to get McDonald’s President & CEO Don Thompson to stop this practice completely, and not leave it up to the franchisees.

        • #177 by brewski on August 20, 2013 - 2:55 pm

          Your racism is so blatant. You just can’t stand that a black man is successful.

          • #178 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2013 - 4:12 pm

            You are wasting your time hurling accusations at me. And it calls attention to the fact you have nothing substantive to say.

          • #179 by brewski on August 20, 2013 - 4:50 pm

            I should quote you to Herr Brown.

    • #180 by cav on August 20, 2013 - 1:11 pm

      It’s so easy to drift off topic. For example, these cards of which you write are just a part of the surveillance apparatus – aware, in it’s way, of where we spend our hard earned McDollars. And, of course, graciously provided and ministered by one of the Big Banks (for a nominal fee).

  83. #181 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2013 - 10:08 am

    Former McDonald’s CEO Claims Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs

    Guess what network he went on to tell this lie?

    • #182 by brewski on August 22, 2013 - 1:40 pm

      that thinkregress piece is a farce of logic.

      • #183 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2013 - 2:00 pm

        So you agree with Ed Rensi? If we raise the federal minimum wage, 15 to 20 percent of business will shut down?

        • #184 by brewski on August 22, 2013 - 4:25 pm

          You didn’t say by how much.

          • #185 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2013 - 7:05 pm

            What’s in the Think Progress piece that you’re not buying? Did they quote Rensi incorrectly? Or do you agree with Rensi?

          • #186 by brewski on August 22, 2013 - 8:52 pm

            All of it. Do you want me to walk through sentence by sentence and tell you why my 7 year old could tell you that it makes no sense at all?

            1. You misquoted Rensi
            2. You didn’t say by how much of a raise.

          • #187 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2013 - 9:18 pm

            If this is a misquote, then please supply the correction. Emphasis added.

            Appearing on Fox News, former McDonald’s CEO Ed Rensi told host Neil Cavuto that raising the minimum wage, as many fast food workers are demanding, would “absolutely” kill jobs and hurt businesses. Claiming that Obamacare is going to shutter 15 to 20 percent of all small businesses, he stated, “If they did this minimum wage thing I’m telling you there’d be another 15 to 20 percent [of small businesses] that are going to go away.” He added, “You can’t afford it.”

            Notice that yet another billionaire is on Faux News claiming to represent small business. What a crock!

          • #188 by brewski on August 22, 2013 - 10:06 pm

            They got the quote right. You didn’t.

            Yet another multi-millionare on MSNBC claiming to be for the working man. What a crock.

            It just eats you up inside seeing a black man more successful than you. Your envy and racism is complete.

        • #189 by cav on August 22, 2013 - 7:59 pm

          Did he really build a better burger? That is the question.

  84. #190 by cav on August 22, 2013 - 11:49 am

    I’m concerned that even while the Corporate profits, driven by the tremendous wage growth among executives, the finance sector seeing historic highs, high and anticipatory profitability practically across-ed the board, all augmented by a great percentage of all Income growth being captured by those in the top 1 percent — that their programming thus far, their (in many ways perfectly justified) fears of the proletariat, that. even they, in their lofty places, have noticed the declining value of any one Dollar, added to, for just that much more a special measure, the entire surveillance apparatus- are going to do something that will really exacerbate the divide – causing an even greater potential for blow-back. All for lack of any imagination in regards to how they might begin to wind this whole thing back to where the threat was more tolerable, the humanity more humane, and the risks to themselves, as well as to their fellow man, were much much lower.

    Word salad, I know, but there’s a germ somewhere in all of that I’d like to get out there.

  85. #191 by cav on August 22, 2013 - 6:43 pm

    Did somebody suggest that Government cannot create jobs?

    The private intelligence industry is a $56-billion-a-year business whose profits are almost wholly dependent on government contracts – and thus, on political decisions in Washington.

    So, not only are they busy creating jobs, but these jobs are apparently relatively high paying jobs to boot.

    Your tax dollars at work.

    • #192 by brewski on August 22, 2013 - 8:58 pm

      False.
      Where does that $56 billion come from and what jobs were destroyed to get it?

      “VI. CONCLUSION
      Regressions of unemployment on public employment and of private employment on public employment, each of which is based on two definitions of public employment, find robust evidence that public employment crowds out private employment. The magnitude is statistically indistinguishable from full crowding out.”

      http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13146.pdf

      Note the source is not Fox News, Cato, Heritage, MSNBC, Thinkregress, Alternet, Krugman or any of the partisan hack groups.

      • #193 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2013 - 9:14 pm

        Utter bullshit. Government is the lender of last resort for the financial sector – the banks were lavishly rewarded with zero-interest loans despite being the cause of our economic meltdown.

        Government is ALSO supposed to step in as employer of last resort to help the VICTIMS of the banks. Thanks to Republican sabotage and Dem weakness, they failed at the second part.

        • #194 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 7:45 am

          I give you the IMF and you give me your feelings. You lose.

          • #195 by cav on August 23, 2013 - 8:28 am

            IMF, GDP, You seem to have an overly rich allegiance with these outfits and outlooks, yet you call Richard on having feelings about democracy.

            Your argument is no less of a loser. IMF indeed. When were they ever on the ballot?

          • #196 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 9:00 am

            I don’t have a rich allegiance to these outfits or outlooks. I try to find sources which are credible and not a naked advocacy group. So the IMF and OECD are credible professional organizations. Pretty much none of Richard’s sources are that.

            The argument that the government can create jobs doesn’t pass the smell test. If it were possible then all governments would be able to create full employment and prosperity. History and reality shows us this is not the case. Governments can appear to be creating jobs and can tell the gullible that they are creating jobs, but the reality is that it isn’t mathematically possible.

            I have been in Zimbabwe. My brother spent over a month inside North Korea. My wife spent 3 months in the USSR. We have seen it. It doesn’t work.

            “”The problem with s*o*c*i*a*l*i*s*m is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

          • #197 by cav on August 23, 2013 - 11:33 am

            ‘Structural unemployment’, a concept you should familiarize yourself with.

          • #198 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 1:06 pm

            I am very familiar with it.

            “It doesn’t work”, a concept you should familiarize yourself with.

      • #199 by cav on August 22, 2013 - 10:23 pm

        Are you suggesting it’s really a distribution issue in a zero sum economy?

        • #200 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 9:06 am

          The economy can and does grow due to increases in productivity. It is a simple law of arithmetic that GDP is the product of how many people times output per person. Period. So increasing output per person is the only way to increase the economy. Increasing immigration does in fact increase GDP, but then you have more heads so it may not increase GDP per person and does not increase income per person.

          However, at any one point in time it is a zero sum game. So the government spending it in one place is taking it away from another place.

          • #201 by cav on August 23, 2013 - 11:54 am

            In the light of attempting to actually ‘recapture’ ‘Our Government’, I have an inherent tendency to reject the idea that it or the GDP are the last word in how our economy must be, or ought to be organized.

            It’s broken, of that there’s little doubt – even the way we measure it is bullshit.. So, let’s try to be a little bit more imaginative and not to give such credence to the very entities that have created this shamble in the first place. We don’t want to be stuck with ‘Murcan brand fascism for the duration.

            Mkay?

  86. #202 by Richard Warnick on August 23, 2013 - 9:17 am

    The irony is that most of the people saying “government can’t create jobs” are Republicans WITH highly-compensated government jobs. Most members of Congress make $174,000 a year (House Speaker John Boehner gets $223,500) plus perks, including a generous defined-benefit pension plan.

    Government Can Create Jobs: By Hiring People

    Only ideological silliness (and, let’s face it, Republican obstructionism), prevents the obvious fix: having the government put people back to work in the service of public goods such as infrastructure, education, public health and research. But we can at least begin to address the dire picture of joblessness by dispatching the notion that the government can’t create jobs.

    Anyone willing to write a check can create a job. Only two camps have access to a big enough checkbook to create enough of them to make a difference. The private sector must answer to corporate shareholders who have no appetite for hiring until they see profits attached to adding payroll. The government is supposed to answer to the rest of us. Where is the constituency against job creation?

  87. #203 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 11:13 am

    False.
    Republican politicians are not “most of the people saying “government can’t create jobs”. They might represent .001%

    Also, who cares what other people “say”. I am telling you the TRUTH.

  88. #204 by brewski on August 23, 2013 - 3:20 pm

    I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who is a licensed social worker. She works for a non-profit agency who works with families who are dealing with all kinds of problems including abuse, parenting skills, financial stress, etc.

    So she just told me that she just got her hours cut back to 29 hours.

    She also told me that as she has looked for other jobs that all the non-profit agencies are post on their jobs “29 Hours only”.

    She is telling me that en entire non-profit family services world are cutting their employees back to 29 hours all due to Obamacare.

    So it is not just McDonald’s and Wal Mart and those evil billionaires who are doing that. It is everyone including the good and moral and virtuous little non-profits.

    In other words, Obamacare is hurting non-profits and the people who work for them.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/08/22/local-governments-cutting-hours-over-obamacare-costs/

    • #205 by Richard Warnick on August 23, 2013 - 4:30 pm

      If only the Affordable Care Act was, you know, affordable, it might be popular.

    • #206 by cav on August 23, 2013 - 5:41 pm

      We used to talk-up, and dream of a day when the promised leisure that was to accompany robotics, would arrive. Well, here it is!

      29 hours, and the rest of the week is yours – to do with as you please. Utopia.

      Trouble is, some people make in a day, what it takes others 52 twenty-nine hour weeks.

      That ain’t right

  89. #207 by Richard Warnick on August 23, 2013 - 4:26 pm

    Raising The Minimum Wage Is A Political Goldmine

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an issue that was hugely popular with the public, fit perfectly into the progressive agenda, appealed to the white working class, and split the Republican Party right in half? Sounds to be good to be true, right? Actually, it’s hiding in plain sight: raising the minimum wage.

  90. #213 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2013 - 10:13 pm

    Americans Are Earning Less Than At The End Of The Recession

    The average household earns less today than when the recession officially ended in 2009, according to a new report from Sentier Research. Median household income has fallen 4.4 percent in that time, adjusted for inflation, from $54,478 in June 2009 to $52,098 in June 2013.

  91. #214 by cav on August 24, 2013 - 10:33 pm

    Who are these ‘Americans’ of which you write?

    Rubin, Dimon, Blankfein, Geithner, Summers, Obama, Peterson, Romney… ?

    Skewing the average in unimaginable ways.

  92. #215 by brewski on August 24, 2013 - 11:22 pm

    Everyone is making less except for government employees since they are special:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/04/white-house-again-calls-for-federal-employee-raise/

    • #216 by cav on August 25, 2013 - 6:34 pm

      ALBANY, N.Y. — As a lobbyist in New York’s statehouse, Stephen Acquario is doing pretty well. He pulls down $204,000 a year, more than the governor makes, gets a Ford Explorer as his company car and is afforded another special perk:

      Even though he’s not a government employee, he is entitled to a full state pension.

      He’s among hundreds of lobbyists in at least 20 states who get public pensions because they represent associations of counties, cities and school boards, an Associated Press review found.

      But several states have started to question whether these organizations should qualify for such benefits, since they are private entities in most respects: They face no public oversight of their activities, can pay their top executives private-sector salaries and sometimes lobby for positions in conflict with taxpayers. New Jersey and Illinois are among the states considering legislation that would end their inclusion.

      “It’s a question of, ‘Why are we providing government pensions to these private organizations?’” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz.

      “It’s clear that there’s a big problem with hypocrisy when these lobbyists have been pushing austerity and benefit cuts for other government workers while they themselves enjoy solid state pensions,” said Michael Kink of the progressive group Strong Economy for All Coalition.

  93. #217 by cav on August 25, 2013 - 5:10 pm

    “Paul Piff of the University of California at Berkeley told PsyPost …“There is something about wealth that gives rise to a sense of entitlement, a sense that one deserves more good things in life than others, which in turn gives rise to an increased or inflated sense of self-importance, vanity, grandiosity, and omnipotence (narcissism).”

    “Narcissism is a multi-faceted and complex construct, but that wealth is specifically associated with it suggests that as a person’s level of privilege rises, that person becomes increasingly self-focused – in a sense, becoming the center of their own world and worldview,” he explained.

    The Berkeley researcher has received a great deal of attention for his studies on how wealth influences behavior. His previous research found upper-class individuals were more likely to lie and cheat when gambling, cut people off when driving, and endorse unethical behavior in the workplace.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/study-finds-wealth-gives-rise-to-a-sense-of-entitlement-and-narcissistic-behaviors/

  94. #218 by brewski on August 26, 2013 - 9:55 am

    I am in moderation.

    • #219 by Richard Warnick on August 26, 2013 - 5:12 pm

      You put in too many links.

      • #220 by brewski on August 26, 2013 - 5:31 pm

        I had too much data to prove you wrong. I guess OneUtah doesn’t like me being right all the time.

        • #221 by cav on August 26, 2013 - 6:26 pm

          If ‘they’ hate us because of our freedom (see: Free-speech zones, and the NSA) ‘OneuTah can hate you because of your incessant correctitude! is there really anything more annoying? I mean brewman, flub up now and then, cut us some small slack – won’t ya?

          Imagine what it must feel like to be OneuTah…always wrong, in every way imaginable. It’s a good thing you’re on board or we’d just be left to blunder and fumble around in someone else’s ‘reality’. Thank you,, thank you, thank you.

  95. #222 by Richard Warnick on August 26, 2013 - 5:27 pm

    Chris Cillizza:

    Through the first eight months of 2013, the House has passed just 22 bills that have been sent to President Obama. That’s the smallest number of passed bills since people began keeping track of these things.

    Least-productive Congress ever. Least popular, too. How’s that Party of NO thing working out?

    • #223 by cav on August 26, 2013 - 6:32 pm

      Richard seems to have a problem with re-naming post offices after St. Ronnie.

      What’s the matter Rich, did someone pries that ‘reality handle’ out of your kool-aid addled hands?

      Snark motor / off

    • #224 by brewski on August 26, 2013 - 10:17 pm

      I never trust a person who went to a high school that has its own art gallery:
      http://www.loomischaffee.org/page.cfm?p=3460

    • #225 by cav on August 26, 2013 - 11:06 pm

      While Chris’s high school may have been fortunate enough to promote appreciation of the arts, that does not make Chris a pundit worth listening to. The TV talking heads are paid for their opinions and because that is the case, those opinions will not diverge too greatly from their sponsorship.

      Honestly, I see him in a weatherperson’s slot. But that’s just me.

      • #226 by brewski on August 27, 2013 - 7:15 am

        His high school tuition is $51,000 per year. And he has any business telling other people what to think.

  96. #227 by brewski on August 26, 2013 - 5:37 pm

    Since when was the number of bills passed any kind of sensical metric for Congress? They should use as a metric the number of stupid bills not passed or the number of laws repealed.

    You have lost it.

    NO to stupid is GOOD.

    • #228 by Richard Warnick on August 26, 2013 - 7:58 pm

      There’s something wrong with a Congress controlled by a party that doesn’t believe Congress has any function. Hence the single-digit approval rating.

      • #229 by brewski on August 26, 2013 - 8:03 pm

        You have already been proven to be wrong. Why do you continue digging yourself a hole?

        • #230 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2013 - 7:22 am

          Rasmussen poll:

          How would you rate the way Congress is doing its job?

          Excellent 2%
          Good 8%
          Fair 23%
          Poor 66%

          • #231 by brewski on August 27, 2013 - 8:54 am

            And your point is what? That Congress should increase the number of bills passed? Why don’t we just measure them on the number of pages of each bill, or how many words each bill has?
            Last time I checked Congress’ approval rating was in the shithole under the Dems too.

  97. #232 by cav on August 26, 2013 - 6:38 pm

    “NO to stupid is GOOD.” NO to good government is STUPID.

    Where were the good people when the stupids were conjuring up the bald-faced WMD lie?

    We’re smarter nao!

  98. #234 by cav on August 26, 2013 - 10:05 pm

    Down the hall, second door on the ‘left’. Knock three times and announce: ‘Ben Frank with your ‘depth-charges”. They’ll let you right in.

  99. #235 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2013 - 9:10 am

    My point is that the “don’t just do something, stand there” approach you recommend for Congress does not reflect the will of the people.

    My point is that sequestration is holding back our recovery from Bush’s Great Recession – thanks Congress!

    My point is that maybe the House of Representatives could get busy raising the minimum wage and creating the “jobs-jobs-jobs” that Republicans promised at election time.

    My point is that it’s just plain stupid to threaten a government shutdown and/or defaulting on the National Debt.

    • #236 by brewski on August 27, 2013 - 10:33 am

      My point is that saying NO to crap bills is GOOD.

      Sequestration is about 89th on the list of things that matter with regard to the Obama-faux recovery.

      You don’t need Congress to raise the minimum wage. Every state, county and city can do that.

      It’s just plain stupid to promise stuff that Obama says we can’t pay for.

      • #237 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2013 - 11:39 am

        Austerity is going to leave the U.S. economy with 2 million fewer jobs and $433 billion less in economic growth by 2019.

        Utah could raise the minimum wage, but our legislature won’t. They represent the rich.

        Obama and the Republicans made Bush’s tax cuts for the rich permanent without paying for them. Now Speaker Boehner thinks budget deficits are too high.

        • #238 by brewski on August 27, 2013 - 6:53 pm

          There is no austerity.

          You did it again. Linking an op-ed piece which then links to a fake “study” by a poser advocacy group.

          You make Rush look intellectual.

          Your link’s link is another op-ed piece which states that by 2015 the deficit will “only” be 2.1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. So merely adding trillions more to the debt is what you call “austerity”.

          Does the author evaluate the alternative? The Greece Scenario?

          No.

          • #239 by Richard Warnick on August 28, 2013 - 9:10 am

            Actually, the federal government is implementing the biggest austerity program since the 1940s.

            ‘The deficit chart that should embarrass deficit hawks’

            Two things to remember in the deficit conversation: First, the deficit is expected to fall faster in 2013 than at any time in the last 60 years. And second, that kind of austerity tends to be accompanied by recessions, and we’ve already seen evidence that the same might be true this time, too.

  100. #240 by cav on August 28, 2013 - 9:31 am

    I found this to be a very illuminating article:

    There are many popular beliefs about why some people earn more or less money than others, but there’s no objective basis to any of them.

    (snip)

    Quite simply, one’s share in the wealth of this society is decided by the power of one’s weapon in the competition over private property. Some people let their capital “work” for them. Other people work a lot and earn very little – that’s their source of income. This defines classes.

    The fact IS that the “rich getting richer” is the goal of all economic policy and activity – the very condition under which we work and live.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/28/liberals-class-problem/

    • #241 by brewski on August 28, 2013 - 4:58 pm

      This person doesn’t seem to have taken one minute of any labor economics courses.

      He is totally ignorant of the topic.

      Illuminating? No.

      Lefty masterbation? Yes.

      • #242 by cav on August 28, 2013 - 6:04 pm

        You’ve said as much yourself!

  101. #243 by Richard Warnick on August 28, 2013 - 10:04 am

    An Unfulfilled Demand From The March On Washington: A $15 Minimum Wage

    When protestors gathered in the nation’s capital 50 years ago from Wednesday, they had ten concrete demands, one of which was “A national minimum wage act that will give all Americans a decent standard of living.” They also pointed out that research showed that “anything less than $2.00 an hour fails to do this.” A $2 minimum wage would be $15.27 an hour in today’s dollars.

    Yet today’s minimum wage stands at $7.25, where it hasn’t budged for four years. And it has in fact fallen in value since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made his “I Have A Dream” speech. If it had kept up with inflation since the 1960s, it would be over $10 an hour.

    • #244 by brewski on August 28, 2013 - 5:02 pm

      I wonder why Cuba just doesn’t impose a national minimum wage of $15 per hour and create instant prosperity. It’s for the common good.

      • #245 by Richard Warnick on August 28, 2013 - 5:32 pm

        Minimum wages:

        Australia $16.88
        Luxembourg $13.86
        Monaco $12.09
        France $12.09
        Belgium $11.69
        San Marino $11.28
        New Zealand $11.18
        Ireland $11.09
        Netherlands $10.87
        United Kingdom $9.83
        Canada $9.75
        Japan $8.17
        USA $7.25

        • #246 by cav on August 28, 2013 - 6:07 pm

          Proving our exceptionality!

  102. #247 by brewski on August 28, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    Youth unemployment by country:

    France 22.6%
    Belgium 21.9%
    Ireland 24.3%
    UK 18.9%
    US 17.6%
    Canada 15.3%

    Most of the other ones you list are city-states. That would be like comparing only Orange County to the United States.

    Nevertheless, you can see that many of these high minimum wage countries have crisis-level youth unemployment. Entirely as predicted.

    I just talked to the owner of my local neighborhood non-franchise mom and pop coffee shop. I asked him what would he do if the minimum wage was $15 per hour. Here is his direct quote:
    “I barely survive as it is now. So I would be forced to fire all my employees and do all the work between myself and my wife. Raise prices too. Either that or close altogether.”

    So there ya go.

    • #248 by Richard Warnick on August 29, 2013 - 9:04 am

      White House Council of Economic Advisors:

      Myth: Raising the minimum wage will negatively affect teen employment.

      False. 89% of those earning the minimum wage are 20 years of age or older, and studies have shown that minimum wage increases have had little or no adverse effect on teen employment.

      In our so-called “economic recovery,” three out of five new jobs are minimum-wage jobs. This is a crisis. Which Republicans are happy to ignore, because they think a bad economy is good for them and the 1 Percent. That’s not true in the long term, however.

      • #249 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 1:46 pm

        What a laughable quote. I had to pick myself off the floor from laughing so hard since this is so stupid.

        “Myth: Raising the minimum wage will negatively affect teen employment.
        False. 89% of those earning the minimum wage are 20 years of age or older”
        That is like saying that eating catfood isn’t bad for humans since 90% of catfood consumed is eaten by cats.

        So what? This is a fucking joke and totally undermines the credibility of the author or anyone who links it. Obviously.

        And then the next part is laughable too.
        “studies have shown that minimum wage increases have had little or no adverse effect on teen employment.”
        That is just plain false too. There are plenty of studies including many done by the federal government which show that the main losers of a minimum wage are the young and unskilled.

        You really need to try to work on your credibility.

        • #250 by Richard Warnick on August 29, 2013 - 2:28 pm

          Take it up with the White House Council of Economic Advisors.

          • #251 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 3:19 pm

            So you are trusting direct employees of thugs whose paycheck is dependent on them agreeing with the same thugs for your economic insight?

            You are dumber than I thought.

          • #252 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 4:14 pm

            “V. CONCLUSION
            Previous empirical studies had estimated that a 10 percent increase in the
            minimum wage (or in the fraction of workers subject to it) would reduce teenage
            employment by one to three percent. Our own work, which uses a more up-to-date
            and longer sample period than most of these studies, suggests that one percent
            is a reasonable “single-number” estimate of the employment effect.”
            National Bureau of Economic Research.

            So that means that if we raise the minimum wage by 50%, then the youth unemployment rate would go up by 5 points. So an 18% youth unemployment rate becomes a 23% unemployment rate.

            I hope you sleep well knowing that you want to put young people out of work.

  103. #253 by Richard Warnick on August 29, 2013 - 9:39 am

    Andy Stern and Carl Camden:

    How have we been able to keep wages so low without significant social discord? By using tax revenue and a complicated government bureaucracy to subsidize low-wage employers and supplement minimum-wage salaries. Rather than firms paying a worker’s true cost and customers paying an appropriate price for the services provided by those firms, the government provides workers with “income transfers” to help them meet basic needs. These include such programs as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid.

    These government supports mask a job’s true value and set an artificially low wage. They also represent the height of inefficiency. Raising the minimum wage means that the income required for basic needs is delivered in a one-step approach, via the paycheck directly from firm to worker, rather than requiring additional government expenditures.

    You could say that right-wing opposition to a living wage is an argument in favor of more socialism.

    • #254 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 1:51 pm

      An op-ed piece from a union thug boss? Are you kidding me? What’s next? Quoting directly from Mein Kampf?

      • #255 by cav on August 29, 2013 - 6:50 pm

        If you only knew how tiresome your rhetoric is, and how dim it make you look.

        Keep it up.

        • #256 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 10:04 pm

          I don’t have rhetoric. I have data.

  104. #257 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 1:54 pm

    So what your union thug is saying is:

    “These government supports … set an artificially low wage.”

    So he is saying that lefty government policy is lowering wages!

    I agree.

    • #258 by Richard Warnick on August 29, 2013 - 2:33 pm

      It’s government policy, but there’s nothing “lefty” about it. Corporate welfare is a right-wing game.

      • #259 by brewski on August 29, 2013 - 3:16 pm

        Are you blind? From your quote:

        “These include such programs as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid.”

        Are these the right-wing programs you refer?

        • #260 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2013 - 9:46 am

          In effect, safety-net programs to make up for the low wages paid by stingy corporations are bottom-line corporate subsidies for the 1 Percent.

          • #261 by brewski on August 30, 2013 - 9:57 am

            That’s not what YOUR link said.

            YOUR link says that these programs CAUSE low wages.

            It is YOUR link and YOUR source. Own it.

  105. #262 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2013 - 10:01 am

    Not what Stern and Camden wrote, and not the point I am making. My point is that corporations are relying on taxpayer subsidies in order to pay low wages. This is not in the public interest.

    • #263 by cav on August 30, 2013 - 7:05 pm

      Corporations all have a fiduciary duty to screw you out of every cent possible. ‘Possible’ can be beyond even brewski’s breadth and depth.

      Raytheon stock is up 20 percent in the past 60 days as the likelihood of the use of their missiles against Syria grows.

      The wisdom of the market, which must never be questioned.

  106. #264 by brewski on August 30, 2013 - 10:54 am

    YOUR SOURCE:

    “[We] us[e] tax revenue and a complicated government bureaucracy to subsidize low-wage employers….
    These government supports … set an artificially low wage.”

    • #265 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2013 - 11:58 am

      Stern and Camden: “These government supports mask a job’s true value and set an artificially low wage.”

      Which means the government enables employers to pay an artificially low wage. The government also does this by setting a too-low minimum wage. This helps the 1 Percent at the expense of the 99 Percent. Reverse Robin Hood policies are wrong.

      • #266 by brewski on August 30, 2013 - 2:24 pm

        Stern and Camden and I are right.
        You are wrong.

        • #267 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2013 - 4:16 pm

          So you think the way to raise workers’ pay is to get rid of the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid?

          • #268 by brewski on September 4, 2013 - 8:25 am

            Your source apparently does. Why did you use it as your source and then run from it?

  107. #269 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2013 - 9:08 am

    brewski– Your position is no different from taking away a disabled person’s wheelchair and saying, “OK, you’re all better now.”

    • #270 by brewski on September 4, 2013 - 12:18 pm

      No. The wheelchair is not the CAUSE of the disability.

      Try again.

      Again, it is YOUR source you are arguing with.

      • #271 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2013 - 1:17 pm

        Nobody except you is claiming that the social safety net (including the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid) causes low pay.

  108. #272 by brewski on September 4, 2013 - 2:04 pm

    “These government supports … set an artificially low wage.”
    Stern and Camden

    • #273 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2013 - 3:26 pm

      The most you can claim is that enabling low wages is an unintended consequence of safety net programs. The cause of low wages is greed and stinginess. This can be easily remedied by raising the federal minimum wage.

      • #274 by brewski on September 4, 2013 - 3:54 pm

        Intended or not, you just said “low wages is a … consequence of safety net programs. “

        • #275 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2013 - 5:15 pm

          Low wages are a consequence of greed and stinginess, leading to work not being valued enough. If safety net programs enable that, the solution is NOT to cut the safety net!

          You’re like the rooster who takes credit for making the sun come up ;-)

          • #276 by brewski on September 4, 2013 - 8:44 pm

            Stick with posting about tanks and guns and things you know something about. You have no clue about how wages are set.

  109. #277 by Disgusted jew on September 4, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    Don’t expect richtard to asses his own illogic…

  110. #278 by cav on September 5, 2013 - 6:57 am

    “Jobs are not extended to workers out of any generosity or concern from owners for their workers’ well-being. Unless the amount of money a worker’s work brings to the owner exceeds the amount of money the owner pays the worker, the owner won’t hire anyone. This simple, arithmetical fact is commonly referred to as “business sense.” For a hire to make “business sense,” an owner will only hire a worker if the value that that worker creates for the owner exceeds what s/he is paid by the owner. Another way of saying this is that jobs are exploitative. Workers provide more value to owners than they receive in return. “

    • #279 by Richard Warnick on September 5, 2013 - 9:35 am

      Re: “Business sense”

      The Atlantic reports that not only does McDonald’s pay its Australian workers the equivalent of $14.50 an hour — or double the U.S. minimum wage — but Australia’s Fair Work Commission just hammered out a deal between the company and its employees that guarantees workers up to a 15% raise by 2017. That’s in a country where most McDonald’s workers are already making more than the minimum to begin with.

      Oh, but Australian customers have to pay up to 70 cents more for a Big Mac.

      • #280 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 9:52 am

        “A doubling of wages at McDonald’s would almost certainly involve some layoffs, asserts Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a HuffPost blogger.”

        • #281 by Richard Warnick on September 5, 2013 - 9:59 am

          Americans are not impressed with a so-called “economic recovery” from Bush’s Great Recession that produced mainly low-wage jobs.

          Low-wage jobs, defined as those that pay no more than $13.83 an hour, accounted for 21 percent of recession job losses but have accounted for 58 percent of the recovery growth.

      • #282 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 9:55 am

        70 cents is roughly a 10% increase in real prices. So if you extend that not just to Big Macs but to an entire household budget, then you would be increasing the cost of everything by 10% in real terms.

        So for all non-minimum wage workers you would be lowering their standard of living by 10%.

        You would also be making some people unemployed.

        Tell me again who cares about the middle class?

        • #283 by Richard Warnick on September 5, 2013 - 10:02 am

          You’re funny. The fact that living-wage jobs are being replaced with low-wage jobs is what’s destroying the American middle class.

          • #284 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 2:43 pm

            You’re sad. Turning low wage jobs into no jobs and no pay is not much of a solution.

    • #285 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 9:49 am

      That makes no sense at all.

    • #287 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 9:56 am

      I meant this one makes no sense at all.

  111. #288 by Richard Warnick on September 5, 2013 - 3:35 pm


    Higher wages won’t increase unemployment!

    John Schmitt, a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, reported in February 2013 that multiple meta-studies (studies that use statistical techniques to analyze a large amount of separate studies) found that for both older and current studies alike, there is no statistical significance in the effect of an increased minimum wage. Put plainly, if the effect is not statistically significant, then there is no proven effect— increases in the minimum wage do not cause job loss.

    Accordingly, a few weeks ago, over 100 economists at organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress to Boston University signed a petition in support of increasing the minimum wage. They present current research from well-established organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows there are no negative employment effects from minimum wage increases. This includes the most comprehensive data available, based on the increasingly accurate testing that has occurred as more and more states increase minimum wage levels. Even more importantly, this recent series of studies use cutting-edge econometric techniques to control for extraneous variables such as economic downturns and geographic effects. When economists do that, they find that minimum wage increases do not reduce employment.

    …A higher minimum wage is a win-win situation economically: employees have more money to be consumers and are more productive, while businesses wind up reducing costs in the long run, since they won’t have to spend as much money hiring and training new workers

  112. #289 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 8:04 pm

    You are linking an op ed piece written by a college undergraduate? Are you kidding?

    Thanks, I needed a good laugh. You are truly a funny man.

    • #290 by Richard Warnick on September 5, 2013 - 9:29 pm

      And your evidence supporting your belief that minimum wage increases cause unemployment is where?

      • #291 by brewski on September 5, 2013 - 10:11 pm

        It is not my “belief”.

        I have shown you the studies and the sources. I assume by your question that you did not look at any of them.

        We’ve been through this. You’ve been schooled already.

        • #292 by Richard Warnick on September 6, 2013 - 9:52 am

          The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage

          The first statement we can make without fear of contradiction is that, at $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage is pretty low.

          … A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.

          Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in minimum wages don’t affect employment at all. Other things being equal, they can obviously have an impact. Faced with a rise in their wage bills, some employers may choose to employ fewer workers. But this happens much less often than some elementary textbooks (and many neoclassical economists) would suggest. When the minimum wage goes up, many firms that employ low-wage workers simply pass on the higher costs to the customers in higher prices. (Since many of their competitors face an identical rise in costs, they don’t necessarily lose any business.) Other firms work their employees harder or give them more training, to increase their productivity. Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect is generally a small one, and it is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.

          As is—or as should be—well known, there are also a number of studies that show minimum-wage laws having no effect at all on employment, and even some studies showing a small positive effect. Since Berkeley’s David Card and Princeton’s Alan Krueger (who is now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) carried out their famous survey of New Jersey fast-food restaurants, two decades ago, and a found a slight increase in employment following a rise in the minimum wage, an enormous amount of effort has been put into discrediting their results, which many orthodox economists saw as a violation of fundamental economic laws. (If the price goes up, the quantity demanded must fall!) But this effort has largely failed. For whatever reason, minimum-wage laws just don’t seem to affect employment very much. This finding applies not just to studies carried out in the United States but to those done in the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries, too.

  113. #293 by cav on September 5, 2013 - 10:08 pm

    The rich MUST become richer still. TINA.

  114. #294 by brewski on September 6, 2013 - 1:57 pm

    “During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically.”

    I’ve already answered this kindergarten argument.

    “If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. ”

    Never heard of ceteris paribus? Also, I already shot down this argument by showing the cataclysmic youth unemployment rates in those admired countries with high minimum wages. You want 26% youth unemployment? Data are data.

    “In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent.”

    And there are no differences between Nevada and Vermont?

    “What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.”
    Gee, you think so? Like maybe supply and demand for labor?

    “Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in minimum wages don’t affect employment at all. Other things being equal, they can obviously have an impact. Faced with a rise in their wage bills, some employers may choose to employ fewer workers.”
    Channeling brewski here.

    “Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect …. is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.”
    Didn’t I already prove that?

    “n enormous amount of effort has been put into discrediting their results, which many orthodox economists saw as a violation of fundamental economic laws. (If the price goes up, the quantity demanded must fall!) But this effort has largely failed.”
    False. This study does not say that an increase in the minimum wage does not and cannot reduce employment. It just does not say that.

    • #295 by Richard Warnick on September 6, 2013 - 2:49 pm

      If you insist on a standard that says the minimum wage must never, under any circumstances, reduce employment — that’s an impossible standard. It’s also ridiculous.

      Full-time work has to pay enough to live on. Otherwise people who work for a living are well and truly screwed.

      • #296 by brewski on September 6, 2013 - 2:52 pm

        Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. You have just proven that you live in a world of your feelings and I live in a world of evidence. Case closed.

        • #297 by Richard Warnick on September 6, 2013 - 3:09 pm

          Wishful thinking. This case isn’t going be closed until we have a federal living wage indexed to inflation. :-)

          • #298 by brewski on September 6, 2013 - 3:13 pm

            Feelings
            Nothing more than feelings,
            Trying to forget my feelings of love

            Teardrops,
            Rolling down on, my face
            Trying to forget my, feelings of love

            Feelings,
            For all my life I’ll feel it
            I’ll wish I’ve never met you, girl
            You’ll never come again

            Feelings,
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Again in my heart

  115. #299 by Richard Warnick on September 6, 2013 - 3:15 pm

    Your singing is terrible. Why I hate karaoke. ;-)

  116. #300 by brewski on September 6, 2013 - 3:18 pm

    “On balance, firms were hesitant in hiring new staff due to various uncertainties, with healthcare reform mentioned most frequently. Similarly, in recent polls, contacts expressed a clear preference for investing in capital expenditures to improve efficiencies and reduce costs rather than hiring additional labor.”

    “Smaller hospitals continued to express concern about their viability under the Affordable Care Act”

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/beigebook201309.htm

    • #301 by Richard Warnick on September 6, 2013 - 3:34 pm

      As with the Gallup poll you cited on the other thread, this is a survey of the perceptions of business owners, many of whom get their “news” from right-wing sources.

      Talk about “feelings.”

      • #302 by brewski on September 6, 2013 - 8:46 pm

        Irrelevant.

        • #303 by Richard Warnick on September 7, 2013 - 10:44 am

          The ACA is a very pro-business law, but apparently right-wing propaganda has obscured this fact. The people who ought to be rooting for it to succeed are watching Faux News Channel instead.

          It’s a perversion of our political system when Democrats enact Republican policy proposals, while the GOP vehemently rejects everything they once supported.

          • #304 by brewski on September 7, 2013 - 4:57 pm

            Apparently you don’t own a business.

            The only business that ACA is pro-business are the businesses of lobbying, cronyism, and corruption.

  117. #305 by cav on September 7, 2013 - 8:31 am

    The same people who have screwed things up so bad always seem to be the ones lecturing (in their certainty and lack of feelings).

    Just lower the taxes and let the voters be damned.

  118. #306 by cav on September 7, 2013 - 8:48 am

    We reached maximum complexity some years ago, so the only return is looting the place. Loot old people’s pensions, loot the teaching of young people. Loot the financing system that greases the whole system. Loot the planet.

    Let your feelings get in the way of this and you FAIL.

  119. #307 by Richard Warnick on September 8, 2013 - 11:14 am

    brewski–

    If the ACA is anti-business, then so is the Heritage Foundation, Willard (“Mitt”) Romney, Orrin Hatch, and most of the Republican Party. Until Barack Obama got on board, they all supported the individual private health insurance mandate.

    • #308 by brewski on September 8, 2013 - 5:18 pm

      You have not explained in any way how it is pro-business. You just told me that is how you feel.

      An individual private mandate and an employer mandate are two very different things.

      • #309 by Richard Warnick on September 8, 2013 - 7:30 pm

        The ACA is practically identical to Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Care (aka “Romneycare”) – yes or no?

  120. #310 by brewski on September 8, 2013 - 11:25 pm

    You have not explained in any way how it is pro-business.

    • #311 by Richard Warnick on September 9, 2013 - 11:19 am

      You really don’t know that the ACA is pro-business?

      1. Obviously, the ACA is a giant gift to the health insurance industry! It breathes new life into an unsustainable business model. That’s the main purpose of the law, how it was designed originally by the Heritage Foundation and drafted by Liz Fowler, a WellPoint executive who went to work for Max Baucus.

      2. The ACA provides millions in tax credits to small businesses with under 25 employees to offset 50 percent of their health insurance premiums. Half of uninsured Americans are small business owners, workers or dependents.

      3. In states that have not opted out of Medicaid expansion because of Republican sabotage efforts, Medicaid will cover Americans under 133% of the poverty level. More low-wage workers working for cheapskate employers will be able to get health care.

      4. The “80/20″ rule requires health insurance providers spend at least 80% of the premiums they charge on health care and marketing expenses. Otherwise, they have to give rebates, which in some cases will lower the cost of insurance for employers and individuals.

      5. Sole proprietors of small businesses get a better deal on individual health insurance through the exchanges. Freelancers or struggling business owners are eligible for federal subsidies. Nobody has to worry about getting denied for pre-existing conditions, or hitting a “lifetime cap.”

      Please pay more attention to the facts, and try to tune out all the right-wing wailing about “socialism.” The ACA was invented by right-wingers!

      • #312 by brewski on September 9, 2013 - 4:18 pm

        1. Doesn’t count for all the non-health insurance industry /Obama campaign contributors.

        2. Offering a tax credit to partially offset an increase in expenses is still an increase in expenses and only works if you have a tax liability to offset against.

        3. This doesn’t help businesses.

        4. Show me where the “lower” premiums are. Data.

        5. That is not pro-business.

        Please pay more attention to the facts, and try to tune out all the left-wing wailing about “racism.” The ACA was invented by lobbyists.

        • #313 by Richard Warnick on September 9, 2013 - 4:33 pm

          Weak rebuttal, brewski. The ultimate proof that the ACA is pro-business: it passed the U.S. Congress and President Obama signed it into law.

          • #314 by brewski on September 9, 2013 - 9:13 pm

            Hahahahahahaha

  121. #315 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 6:53 am

    When businesses make investment decisions which include building something and hiring lots of people, their time horizon can be decades. So if a law is coming into effect in 2015 it does indeed affect hiring now.

    The business I am in has asset lives of 20+ years, so anything that comes into affect 2 years from now definitely affects our decisions today.

    Your assertion is flat out wrong. Confess.

    • #316 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 7:37 am

      Unless there is some business reason for getting rid of workers or cutting hours, it makes no sense to shoot yourself in the foot because of a law that hasn’t taken effect yet.

      • #317 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 8:52 am

        False.
        If you are making an investment today that has a life of 20 years, then laws which take effect in 2 years still matter today.

        Do you get that?

        • #318 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 9:24 am

          Seriously? In Utah, employees can be fired at any time for any reason (or no reason). Employers don’t have to plan years in advance to reduce their workforce.

          Just admit it, your contention that the ACA is a drag on the U.S. economic recovery (on the other post) doesn’t compute.

          • #319 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 11:57 am

            That makes no sense at all.

            You are no businessperson.

  122. #320 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 12:59 pm

    brewksi–

    Tell me how it makes business sense to fire employees when the reason to fire them doesn’t exist yet.

    • #321 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 4:15 pm

      Richard, let me make this simple for you:

      The economy is not static. There is a constant flow of some businesses shrinking, some businesses closing altogether, other businesses growing, some businesses being formed, etc. The trick is to have more businesses grown and being founded than businesses shrinking and dying.

      So the rate of new businesses and businesses growing is critical to raising the overall employment level. It is not just about who is getting fired. It is also about how fast people are getting hired. So the unemployment rate depends just as much as the hiring rate as the layoff rate.

      So you always want hiring all the time. Anything that slows new businesses being started, or old businesses expanding is bad.

      So, if an existing business is thinking about expanding and they are looking at a new project or a new investment or a new plant or a new anything, they do a budget which can go out 20 years or more. This is what I do every day. I do 20 year budget for a living for very expensive energy projects.

      So when you are doing a 20 year budget you assume your best estimates and best expectations of lots of variables. These include things like inflation, tax rates, labor rates, etc. So even if those things haven’t put in place today, their expectations of when they will be put in place still impact the budget. So a tax rate increase in 2 years from now still affects the budget today. If the budget today which projects out 20 years isn’t profitable enough, then the project does not go forward at all. There is no project today and there is no hiring today. So expectations of the future matter today for hiring today. No project, no hiring. You don’t need the law to be in place. You just need an expectation of it.

      • #322 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 4:28 pm

        That boils down to the “uncertainty” argument. I submit that Republicans demanding austerity, threatening to shut down the federal government and default on the National Debt contributed more to uncertainty than the ACA.

        I think we agree that single-payer health care (aka Medicare For ALL) is the answer. I expect we’ll get there only after the politicians have tried everything else.

        • #323 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 4:55 pm

          So you agree that a law taking effect next year can impact hiring or lack of hiring this year?

          No, the uncertainty argument is totally different. I didn’t say anything about uncertainty.

          • #324 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 5:11 pm

            Yes, but the ACA employer mandate takes effect in 2015. Because the corporations demanded a postponement. Meanwhile, the unfair individual private insurance mandate will go into effect as planned. Average Americans (aka The 99 Percent) have no effective representation in Washington.

          • #325 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 11:43 pm

            Yes?

            Yes what?

          • #326 by brewski on September 11, 2013 - 10:40 am

            I’m waiting.

    • #328 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 4:17 pm

      • #329 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 4:29 pm

        No more horrible than self-checkout at the supermarket or Home Depot. I’d rather push a button to order fast food than argue with somebody trying to sell me additional menu items I don’t want.

        • #330 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 4:54 pm

          You totally miss the point.

          • #331 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2013 - 5:17 pm

            Oh, I suppose you’re posting a link to a JPEG as your incoherent way of saying we ought to mourn for lost low-wage jobs. I won’t, because each one of those jobs requires taxpayer dollars to help support workers and their families.

          • #332 by brewski on September 10, 2013 - 11:45 pm

            So you think no job is better than an low paying job?

            So you admit that your policies will throw people out of work.

            You are immoral.

  123. #333 by Richard Warnick on September 11, 2013 - 8:50 am

    brewski–

    I think it’s wrong that 58 percent of the jobs in our so-called “economic recovery” were low-wage jobs. Have fun calling me names, but the CEO of McDonald’s raked in $13.75 million last year while most McDonald’s employees made poverty-level wages.

    • #334 by brewski on September 11, 2013 - 10:39 am

      And?

      • #335 by Richard Warnick on September 11, 2013 - 12:22 pm

        See my post titled “Top 1% Incomes Are Close to Full Recovery While Bottom 99% Incomes Have Hardly Started to Recover.”

        • #336 by brewski on September 11, 2013 - 2:08 pm

          Are you going to answer my questions?

    • #339 by brewski on September 11, 2013 - 2:07 pm

      Good for them. So what?

      • #340 by Richard Warnick on September 11, 2013 - 4:09 pm

        It proves that you can have a profitable fast-food business model that pays employees a living wage, makes customers happy, and doesn’t redistribute so much wealth upward.

        • #341 by brewski on September 12, 2013 - 4:07 pm

          The quality of employee at a $15 job is not the same qualify of an employee who is making $8 per hour. Fast food employees who are the type who only make $8 per hour couldn’t get hired at the ones which pay $15 per hour. The ones who pay $15 per hour do so because they want to be able to be picky about whom they hire. They are not going to consider people with limited skills such as the ability to speak English.

          So pointing out that some places pay more does nothing to prove that the lowest skilled people would ever make that.

          • #342 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2013 - 5:15 pm

            Joseph Stiglitz points out the well-known fact that since 1979, output per employee hour has increased 40%, but wages have remained flat or even declined (like the minimum wage).

            You can’t blame low pay on the workers. Their productivity has never been better, however the gains have not been shared.

          • #343 by brewski on September 12, 2013 - 5:42 pm

            Blame? Who said anything about blame?

            You completely miss the point altogether.

  124. #344 by cav on September 12, 2013 - 8:41 am

    And, in Germany, at the height of their inflation spiral, a trillion Deutsche Marks would get you a wheelbarrow of potting soil.

  125. #345 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2013 - 8:08 pm

    brewski–

    I don’t want to perpetuate a system under which some people who work full-time cannot earn at least a living wage. Why do you?

    • #346 by brewski on September 12, 2013 - 10:08 pm

      I don’t want to live in a system when two consenting adults come to a mutual agreement to exchange something and the State tells them that they are not permitted to do so because other people who are not party to that agreement don’t like it.

      I don’t want to live in a system where people who have not made any effort to acquire valuable skills such as being able to read are rewarded with a lifestyle deemed suitable by others.

      I don’t want to live in a system where people who have low personal productivity are priced out of a job and are forced to be unemployed due to the snobbish disapproval of others.

      • #347 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2013 - 9:15 am

        Spoken like a true libertarian. However, what if one of the “consenting” adults is under duress, because he or she isn’t independently wealthy and needs a job to survive? The classic “let ‘em eat cake” attitude of the right does nothing to help workers.

        You forget the fact that happy employees are more productive. Under our current system, Gallup says 70 percent of Americans hate their jobs. They are trapped against their will – so much for “consent.”

        State of the American Workplace Report (PDF)

        • #348 by brewski on September 13, 2013 - 12:44 pm

          Your comparison to “let them eat cake” is both ignorant and nonsensical. That line was allegedly, although doubtably, spoke by Marie Antoinette, who was the Queen of France. In other words, married to the Head of State. She was the government. Through an incredibly Statist and non-market set of laws tied people to land they didn’t own, obliged people to serve feudal masters and denied those people the right choose their own leaders. So your use of that quote in the context of our system where people can move as they like, trade their labor to whomever they wish, and choose their own leaders makes Sarah Palin look like a rocket scientist. Are you trying particularly hard now to show off your lack of education and basic facts about history, or don’t you know the difference?

          I don’t forget anything. If you want to start a burger joint and pay employees $15 per hour then do it. But don’t compel other people to do what you would have them do.

          What was that I was hearing a while ago that there is no such thing as a liberal Authoritarian? You defined it for me.

          You are anti-choice.

          • #349 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2013 - 1:49 pm

            When you define “choice” the way you do, it’s a good thing to be against. Nobody wants the choice of working for low pay or else not having a job.

            If you want to say life in the USA today beats feudalism and hereditary monarchy, I’ll agree. OTOH we have lived through two Bushes and the probable next President could be called “President Clinton II.”

            We like to say we live in a democracy (democratic republic for purists) but those of us who work for a living spend 40 hours a week serving a dictatorship. Not a lot of freedom in the workplace.

          • #350 by brewski on September 13, 2013 - 3:20 pm

  126. #351 by El Progresso Retardo. on April 9, 2014 - 3:09 pm

    Well the minimum wage flap is going to cause this to occur. It has been pointed out that service staff will just go away.

    The ability to order from your phone and send the order to the kitchen without even being greeted is about to happen to host of service industries. As I mentioned, nobody should be doing these lame ass jobs, and hopefully they will not for very much longer…technical innovation makes shit jobs go bye bye.

    So your order will go to a screen in the kitchen, warehouse, whatever via internet. The cooks will make it, and all you’ll need is a runner to the counter. If it’s a medium scale restaurant you might need one person on the floor to pour water….

    I suggest someone make a robot.

    Vegetable picker, waiter, fast food register drone, and so on…these are jobs? These are lives? Build a machine already and be done with it. You can’t live on those wages anyway, and I’ll be dammed if I would subsidize such a shitty working life anyway.

  127. #352 by cav on May 14, 2014 - 10:23 am

    This was a good thread!

    Whatever happened to us?

  128. #353 by Anonymous on May 14, 2014 - 11:11 am

    You been sleeping the last 14 years? Busbama happened…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: