Minimum Wage Increase Already Killing Small Businesses

[dead_reggin_storage_fashi]

Also in some sense we need to differentiate "sales" and "output" as if we are talking about manufacturing. In this case , selling hot dogs is not a manufacturing job.

output can be used for any business. if it is number of units produced, time it takes to a job (clean bathrooms) the workers just are not worth the increase! Simple as that, unskilled workers are not worth the increase in wages!

 

[mrplunkey]

output can be used for any business. if it is number of units produced, time it takes to a job (clean bathrooms) the workers just are not worth the increase! Simple as that, unskilled workers are not worth the increase in wages!

I think that's part of what he's missing. Anytime you drive cost up without a corresponding increase in productivity you're just generating inflation.

Well... there is an exception. If you can fire enough people and push the work onto the remaining workers you can generate a corresponding productivity gain.

So that's really the only two things that can happen long term with a minimum wage increase and someone who's pay would otherwise be lower than the minimum wage. It will either 1) drive inflation or 2) drive job loss.

 

[EnderJE]

I think that's part of what he's missing. Anytime you drive cost up without a corresponding increase in productivity you're just generating inflation.

Well... there is an exception. If you can fire enough people and push the work onto the remaining workers you can generate a corresponding productivity gain.

So that's really the only two things that can happen long term with a minimum wage increase and someone who's pay would otherwise be lower than the minimum wage. It will either 1) drive inflation or 2) drive job loss.

I'm not quite getting the job loss theory...

One could argue that if I raise the minimum wage, I've increased the ability for people to buy goods. If there are more people buying goods, then business would increase staff levels to increase productivity to serve the people buying goods. Although my profit per unit has gone down, my total profit has gone up because I'm selling more. So, for example, previously, I sold 1 unit for $10 dollars and made $1 of profit. Now, I'm selling $1m units for $10 dollars at 50cents profit per item.

In the end, I don't see it as a simple slope with a straight line towards consequences.

 

[jestro]

I'm not quite getting the job loss theory...

One could argue that if I raise the minimum wage, I've increased the ability for people to buy goods. If there are more people buying goods, then business would increase staff levels to increase productivity to serve the people buying goods. Although my profit per unit has gone down, my total profit has gone up because I'm selling more. So, for example, previously, I sold 1 unit for $10 dollars and made $1 of profit. Now, I'm selling $1m units for $10 dollars at 50cents profit per item.

In the end, I don't see it as a simple slope with a straight line towards consequences.

Also, the people at the bottom of the barrel, (people who make minimum wage) don't save. They spend it as soon as they get it, so it goes right back into circulation.
If a high minimum was bad, states like texas would have a much better economy than states Washington.

 

[redsamurai]

I think some people here really wouldn't mind seeing serfdom and/or slavery come back into vogue......the ultimate capitalist monkey fanboys dream come true!

 

[-SD-]

I think some people here really wouldn't mind seeing serfdom and/or slavery come back into vogue......the ultimate capitalist monkey fanboys dream come true!

[TeamAmerica] America, Fuck Yea! [TeamAmerica/]

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm not quite getting the job loss theory...

One could argue that if I raise the minimum wage, I've increased the ability for people to buy goods. If there are more people buying goods, then business would increase staff levels to increase productivity to serve the people buying goods. Although my profit per unit has gone down, my total profit has gone up because I'm selling more. So, for example, previously, I sold 1 unit for $10 dollars and made $1 of profit. Now, I'm selling $1m units for $10 dollars at 50cents profit per item.

In the end, I don't see it as a simple slope with a straight line towards consequences.

You're not getting the theory because you have confused productivity with production. They aren't the same at all.

But with those confused, I do see how you wouldn't see the pitfalls of a minimum wage increase (not being smarmy or sarcastic here -- I'm being serious).

 

[redguru]

I think some people here really wouldn't mind seeing serfdom and/or slavery come back into vogue......the ultimate capitalist monkey fanboys dream come true!

Serfdom and slavery are diametrically opposed to capitalism. To each what they can do.

 

[redsamurai]

In principal maybe......but in practice, how many business owners would kill for that kind of labor? Humans shit everything.......socialism and capitalism at their ideological roots are both meant to make people's lives better, albeit by different avenues. But people have twisted both.

Serfdom and slavery are diametrically opposed to capitalism. To each what they can do.

 

[dead_reggin_storage_fashi]

I think some people here really wouldn't mind seeing serfdom and/or slavery come back into vogue......the ultimate capitalist monkey fanboys dream come true!

capitalist heaven does it exsist. It is a placed called Hong Kong.

 

[EnderJE]

You're not getting the theory because you have confused productivity with production. They aren't the same at all.

But with those confused, I do see how you wouldn't see the pitfalls of a minimum wage increase (not being smarmy or sarcastic here -- I'm being serious).

I mis-spoke (or mis-typed) when I used the two terms. However, I don't think that I've got them confused.

I agree that an increase to the minimum wage will NOT increase productivity capability. Instead, it will increase the amount of money that people will have to buy goods (like a tax cut, but only for the lowest of classes).

Those people who buy goods will increase demand for certain goods. The increase of demand will cause those businesses to hire more because they need to increase their production. Hence, people will hire more.

Again, it's just a theory with very simple cause and effect scenario. There's a myraid of reason why people will stay poor despite the increase to the minimum wage.

 

[dead_reggin_storage_fashi]

You're not getting the theory because you have confused productivity with production. They aren't the same at all.

But with those confused, I do see how you wouldn't see the pitfalls of a minimum wage increase (not being smarmy or sarcastic here -- I'm being serious).

lol

hehe

 

[EnderJE]

capitalist heaven does it exsist. It is a placed called Hong Kong.

Tell me how it is over there. Tell me what life is like. Where do you live over there?

From what I've seen (albeit not all of it), I'm not sure that I'd want to live there.

 

[mrplunkey]

I mis-spoke (or mis-typed) when I used the two terms. However, I don't think that I've got them confused.

I agree that an increase to the minimum wage will NOT increase productivity. Instead, it will increase the amount of money that people will have to buy goods (like a tax cut, but only for the lowest of classes).

Those people who buy goods will increase demand for certain goods. The increase of demand will cause those businesses to hire more because they need to increase their production. Hence, people will hire more.

Again, it's just a theory with very simple cause and effect scenario. There's a myraid of reason why people will stay poor despite the increase to the minimum wage.

A hike in the minimum wage produces a *reduction* of productivity because the same work is being performed at a higher price. Anything that reduces productivity can only be recovered by a combination of price hikes (inflation) and productivity gains (usually layoffs and making the survivors do more).

Your argument is that an increase in the minimum wage somehow stimulates the economy. The catch is, that money was going to go to the company prior to it being shifted to workers. What would that company do with it? It would either invest it (a good choice) or pay dividends to investors (an equally good choice). So you're not stimulating the economy one way or another with that money. Furthermore, you can argue that a minimum wage earner may or may not spend that money wisely. If it were reinvested by the company instead it could create new jobs and drive new productivity improvements. If it were paid to shareholders the money may be recycled back into other companies thus insuring the flow of capital. So if anything, you are running the risk (note the italics for emphasis on risk) of transferring dollars from hard capital investments (good) to cheetos, beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets (bad).

 

[EnderJE]

A hike in the minimum wage produces a *reduction* of productivity because the same work is being performed at a higher price. Anything that reduces productivity can only be recovered by a combination of price hikes (inflation) and productivity gains (usually layoffs and making the survivors do more).

Your argument is that an increase in the minimum wage somehow stimulates the economy. The catch is, that money was going to go to the company prior to it being shifted to workers. What would that company do with it? It would either invest it (a good choice) or pay dividends to investors (an equally good choice). So you're not stimulating the economy one way or another with that money. Furthermore, you can argue that a minimum wage earner may or may not spend that money wisely. If it were reinvested by the company instead it could create new jobs and drive new productivity improvements. If it were paid to shareholders the money may be recycled back into other companies thus insuring the flow of capital. So if anything, you are running the risk (note the italics for emphasis on risk) of transferring dollars from hard capital investments (good) to cheetos, beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets (bad).

Again, you're using a straight cause / effect scenario with little variances for the complexities that will happen in real life. I'm guilty too, because my example is equally as simple.

For example, as I previously said, the demand for those goods and services would be up. Thus, an increase in demand would cause businesses to increase the supply. As for the risk of spending it unwisely, true, but it could be equally said that those in power could abuse it and fund more junk bonds, destroy the local environment for the company and all the (sarcastism intended) evils that the big bad corporations do.

Let's agree to disagree as I don't believe that we have a good case study on the matter (like we do with gun control).

 

[mrplunkey]

Again, you're using a straight cause / effect scenario with little variances for the complexities that will happen in real life. I'm guilty too, because my example is equally as simple.

For example, as I previously said, the demand for those goods and services would be up. Thus, an increase in demand would cause businesses to increase the supply. As for the risk of spending it unwisely, true, but it could be equally said that those in power could abuse it and fund more junk bonds, destroy the local environment for the company and all the (sarcastism intended) evils that the big bad corporations do.

Let's agree to disagree as I don't believe that we have a good case study on the matter (like we do with gun control).

But again... let's suppose for a moment that the corporations were going to spend the money unwisely as well. Its still the same dollars going out. If a company gets $10,000 clipped from it as a result of a minimum wage hike it's still money thats going to be spent by the company being spend by the individual.

Using your example, demand from worker purchases would go up but demand from business purchases would correspondingly go down. When its the same dollar that can go to the worker or the employer, you have a zero-sum game.

 

[redsamurai]

you're an elitist shill, nothing more. Your contention that extra income would go to beers, cheetohs etc.... Is simply indicative of your inability to grasp the situation. That extra income would more than likely be going to pay these people's bills, healthcare and education for their children etc... All things you vehemently don't want the government to be involved in, but you also don't want american business to have to pay a wage that does that either. So it's lose-lose for the average american under plunkey the monkey. And before you argue with me, I know "personally" of people, who if they got a wage increase tommorrow, would eat more than one meal a day. That's what their money would do.

There is seriously something wrong with you

But again... let's suppose for a moment that the corporations were going to spend the money unwisely as well. Its still the same dollars going out. If a company gets $10,000 clipped from it as a result of a minimum wage hike it's still money thats going to be spent by the company being spend by the individual.

Using your example, demand from worker purchases would go up but demand from business purchases would correspondingly go down. When its the same dollar that can go to the worker or the employer, you have a zero-sum game.

 

[EnderJE]

you're an elitist shill, nothing more. Your contention that extra income would go to beers, cheetohs etc.... Is simply indicative of your inability to grasp the situation. That extra income would more than likely be going to pay these people's bills, healthcare and education for their children etc... All things you vehemently don't want the government to be involved in, but you also don't want american business to have to pay a wage that does that either. So it's lose-lose for the average american under plunkey the monkey. And before you argue with me, I know "personally" of people, who if they got a wage increase tommorrow, would eat more than one meal a day. That's what their money would do.

There is seriously something wrong with you

Dude, relax. It's just a conversation on the Interweb.

Everyone's entitled to their points. Everyone's points are stupid and everyone's points are valid. No need to flame out on the guy. Wouldn't it be better to discuss it rationally and think it out? Who knows? Maybe we both might learn something.

 

[EnderJE]

But again... let's suppose for a moment that the corporations were going to spend the money unwisely as well. Its still the same dollars going out. If a company gets $10,000 clipped from it as a result of a minimum wage hike it's still money thats going to be spent by the company being spend by the individual.

Using your example, demand from worker purchases would go up but demand from business purchases would correspondingly go down. When its the same dollar that can go to the worker or the employer, you have a zero-sum game.

I'm sorry. I'm not quite following again. If demand goes up for worker purchases go up, then shouldn't business purchases go up as well? If the worker buys more McD's french fries, then shouldn't the potato farmer also benefit OR have I missed the point?

 

[gjohnson5]

I forgot , you're the one who wants folks to harvest sugar cane at $3 a day...

Minimum wage laws force an artificially high wage rate onto employers that is above the rate otherwise set for the lowest pay rate workers.

What's "nonsensical" about that claim? If you missed that concept it would explain your position on this issue though...

 

[gjohnson5]

Which is interesting RedSamurai... When Ronald Regan endorsed his Reaganomics and many companies got their tax breaks , all they did was buy another house or limousine with it...

Then we get into more debate over whether buying a house (new or used) is an investment or not...

This is hypocracy and nothing more

you're an elitist shill, nothing more. Your contention that extra income would go to beers, cheetohs etc.... Is simply indicative of your inability to grasp the situation. That extra income would more than likely be going to pay these people's bills, healthcare and education for their children etc... All things you vehemently don't want the government to be involved in, but you also don't want american business to have to pay a wage that does that either. So it's lose-lose for the average american under plunkey the monkey. And before you argue with me, I know "personally" of people, who if they got a wage increase tommorrow, would eat more than one meal a day. That's what their money would do.

There is seriously something wrong with you

 

[gjohnson5]

You need to follow the yellow brick road to find any sense in his post...

I'm sorry. I'm not quite following again. If demand goes up for worker purchases go up, then shouldn't business purchases go up as well? If the worker buys more McD's french fries, then shouldn't the potato farmer also benefit OR have I missed the point?

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm sorry. I'm not quite following again. If demand goes up for worker purchases go up, then shouldn't business purchases go up as well? If the worker buys more McD's french fries, then shouldn't the potato farmer also benefit OR have I missed the point?

But it's still sum-zero. If the business spends the money or the worker spends the money, presumably its going to go to either a business or an individual. Lets say a minimum wage increase shifts a company's cost $10,000. Well, the company was going to do something with it (invest, pay dividends, save) just like the worker is going to do something with it (invest, pay expenses, save).

To get back to your example, your potato farmer would benefit from the worker buying fries, but the same potato farmer would benefit from the company buying a piece of capital equipment which drove the employment of another person who can now buy fries as well thanks to his new job.

 

[mrplunkey]

Dude, relax. It's just a conversation on the Interweb.

Everyone's entitled to their points. Everyone's points are stupid and everyone's points are valid. No need to flame out on the guy. Wouldn't it be better to discuss it rationally and think it out? Who knows? Maybe we both might learn something.

He doesn't work that way. Besides, the little hissy-fits he throws on these posts are quite entertaining.

 

[mrplunkey]

I forgot , you're the one who wants folks to harvest sugar cane at $3 a day...

No, you couldn't be mistaken more.

The feedstock in our ethanol plants is corn, so I'd like to see the guy harvesting sugar cane make $250,000/day thus driving the price of sugar cane out of reach.

But alas... damn capitalism. I guess we'll have to settle for that sugar cane harvester's pay being set by market forces. Things would be so much easier if I could just set everyone's pay.

 

[EnderJE]

He doesn't work that way. Besides, the little hissy-fits he throws on these posts are quite entertaining.

Really? Sometimes, I get tired of them because it just turns into a shouting match with neither one listening (see every political thread out there). At least, that's how I feel right now...

 

[mrplunkey]

Really? Sometimes, I get tired of them because it just turns into a shouting match with neither one listening (see every political thread out there). At least, that's how I feel right now...

True, but with that particular poster you just have to keep in mind that he can't even figure-out those vexing [ QUOTE] tags. Its probably best to not argue with someone who can't get past that.

 

[redsamurai]

I have republican friends and democrat friends, I agree and disagree with both sides......but with "my" friends, be they conservative or liberal......the main focus is always on how to make the lives better of the average american. There's alot of disagreement there......but with this plunkey guy, I really see an appalling lack of anything remotely human. He's basically an economic automaton that spews out stats and theories.....without analyzing the human side, which always throws stats and theories out the window.

Dude, relax. It's just a conversation on the Interweb.

Everyone's entitled to their points. Everyone's points are stupid and everyone's points are valid. No need to flame out on the guy. Wouldn't it be better to discuss it rationally and think it out? Who knows? Maybe we both might learn something.

 

[redsamurai]

trickle down economics is fine....."in theory". In "reality".....the rich get richer, they buy prada and lui vitton for their wives......and then go and buy themselves a yacht........none of which puts any money into the economy. It's laughable that people still beleive there's investment going on in this country on a large scale by these people.........how many people I know that have their money sitting in an overseas banking account.......

Trickle down economics would be great if we weren't all "humans".

Which is interesting RedSamurai... When Ronald Regan endorsed his Reaganomics and many companies got their tax breaks , all they did was buy another house or limousine with it...

Then we get into more debate over whether buying a house (new or used) is an investment or not...

This is hypocracy and nothing more

 

[redsamurai]

But it's still sum-zero. If the business spends the money or the worker spends the money, presumably its going to go to either a business or an individual. Lets say a minimum wage increase shifts a company's cost $10,000. Well, the company was going to do something with it (invest, pay dividends, save) just like the worker is going to do something with it (invest, pay expenses, save).

you still can't wrap your head around the fact that a minimum wage increase is not some random number pulled out of someone's ass for shit's and giggles. It's a number, albeit not precise.......which is calculated to allow for bottom line quality of life expenses. These do not include luxury items........so you can bitch and moan all you want about market forces setting this or that.......business's are still obligated to pay a man an honest day's wage. It's the price of living and doing business in the civilized world. But hey, living in a 3rd world shithole where everyone has to own an ak-47 is nice too. This really transcends an "economic" argument......and the fact that you keep dragging in there is indicative of a moral vaccuum that exists inside of you. And I really do think you're proud of it.

To get back to your example, your potato farmer would benefit from the worker buying fries, but the same potato farmer would benefit from the company buying a piece of capital equipment which drove the employment of another person who can now buy fries as well thanks to his new job

yes he would benefit from buying a piece of capital equipment.......but he has to pay his workers first. If, after paying his workers they're honest day's wage......he does not have money left over to buy a piece of capital equipment........than he's just not cutting it and maybe, if that piece of equipment is vital to his business.........maybe he shouldn't be in the business and leave it to someone else who is more capable??

ps. how are my quote tags working now faggot? sorry if I'm lazy from time to time and don't include a forward slash here or there........they're not really all that necessary when I'm quoting your drivel anyway.....so have a coke and smile and shut the fuck up........K?

 

[mrplunkey]

I have republican friends and democrat friends, I agree and disagree with both sides......but with "my" friends, be they conservative or liberal......the main focus is always on how to make the lives better of the average american. There's alot of disagreement there......but with this plunkey guy, I really see an appalling lack of anything remotely human. He's basically an economic automaton that spews out stats and theories.....without analyzing the human side, which always throws stats and theories out the window.

And yet I've put people to work -- and will put many more to work as well. While you come to this board touting your proud idea of an "honest days pay" other people, including myself, actually try to put people to work.

Your real problem is you just don't understand capitalism. To you, its all about these subtle and not-so-subtle "obligations" you believe businesses have to everyone and everything else. Guess what? They don't. Business is hard. Business is tough. And a lot of very hard-working, well-educated, clever people show-up each day trying to squeak-out and extra 1% to the bottom line.

Your flawed idea that someone "deserves" a certain wage is ridiculous. If you ever find yourself doing something that pays a rate you can't live with, then DO SOMETHING ELSE. That's how the system works. If a business offers a product or service that isn't viable, they are forced to change or die. Similarly if an individual is performing a task that isn't viable for them, instead of finding something they can survive on, you'd rather artificially inflate their rate of pay and leave them stuck there forever. Yeah, that's very kind and considerate of you. You're no better than the hoards of liberals who trap someone in three generations of welfare all in the name of "helping" them.

 

[redguru]

trickle down economics is fine....."in theory". In "reality".....the rich get richer, they buy prada and lui vitton for their wives......and then go and buy themselves a yacht........none of which puts any money into the economy. It's laughable that people still beleive there's investment going on in this country on a large scale by these people.........how many people I know that have their money sitting in an overseas banking account.......

Trickle down economics would be great if we weren't all "humans".

Ah so, a rich man buying a yacht doesn't help the economy? do you know how much labor goes into building a luxury yacht? General Motors has to build the engines, typically twin 425's. Carpenters build all the teak woodworking and cabinetry. Furuno RADAR equipment and navigational aids. Then the yacht is continuously crewed, you have a Captain, deck hands and at least one Engineer. Yeah, this does nothing for the economy.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Poink im surprised at you. I would think your neo-con viewpoints would have led you to the conclusion "Survival of the fittest." The best workers won't get laid off and will be forced to produce more. And the ones looking for work will be more inclined to break a sweat if they do get a job. Putting even more fear into the workforce. Not to mention the fact with all the multi-nationals trying to conquer everything and the US being in love and wanting to adopt Mexico and Canada as red-haired bastard step childs who on Earth would need a bunch of lousy, independent business owners with a mind of their own?

That should cheer you up.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

BTW Poink---if you want to know what I really think on it, and it may come as a surprise----the way things are headed right now I don't think it was a good idea to raise it right now. Theres just too much horseshit going on right now. Being one of the great kings of doom and gloom I have recently found a real niche for shorting stocks.

 

[redsamurai]

they don't buy american....that's the point. How many of the super rich are driving a car made by GM?? <rhetorical question>

I wasn't even aware that GM made yachts......is it under an umbrella name? All I know is the "vast" majority of sailboats and luxury power yachts are made in Europe........I think it's the Belgians that are the biggest producers and highest in sales. I"m not talking about powerboats......I"m tallking about multimillion dollar yachts .

Ah so, a rich man buying a yacht doesn't help the economy? do you know how much labor goes into building a luxury yacht? General Motors has to build the engines, typically twin 425's. Carpenters build all the teak woodworking and cabinetry. Furuno RADAR equipment and navigational aids. Then the yacht is continuously crewed, you have a Captain, deck hands and at least one Engineer. Yeah, this does nothing for the economy.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Hell even my 26' party bardge supports the economy. Unless they have to dragnet the lake at taxpayers expense to find some drowned drunk. But I guess that would still support a few jobs eh?

 

[redsamurai]

And yet I've put people to work -- and will put many more to work as well. While you come to this board touting your proud idea of an "honest days pay" other people, including myself, actually try to put people to work.

and in 5 or less years I will be employing people myself........your point?
And from the looks of things you're doing just fine "despite" having to pay that nasty and unfair minimum wage.....or maybe you pay over it, who knows. Either way, I'm sure your employees would leave if all of a sudden you decided you needed extra capital and would promptly be reducing everyone's salary to mere pennies an hour. And so what really, they can just go somewhere else and get a job.....cause there's so many jobs to be had companies are giving them away... When you're dealing with wages that are well over the minimum, it's fine to have the market dictate the salary of an individual. But when you get to the point where people are making so little that they have to do other things on the side to survive, you're beginning to create situations with exist in 3rd world countries. We can thank such a situation for the invention of the mafia........but hey, they're just free marketeers themselves right??..........


and why the fuck are bringing in welfare into this? That's a completely different discussion son........this about business in america, and what it could do to actually eliminate welfa......oh wait, that's another discussion.........

are you enjoying my tags now beezy? I know what a big deal they are to you and everything......just want to make sure I'm not causing any particular extra eye strain to you.....:rainbow

:

Your real problem is you just don't understand capitalism. To you, its all about these subtle and not-so-subtle "obligations" you believe businesses have to everyone and everything else. Guess what? They don't. Business is hard. Business is tough. And a lot of very hard-working, well-educated, clever people show-up each day trying to squeak-out and extra 1% to the bottom line.

Your flawed idea that someone "deserves" a certain wage is ridiculous. If you ever find yourself doing something that pays a rate you can't live with, then DO SOMETHING ELSE. That's how the system works. If a business offers a product or service that isn't viable, they are forced to change or die. Similarly if an individual is performing a task that isn't viable for them, instead of finding something they can survive on, you'd rather artificially inflate their rate of pay and leave them stuck there forever. Yeah, that's very kind and considerate of you. You're no better than the hoards of liberals who trap someone in three generations of welfare all in the name of "helping" them.

 

[Gambino]

Then we get into more debate over whether buying a house (new or used) is an investment or not...

building a house puts a lot of money in circulation bro
do you have any friends that are buliders/contractors?
they would appreciate more people building and buying houses

 

[mrplunkey]

and in 5 or less years I will be employing people myself........your point?
And from the looks of things you're doing just fine "despite" having to pay that nasty and unfair minimum wage.....or maybe you pay over it, who knows. Either way, I'm sure your employees would leave if all of a sudden you decided you needed extra capital and would promptly be reducing everyone's salary to mere pennies an hour. And so what really, they can just go somewhere else and get a job.....cause there's so many jobs to be had companies are giving them away... When you're dealing with wages that are well over the minimum, it's fine to have the market dictate the salary of an individual. But when you get to the point where people are making so little that they have to do other things on the side to survive, you're beginning to create situations with exist in 3rd world countries. We can thank such a situation for the invention of the mafia........but hey, they're just free marketeers themselves right??..........


and why the fuck are bringing in welfare into this? That's a completely different discussion son........this about business in america, and what it could do to actually eliminate welfa......oh wait, that's another discussion.........


:

Holy shit you still messed the tags up.

and in 5 or less years I will be employing people myself........your point?

My point is you haven't done shit toward putting a single person to work (probably including yourself) yet you think you're qualified to address employment economics. Don't get me wrong -- a lot of liberals believe they are experts on issues they've never addressed either. So at least you're fitting the profile.

 

[Gambino]

trickle down economics is fine....."in theory". In "reality".....the rich get richer, they buy prada and lui vitton for their wives......and then go and buy themselves a yacht........none of which puts any money into the economy. It's laughable that people still beleive there's investment going on in this country on a large scale by these people.........how many people I know that have their money sitting in an overseas banking account.......

Trickle down economics would be great if we weren't all "humans".

buying anything such as a yatcht or a mansion puts a lot of money back in circulation...the yatcht is manufactured, it's workers are paid, and the owner of the yatcht company gets paid...in turn, they have money to put back in the economy buying whatever they like...how is that not putting money in the economny?
econ 101 bro, really basic.
fucking a bro, it sounds like you wanna dictate everything for business owners
where they bank their loot
how much they pay their workers
etc
i don't see how your viewpoint is condusive to business...

 

[mrplunkey]

buying anything such as a yatcht or a mansion puts a lot of money back in circulation...the yatcht is manufactured, it's workers are paid, and the owner of the yatcht company gets paid...how is that not putting money in the economny?
econ 101 bro, really basic.
fucking a bro, it sounds like you wanna dictate everything for business owners
where they bank their loot
how much they pay their workers
etc
i don't see how your viewpoint is condusive to business...

He needs to just renounce his citizenship and move to Cuba where they see things his way.

 

[Gambino]

they don't buy american....that's the point. How many of the super rich are driving a car made by GM?? <rhetorical question>

I wasn't even aware that GM made yachts......is it under an umbrella name? All I know is the "vast" majority of sailboats and luxury power yachts are made in Europe........I think it's the Belgians that are the biggest producers and highest in sales. I"m not talking about powerboats......I"m tallking about multimillion dollar yachts .

awesome, people should be able to spend their money in whatever country they please (embargo countries different situation)
global economy bro, that's what we live in.
multimillion dollar yatchts, docked in america, most likely have 4-7 employees
they must purchase a shit load of gas and supplies
they must pay a docking fee
and they must pay a federal surcharge for using USA waters (or something like that)
quite a bit of money paid to USA interests, even after the fact of manufacter (sp)

 

[redsamurai]

Holy shit you still messed the tags up.

you obviously don't get situational humor.......psst, I did that on purpose.....

My point is you haven't done shit toward putting a single person to work (probably including yourself) yet you think you're qualified to address employment economics. Don't get me wrong -- a lot of liberals believe they are experts on issues they've never addressed either. So at least you're fitting the profile.

I'm not trying to address the micro economics of putting people to work, you're right, I"m not presently qualified to do so. As I've stated now multiple times.......the term "minimum wage" is self explanatory, and cannot be subject to free market forces. Otherwise we'd have rolling drifts of people who go unemployed and then "hope" the free market picks them up.........this is alot of wishful thinking. But you don't have to worry about that. Which has also been my point.

By the way, I have 4 friends that have graduated with their masters in economics........yes, I'm a mechanical engineer......but I speak constanly with these individuals. Some would agree with you on certain points, the others wouldn't. But in either case, they're intelligent individuals who don't rely on extreme hyperbole to convey a point.......because they've actually researched and analyzed a subject.

 

[heatherrae]

the sky still hasn't fallen? Dang! Call me when it does.

 

[redsamurai]

of course they should be able to spend the money where ever the fuck they please........but the point was that by doing so, they don't put the money back into the american economy and therefore "trickle down economics" doesn't work like the republicans say it does. Read the thread bro........

also, you're not seriously trying to say that these yachts are 'seriously" pumping the economy by being docked here are you? If those yachts were made here.......yes, otherwise we're pumping the Belgian economy.




QUOTE=Gambino]awesome, people should be able to spend their money in whatever country they please (embargo countries different situation)
global economy bro, that's what we live in.
multimillion dollar yatchts, docked in america, most likely have 4-7 employees
they must purchase a shit load of gas and supplies
they must pay a docking fee
and they must pay a federal surcharge for using USA waters (or something like that)
quite a bit of money paid to USA interests, even after the fact of manufacter (sp)[/QUOTE]

 

[mrplunkey]

of course they should be able to spend the money where ever the fuck they please........but the point was that by doing so, they don't put the money back into the american economy and therefore "trickle down economics" doesn't work like the republicans say it does. Read the thread bro........

also, you're not seriously trying to say that these yachts are 'seriously" pumping the economy by being docked here are you? If those yachts were made here.......yes, otherwise we're pumping the Belgian economy.




QUOTE=Gambino]awesome, people should be able to spend their money in whatever country they please (embargo countries different situation)
global economy bro, that's what we live in.
multimillion dollar yatchts, docked in america, most likely have 4-7 employees
they must purchase a shit load of gas and supplies
they must pay a docking fee
and they must pay a federal surcharge for using USA waters (or something like that)
quite a bit of money paid to USA interests, even after the fact of manufacter (sp)

Damn... George needs to hold a remedial class on the use of tags.

And red, you are showing a *gross* lack of understanding on the cost of a yatcht. The purchase price is always the tip of the iceburg. Just remember this -- If it flies, floats or fucks it's ALWAYS cheaper to rent.

Peace out!

 

[EnderJE]

also, you're not seriously trying to say that these yachts are 'seriously" pumping the economy by being docked here are you? If those yachts were made here.......yes, otherwise we're pumping the Belgian economy.

I don't own a yacht, so I can't really comment; but I would of thought that the docking fees, the gas, the maintenance, and the depreciation would of put money into the economy where the yacht is stationed.

Then again, I don't own a yacht.

 

[redsamurai]

And red, you are showing a *gross* lack of understanding on the cost of a yatcht. The purchase price is always the tip of the iceburg. Just remember this -- If it flies, floats or fucks it's ALWAYS cheaper to rent.

Peace out

!


maybe I don't know something, enlighten me.......all I know is that if you buy a yacht from a belgian company.........or a luxury car from somewhere else........you're supporting "their" economy, not ours. You can put forth a few piddly little jobs that are a result of the maintenance requirements of these boats........but in no way shape or form do they support our economy the way it would be if the yachts were made here.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't own a yacht, so I can't really comment; but I would of thought that the docking fees, the gas, the maintenance, and the depreciation would of put money into the economy where the yacht is stationed.

Then again, I don't own a yacht.

Its insane. One of our ethanol investors owns a 58-footer and the thing requires more mantainence than two homes *and* two cars.

 

[EnderJE]

!


maybe I don't know something, enlighten me.......all I know is that if you buy a yacht from a belgian company.........or a luxury car from somewhere else........you're supporting "their" economy, not ours. You can put forth a few piddly little jobs that are a result of the maintenance requirements of these boats........but in no way shape or form do they support our economy the way it would be if the yachts were made here.

Dude, think of it this way. When you buy a car, how much is the initial purchase price vs how much is the insurance + gas + maintenance of the car?

 

[redsamurai]

Its insane. One of our ethanol investors owns a 58-footer and the thing requires more mantainence than two homes *and* two cars.

so these maintenance jobs can support the economy then eh? More than if the boats were made here?

 

[redsamurai]

Dude, think of it this way. When you buy a car, how much is the initial purchase price vs how much is the insurance + gas + maintenance of the car?

I can tell you that what one pays for the car outweighs the insurance and maintenance. Admittedly though, if you buy an american car......over 7 years you're paying a hefty price in maintenance. And the gas industry doesn't really employ "that" many people........not when you compare it to what the big 3 and toyota and honda employ in the states.

 

[redsamurai]

Dude, think of it this way. When you buy a car, how much is the initial purchase price vs how much is the insurance + gas + maintenance of the car?

now if you buy a 10 million dollar yacht from a belgian company........I think they take the better half of the deal.....don't you?

 

[EnderJE]

now if you buy a 10 million dollar yacht from a belgian company........I think they take the better half of the deal.....don't you?

Depends. I don't have the docking fees, repairs costs, maintenance costs, sales commissions, etc for yachts.

I feel that if I were to make any type of judgment right now...it would be based on a purely emotional response rather then facts. The emotion might be good for the debate, but it would not be reflective of the facts. Thus, if someone pulled out the facts and they proved against the emotional response...it would diminish my position.

Let me look into it and get back to you.

 

[mrplunkey]

Holy hell Red is now an expert on yachts too. I bet he's got friends with Master's degrees in Yachting as well.

 

[redsamurai]

now this is a reasonable and rational fella.....even if we end up disagreeing, I can still have a debate. Congrats......you're not a monkey.

One thing I'd like to add........these jobs that the yachting industry create are more high level jobs. Brokers, engineers, salesmen.........don't get me wrong, that's great........but how much do they put into the economy?
It's been stated as fact that the people who shop at walmart drive the economy.....not the people who shop on rodeo drive. I think there's some truth to that.....mabye not entirely, but some for sure. The whole point of this discussion is this........tax cuts for the ultra rich do not translate into an economic boost here in the states, I think I can say that with near 100% certainty. Now do I think everyone, including the ultra rich......pay too much taxes, yeah. But if you're going to give anyone a break, it should be the middle class........they drive the economy more than the ultra rich. They buy more american products, even if those products are made overseas. Actually, people who buy entry level toyota's and honda's are doing more for "our" economy that anyone else. Toyota and Honda are making more and more of their cars here........and yet somehow, with the same american workforce.......they don't have the same problems the big 3 do. It's a mystery!!.....actually it's really not.




QUOTE=EnderJE]Depends. I don't have the docking fees, repairs costs, maintenance costs, sales commissions, etc for yachts.

I feel that if I were to make any type of judgment right now...it would be based on a purely emotional response rather then facts. The emotion might be good for the debate, but it would not be reflective of the facts. Thus, if someone pulled out the facts and they proved against the emotional response...it would diminish my position.

Let me look into it and get back to you.[/QUOTE]

 

[-SD-]

Toyota and Honda are making more and more of their cars here........and yet somehow, with the same american workforce.......they don't have the same problems the big 3 do. It's a mystery!!.....actually it's really not.

Crushing pension and post retirement benefits liabilities and union demands for the big 3. Big 3 arent nearly as efficient with their labor and manufacturing processes as are Toyota and Honda because of japanese management theory and practices. They get more productivity per wage dollar than the big 3. So no, its not a mystery at all.

 

[mrplunkey]

Crushing pension and post retirement benefits liabilities and union demands for the big 3. Big 3 arent nearly as efficient with their labor and manufacturing processes as are Toyota and Honda because of japanese management theory and practices. They get more productivity per wage dollar than the big 3. So no, its not a mystery at all.

The big three also have a lot of legacy labor arrangements that drive their cost of production through the roof. Tons of featherbedding and built-in productivity losses = business failure.

 

[heatherrae]

I don't own a yacht, so I can't really comment; but I would of thought that the docking fees, the gas, the maintenance, and the depreciation would of put money into the economy where the yacht is stationed.

Then again, I don't own a yacht.

Well, ALL of it is EXPENSIVE. To buy a yacht is very expensive, but to maintain it is too.

To fill up the 45' one of my ex, it was well over a grand in deisel. Littlest things like replacing the windshield wiper motors and wipers could cost a grand, easily. Every month was something. He lived on the water, so he was not docked at a marina. I can tell you, though that the marina fees are HIGH.

It's a very expensive hobby.

But why the hell did this conversation suddenly revolve around yachts? lol.

 

[redguru]

Well, ALL of it is EXPENSIVE. To buy a yacht is very expensive, but to maintain it is too.

To fill up the 45' one of my ex, it was well over a grand in deisel. Littlest things like replacing the windshield wiper motors and wipers could cost a grand, easily. Every month was something. He lived on the water, so he was not docked at a marina. I can tell you, though that the marina fees are HIGH.

It's a very expensive hobby.

A yacht is a hole in the water you throw money into.

 

[heatherrae]

A yacht is a hole in the water you throw money into.

No doubt. THOUSANDS every year.

 

[samoth]

Well, ALL of it is EXPENSIVE. To buy a yacht is very expensive, but to maintain it is too.

To fill up the 45' one of my ex, it was well over a grand in deisel. Littlest things like replacing the windshield wiper motors and wipers could cost a grand, easily. Every month was something. He lived on the water, so he was not docked at a marina. I can tell you, though that the marina fees are HIGH.

It's a very expensive hobby.

But why the hell did this conversation suddenly revolve around yachts? lol.

 

[needtogetaas]

were you get them pics bro.

 

[samoth]

were you get them pics bro.

Someone from the XOXO law board made them. There's over 100 of them:

http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w138/xoxo_dungeonmasttter/Complete Set/?start=0

Some are pretty general, but others, like those referring to the Texas law prof Leiter, are solely an inside joke with the board.

 

[needtogetaas]

Someone from the XOXO law board made them. There's over 100 of them:

http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w138/xoxo_dungeonmasttter/Complete Set/?start=0

Some are pretty general, but others, like those referring to the Texas law prof Leiter, are solely an inside joke with the board.

 

[samoth]

LOL, I love that one and the stickey one. Unfortunetly, they hava a one and the TTTSEF one isn't suitable for EF, either.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

haha, yachts are lame.

 

[EnderJE]

Well, ALL of it is EXPENSIVE. To buy a yacht is very expensive, but to maintain it is too.

To fill up the 45' one of my ex, it was well over a grand in deisel. Littlest things like replacing the windshield wiper motors and wipers could cost a grand, easily. Every month was something. He lived on the water, so he was not docked at a marina. I can tell you, though that the marina fees are HIGH.

It's a very expensive hobby.

But why the hell did this conversation suddenly revolve around yachts? lol.

We're trying to impress you enough into a titty shot.

"Let me show you my diamond wallet..."

 

[EnderJE]

now this is a reasonable and rational fella.....even if we end up disagreeing, I can still have a debate. Congrats......you're not a monkey.

douchbag!

One thing I'd like to add........these jobs that the yachting industry create are more high level jobs. Brokers, engineers, salesmen.........don't get me wrong, that's great........but how much do they put into the economy?

It's been stated as fact that the people who shop at walmart drive the economy

You did know that if you said this that I'd ask for the corresponding link that backs the statement up. If not, then you have to admit it does come across as self serving. It would be the same if I said that I married a supermodel and drive a GM car. It can't be proven.

.....not the people who shop on rodeo drive. I think there's some truth to that.....mabye not entirely, but some for sure. The whole point of this discussion is this........tax cuts for the ultra rich do not translate into an economic boost here in the states, I think I can say that with near 100% certainty. Now do I think everyone, including the ultra rich......pay too much taxes, yeah. But if you're going to give anyone a break, it should be the middle class........they drive the economy more than the ultra rich.

What is your definition of middle class? What's the threshold? I'm just curious. I'm also curious as to the rational that the middle class drive the economy rather then the ultra rich. Although one is buying more (middle class), then isn't the other potentially employing more (ultra rich)? Not all of them are robber barons.

They buy more american products, even if those products are made overseas.

Isn't this a contradiction?

 

[needtogetaas]

LOL, I love that one and the stickey one. Unfortunetly, they hava a one and the TTTSEF one isn't suitable for EF, either.

it has somath all over it..

i like this one...

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Good point, Labor Unions contribute awhole lotta of cash to the dem. party. .......as do the trial lawyers. when they tell you they are the compassionate party and only care about the downtrodden i want to puke.

You're right, our wages have always been a certain %x the minimum wage. This hike should put me well over the $40.00hr mark with upcoming contract negotiations.

However a lot of us are sitting on the bench right now. I could be one of them shortly as we've had a hard time landing anymore work. We may have picked up another project as we were next in line on the bid, just $100,000.00 over our non-union counterpart on a 2 million dollar bid and they couldn't get bonded so they called our owner in Friday which is usually a good sign. Our outfit is small, only 2 in our office and the owner makes deliveries and such.

However these fat paychecks have created one hell of a shitty work environment. No one want's to get laid off and these guys won't hesitate to talk shit on you. I compare it to going to the cave everyday and working with a bunch of neanderthals for cave supremacy. Stupidity rules. I hate it. They get pissed at me because I refuse to play the game and tell them to straight up fuck themselves at the first sign of any horseshit.

On the flip side I can make more on what I do now being layed off 6 months out of the year than I could making $25.00hr year round.

Conclusion: it all sucks.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Perhaps you didn't catch an episode of Lou Dobb's. The US elite want to combine the US with Mexico and Canada. Can't do that with walls. Illegals are here because we(they) want them here.

I and almost every one wishes they would do something about all these dame fucking immigrants coming into the us.I dont blam them for wanting to be here but they are killing it for the people that are here legally.but lets face it our government is never going to stop it.they dont want to.hell its pretty dame fucking simple if they wanted to stop it.just billed a better wall with guard post that have guards that will kill any one that gets near the wall.pretty fucking simple.kill them if they come near the wall.they dont want to stop it.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

My conclusion: things are so severely jacked up right now---get your garden plots ready. All the mathematical indicators are red hot for a big crash in the markets anyday now. The Dow can't hold onto new highs, the other indexes are loosing ground in the opposite direction, the markets margined to the highest level ever, All sectors lost ground last friday, home builders dumping, new car sales down 2.5%, ARM's about to kick in, IRAN-----things are NOT looking good right now. Of course everyone has their opinion. I don't think it would hurt to be cautious right now. I pulled my 401k out of the high risk category. Personally to me it just looks like we are pushing off the inevitable and everyday that we go forward with it will take 3 or 4 to get it back. Just my cheerio evaluation for sunday am.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Cliffnote: We're skating on thin ice.

My conclusion: things are so severely jacked up right now---get your garden plots ready. All the mathematical indicators are red hot for a big crash in the markets anyday now. The Dow can't hold onto new highs, the other indexes are loosing ground in the opposite direction, the markets margined to the highest level ever, All sectors lost ground last friday, home builders dumping, new car sales down 2.5%, ARM's about to kick in, IRAN-----things are NOT looking good right now. Of course everyone has their opinion. I don't think it would hurt to be cautious right now. I pulled my 401k out of the high risk category. Personally to me it just looks like we are pushing off the inevitable and everyday that we go forward with it will take 3 or 4 to get it back. Just my cheerio evaluation for sunday am.

 

[mrplunkey]

You're right, our wages have always been a certain %x the minimum wage. This hike should put me well over the $40.00hr mark with upcoming contract negotiations.

However a lot of us are sitting on the bench right now. I could be one of them shortly as we've had a hard time landing anymore work. We may have picked up another project as we were next in line on the bid, just $100,000.00 over our non-union counterpart on a 2 million dollar bid and they couldn't get bonded so they called our owner in Friday which is usually a good sign. Our outfit is small, only 2 in our office and the owner makes deliveries and such.

However these fat paychecks have created one hell of a shitty work environment. No one want's to get laid off and these guys won't hesitate to talk shit on you. I compare it to going to the cave everyday and working with a bunch of neanderthals for cave supremacy. Stupidity rules. I hate it. They get pissed at me because I refuse to play the game and tell them to straight up fuck themselves at the first sign of any horseshit.

On the flip side I can make more on what I do now being layed off 6 months out of the year than I could making $25.00hr year round.

Conclusion: it all sucks.

That's one of the problems that happens when labor prices are artificially elevated. As an employer, the ideal situation is to get labor at a fair but competitive rate and work continuously. Sure, there will be slow times where people will be operating below capacity but there will also be times when they are backlogged. But once labor gets too high, you see cycles of boom/layoff and employers have to put intense pressure on people to finish quickly.

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

That's one of the problems that happens when labor prices are artificially elevated. As an employer, the ideal situation is to get labor at a fair but competitive rate and work continuously. Sure, there will be slow times where people will be operating below capacity but there will also be times when they are backlogged. But once labor gets too high, you see cycles of boom/layoff and employers have to put intense pressure on people to finish quickly.

Boy if you didn't nail that one on the head. Esp. the last sentence. These jobs are crazy fast right now. Plus everyone has a bad attitued because they know their just being pushed faster towards their last paycheck. This situation is getting worse and worse and im really getting sick of it. I wake up in the am and im thinking "well gee I wonder if we'll get our last check today." This shit needs to stop, it works marvel on your attitude. I am in a rock and a hard place. A permanet 30-40k job does me no good, I am not qualified to make more so I have to stay what im doing. I've seriously thought about selling shit off and downsizing around here---the pressure just isn't worth it to me anymore.

 

[Jimsbbc]

They all know we are riding the crest of a wave. It has to crash soon. Maybe a few years on the outside. I expect this financial collapse to pave the way for the Amero. It is our best chance to compete with the Euro - who we are losing ground to. OPEC would love to denominate in Euros and the only reason they haven't is because of our military and the EU constituion hasn't been ratified by all member states. At least with the Euro and the Amero, central banks in Asia and Europe will hold both as reserves. OPEC hopefully would diversify and do the same instead of just ditching our currency completely.

Perhaps you didn't catch an episode of Lou Dobb's. The US elite want to combine the US with Mexico and Canada. Can't do that with walls. Illegals are here because we(they) want them here.

 

[redsamurai]

That's one of the problems that happens when labor prices are artificially elevated. As an employer, the ideal situation is to get labor at a fair but competitive rate and work continuously. Sure, there will be slow times where people will be operating below capacity but there will also be times when they are backlogged. But once labor gets too high, you see cycles of boom/layoff and employers have to put intense pressure on people to finish quickly.

a fair and competitive rate as long as there's no minimum imposed by the government huh? So basically you're just knee jerk reacting to any sort of government involvement in the market. If you weren't holed up in your ivory tower you'd realize that even our last bump in minimum wage can't sustain an american living in even the worst of conditions. Basically, if you're on minimum wage, you'd better have parent that can put you up......

 

[mrplunkey]

Basically, if you're on minimum wage, you'd better have parent that can put you up......

Which is *exactly* what a lot of minimum wage earners do -- because they are teens looking for that first job. Minimum wage jobs have been a great way for young people to enter the workforce and destroying those jobs is a great way to make sure they delay learning the skills they'd need for a better job.

And "fair and competitive" is set by market forces -- not the goverment. If you find yourself doing something that pays a rate you can't survive on then do something else instead of hoping the goverment will force an artificially-high rate onto your employer.

 

[redsamurai]

after the things that went on in the early part of the 20th century, americans realized that the market can be a very expoloitive and corrupt entity.....every bit so like any government can. And teenage minimum wage jobs aren't going anywhere in the long term.....because seven dollars an hour still isnt enough to sustain oneself, so the market will adjust. Just like government, the free market needs a "check" to it to keep it inline.

Which is *exactly* what a lot of minimum wage earners do -- because they are teens looking for that first job. Minimum wage jobs have been a great way for young people to enter the workforce and destroying those jobs is a great way to make sure they delay learning the skills they'd need for a better job.

And "fair and competitive" is set by market forces -- not the goverment. If you find yourself doing something that pays a rate you can't survive on then do something else instead of hoping the goverment will force an artificially-high rate onto your employer.

 

[redsamurai]

And "fair and competitive" is set by market forces -- not the goverment. If you find yourself doing something that pays a rate you can't survive on then do something else instead of hoping the goverment will force an artificially-high rate onto your employer.

yes, fair and competitive is set by market forces.....as long as it's at or above the liveable minimum. Otherwise we're just another 3rd world shithole.

 

[mrplunkey]

yes, fair and competitive is set by market forces.....as long as it's at or above the liveable minimum. Otherwise we're just another 3rd world shithole.

Cool! Glad to know we'll have people like you deciding what the "livable minimum" is.

On second thought, no thanks. Any rational employer will just take their job overseas. Wait... that's already happening now.

 

[EnderJE]

yes, fair and competitive is set by market forces.....as long as it's at or above the liveable minimum. Otherwise we're just another 3rd world shithole.

Dude, did I ever tell you the story of my local knife sharpener when I was a kid. There was this guy who'd come around and sharpen knives. My parents could of easily buy one from the local grocery, but that was his job in the old country. He thought he'd bring it over here. I can remember seeing him each week trying to peddle his wares.

Sure, he was doing okay for awhile but then he gave it up and went on to something else because he couldn't live on it.

 

[mrplunkey]

Dude, did I ever tell you the story of my local knife sharpener when I was a kid. There was this guy who'd come around and sharpen knives. My parents could of easily buy one from the local grocery, but that was his job in the old country. He thought he'd bring it over here. I can remember seeing him each week trying to peddle his wares.

Sure, he was doing okay for awhile but then he gave it up and went on to something else because he couldn't live on it.

He needed some minimum wage laws so we can artificially support an outdated practice!

You and your parents must be mean-spirited.

 

[EnderJE]

He needed some minimum wage laws so we can artificially support an outdated practice!

You and your parents must be mean-spirited.

I always felt bad for that guy. He even had a donkey drawn cart and the whole thing. I used to go on rides around my townhouse complex on it when I was 5.

Ah well...I'm sure he's a gluestick right now.

 

[redsamurai]

what is with these stupid nonsensical sentences you keep spewing........no where in my posts am I stating what the actual minimum wage should be, I just know that the current one...and certainly the previous.....can't be called a "minimum". There are economists that calculate that......so again, wtf? stop being a dumbass and grow the fuck up.

Cool! Glad to know we'll have people like you deciding what the "livable minimum" is.

On second thought, no thanks. Any rational employer will just take their job overseas. Wait... that's already happening now.

 

[redsamurai]

Dude, did I ever tell you the story of my local knife sharpener when I was a kid.

no I don't think you ever got around to telling me that one in our "long and storied" friendship.........

There was this guy who'd come around and sharpen knives. My parents could of easily buy one from the local grocery, but that was his job in the old country. He thought he'd bring it over here. I can remember seeing him each week trying to peddle his wares.

Sure, he was doing okay for awhile but then he gave it up and went on to something else because he couldn't live on it.

well, according to plunkey your parents weren't being very good capitalists.......in fact, they could have been construed as being communists for supporting a man who's services were outdated and unneeded and only being supported by the socialistic tendencies of the people in that respective community.

 

[mrplunkey]

what is with these stupid nonsensical sentences you keep spewing........no where in my posts am I stating what the actual minimum wage should be, I just know that the current one...and certainly the previous.....can't be called a "minimum". There are economists that calculate that......so again, wtf? stop being a dumbass and grow the fuck up.

Ohhh... it's another one of those little "hissy fits". Thanks for helping me start my morning off with a laugh. I'm going to dedicate my first cup of java to you!

 

[mrplunkey]

no I don't think you ever got around to telling me that one in our "long and storied" friendship.........

I'm starting to think red was that troubled kid in school who always got the "does not work and play well with others" box checked on his report card.

 

[redsamurai]

I'm starting to think red was that troubled kid in school who always got the "does not work and play well with others" box checked on his report card.

Oh I played just fine..............too much actually.

 

[redsamurai]

<sigh>

Ohhh... it's another one of those little "hissy fits". Thanks for helping me start my morning off with a laugh. I'm going to dedicate my first cup of java to you!

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

hey plunkey, what do you think about the futures price for corn right now?

 

[mrplunkey]

hey plunkey, what do you think about the futures price for corn right now?

They are in frigging orbit!

A lot of farmers are speculating that prices will continue to rise so they aren't drawing-down reserves.

We just exchanged presentations with ING this morning and they had a really good "walk" showing how corn prices could correct. It showed a shift away from soybeans (only half of them are crushed in the us anyway), the use of some new higher-yield plants, and a release of more "banked" land for corn.

Ethanol will virtually guarantee $3+ corn in the future, but two or three years at $4+ would stunt if not kill starch-based ethanol in the US. Just fears of that have driven us to set aside a full 100% additional space in our pre-fermentation areas just in case we need to retrofit to alternative feedstocks (i.e. cellulose... someday).

If corn farmers price their product correctly and it stays in the $3.00-$3.50 range, you could see 30+ years of corn-based ethanol. If it stays at $4.00+ the pressure to advance to cellulose will be too great and farmers will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[theoak01]

it got bumped up to 8 bucks an hour here,and some parties are talking about bumping it up to 10 bucks,which will make things even more expensive

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

They all know we are riding the crest of a wave. It has to crash soon. Maybe a few years on the outside. I expect this financial collapse to pave the way for the Amero. It is our best chance to compete with the Euro - who we are losing ground to. OPEC would love to denominate in Euros and the only reason they haven't is because of our military and the EU constituion hasn't been ratified by all member states. At least with the Euro and the Amero, central banks in Asia and Europe will hold both as reserves. OPEC hopefully would diversify and do the same instead of just ditching our currency completely.

Speaking of financial collapse, has anyone seen the charts on NFI, MER, or BSC lately? I went against the grain and shorted MER and CFC last friday.