It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Repeal minimum wage says the Grouch

page: 16
13
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Undertough
 


Excuse me that was not my point at all to brag. I was trying to qualify my remarks. This is totally off topic. I am writer so therefore I know the rules of grammar. I am not on here trying to write an essay or a story. I am just sharing my thoughts and ideas. You totally missed point of my post. My point is education does not always make a difference. Shesh!


Sorry, sorry sorry. I went about that all wrong. Most of your posts seem so well thought out and written that that one in particular really stood out and mainly because I did get exactly what the point was. I agree with most everything you are saying but that post was different in that it was riddled with written errors. I am by no means a grammar Nazi but when one is explaining how they fail to negotiate successfully in spite of the fact that they are a talented writer and speaker but puts down so many glaring writing errors all in one little bunch it sounds a little alarm. Like I said, most of your posts do not look like that and since it was about your ability to write and negotiate...
I guess I thought maybe it was on purpose or something. My bad. I hope you understand why it stood out specifically because of the point you were making and I do apologize for how I wrote that.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Undertough
 


I think you pretty much just demolished the "create more jobs" argument in that post, nice to see some good ol fashioned logic here


Thanks!
It just makes sense to me that way but I am more than open to the idea that I am way off. I am hoping someone will at least give it a fair try and explain to me why I may be wrong in that.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ldyserenity
 




Isn't this the same outcome as minimum wage?


No, the outcome will be decrease in umemployment and economic growth. When it comes to preventing worker slavery then yes, the outcome of NIT would be the same, but without the mentioned negatives of minimum wage.


How will the outcome be a decrease in unemployment?
Either the NIT is going to supplement the lost incomes to low paying jobs or it will decrease unemployment. I am confused about the math that is creating new jobs.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


And where do they get this idea to pay such low wages.
I honestly think if the government had never stepped in people would be getting paid much more on the hour.
Whose more likely in touch with the needs of the people, a boss, or a government official? I would say 10 bucks an hour would probably be about where minimum was if the government hadn't planted the idea of 7.25 or whatever.

People would also be more inclined to ask for raises and complain as they wouldn't be going into a job "knowing the pay" even if it was expected to be a low paying job they wouldn't have these already dashed hopes and would be more likely to speak up.

When someone applies for a job knowing it's minimum wage and that minimum wage is set they are resigned to that before they even start. You have someone get in and then hear for the first time that the pay is low and they aren't basing your pay off of any past experience or education I guarantee people would be more likely to speak up and/or walk out.
edit on 3-8-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




Can you please explain this to me. You are saying that companies would pay people more if the minimum wage were to be abolished? I cannot get my brain around that no matter how hard I try so could you please explain it to me?
Minimum wage does not force companies to pay less than 10 dollars an hour. They can if they want to. Why would they do it if there were no minimum wage if they are not doing it now?
Actually, can you get me a list of the companies that are just dying to pay their employees more but cannot because of the minimum wage laws? Name one? I want to go work there as a consultant.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 




Either the NIT is going to supplement the lost incomes to low paying jobs or it will decrease unemployment. I am confused about the math that is creating new jobs.


Now the welfare pays x money to the the people on unemployment benefits which are forced to be unemployed and contribute nothing because seeking work of the value they are able to produce is criminalised. Allowing them to work WILL decrease employment. The inverse relationship between minimum wage and employment is one of the most solid economic facts.

With NIT, these people will be employed, so they will get x - some percentage (10% in our reform here) of their own income. By definition it will be less. So government will have to pay less for welfare to them (of course with NIT it will have to pay more elsewhere, so the net effect is zero on government expenditures). Employment of these people which are now doing nothing will also result in secondary beneficial effect - economic growth.

Some people which are now paid exactly the minimum wage (contrary to popular beliefs, its only a few %) will probably get their income from the employer reduced, but their total income (from the employer + NIT) would not be affected much (NIT formula for total income is: own income + (BI - 10% own income) ).

www.economist.com...

Why do you think the first effect is in conflict with NIT low wage supplement? The employer does not care how much NIT do you get from the government.
edit on 3/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You really need to check your math. How about you plug in some real world numbers and flesh it out a little. All I am reading is you suggesting corporations pay people less, then give more to the IRS who then in turn pays it back out to the people who are being paid less at their job. I am not sure where you see savings other than the shift from government expenditures to corporate sponsored expenditures. There is no way to giver person X the same amoung of money to live on via below minimum wage job + welfare and not use at least the same amount of dollars if not more to do so.

The entire premise is either irrevocably flawed or you are not explaining it well. Your source is of little help too. All you are doing is shifting money around and hiring a 3rd party to take care of what it used to only take 2 parties to handle.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


There was always third party involved, thats the whole premise of minimum wage - third party saying two people that they cannot proceed with some contract, even when bot of them agreed voluntarily.

For the full explanation of the system see this thread I promised.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 





Ummm...so I guess this came from an alternate universe or something then? Apple iPhone Patent a HUGEblow to smartphone makers (or some such thing) And once again my nerd is showing...I'll get that.


Hmmmm, I wonder if I am supposed to believe this update from the article you linked magically appeared after you posted:


Update: Other patent experts disagree with this notion. For a roundup of objections to this story, click here.


Here is the link to that counterpoint - or what you smugly call an "alternative universe" - and the opening paragraph:


Apple was just awarded a long sought-after U.S. patent for its iPhone that some intellectual property experts believe is so broad it could lead to big problems for makers of rival smartphones. But a closer look at the actual patent belies that interpretation, say others who have been critical of PCMag's original reporting on this story.


Your nerd may be showing, but it is hard to see with all that egg on your face.


edit on 3-8-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by ren1999
 


We can't end all of those things or we would have a poverty rate of 50% and a homeless rate of like 30%. Right now our poverty rate is 15% and the homeless rate is about 10%?


We have no choice. The U.S. has been taken over completely by our multi-national corporate masters.

You'll work for $5.00 a day and not complain.

The poor and homeless will just have to die in the streets.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ldyserenity
 





Ummm...so I guess this came from an alternate universe or something then? Apple iPhone Patent a HUGEblow to smartphone makers (or some such thing) And once again my nerd is showing...I'll get that.


Hmmmm, I wonder if I am supposed to believe this update from the article you linked magically appeared after you posted:


Update: Other patent experts disagree with this notion. For a roundup of objections to this story, click here.


Here is the link to that counterpoint - or what you smugly call an "alternative universe" - and the opening paragraph:


Apple was just awarded a long sought-after U.S. patent for its iPhone that some intellectual property experts believe is so broad it could lead to big problems for makers of rival smartphones. But a closer look at the actual patent belies that interpretation, say others who have been critical of PCMag's original reporting on this story.


Your nerd may be showing, but it is hard to see with all that egg on your face.


edit on 3-8-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


Another blowhard argument from jean paul....interesting how you can jump in so fast to "refute" that post (by merely offering other opinions, no facts), but ignore all of the other great questions posed on the last two pages. Great scholarly method...just ignore what you cannot explain, but you felt you could slam dunk that one back in her face, which actually you didnt at all You might charm a few mice with that tune, but a few of us mice have already turned your long winded theories into swiss cheese. Please address some of the comments from the last page. Please provide facts, not opinions.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Im done with this game of self aggrandizing mental masturbation. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will always remember you as someone who ran from questions, even as you insulted others.


It is a false memory, sport. I have not run from any questions, you ignored my answers.




Really? Answer this one:


Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have heard of Laissez faire captilism Ayn Rand was a big propent of that. That is a french term. I am afriand of the majority who will not pay good wages. I don't really support laissez faire capitilism myself because I believe if you just let things run its natural course there could be negative concequences.


Really? Do you think if nature runs its natural course there will be negative consequences?


We already tried it and there were.
You really think this time it would be entirely different?


Address this one, jean paul


Originally posted by Undertough

Help me understand how this works in the real world.
If they repeal the min. wage and a company can pay its workers say $2.00 and hour then they can hire more people, right?
So more companies can hire more people and more people will be employed, right?
But who the hell is going to be able to survive at any job that pays that little? They are going to need to work 120 hours a week and no job is going to offer that so they are going to need 4 jobs. So what good does it do to create more jobs if those jobs require the employees to take on more of those jobs anyway?

If I have one job at $8/hr and the company lowers pay to $2/hr so they can hire 3 more people, they save no money but all 4 of us have to go out and find 3 more jobs each thus eating up any and all newly created jobs. So the end result is just people working longer for less.

Please correct me.


How about this following point jean paul? Mcdonalds rakes in billions in sales, yet 90% of their employees make minimum wage. Minimum wage is different between states, but mcdonalds doesnt pay everyone at the highest states rates to equalize, much less pay even more than minimum wage....


Originally posted by Undertough

McDonalds can pay its employees anything above minimum wage it wants. Are you really suggesting that if the minimum wage were abolished, then McDonalds would pay its employees more? Perhaps I misread this?



Im sure you will come up with a few more insults and another gigantic post where you talk in circles and believe you espousing some brilliant economic theory, but basically, you are spouting baloney. You have an admirable concept of freedom that cannot exist in reality, but your scholarly method is seriously lacking.




top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join