They should raise the minimum wage to $31 an hour

[bodyforlife99]

LOL, yes because the minimum wage debate hasn't been going on for any longer than 2013-2016



And then you sit there and cherry pick data with Zeyda and then try to discount any scenario where your theory doesn't quite work out (cute). Logic tells us that there are only a few logical conclusions to an increase in minimum wage: 1) Higher costs to be incurred by the customer (so a tax on the consumer), 2) Reduction in Corporate profit (which in turn could impact stock prices....a cost to stockholders), 3) Reduction of labor force to maintain same labor costs, 4) Cheapening of product (i.e. less product for same cost or cheaper material being used to create product) 5) Automation (this will be done anyway but higher labor costs will accelerate the process) and the one I'm sure you'll love 6) employees above the minimum wage level will have to accept less. And in the end, it really does very little for the person receiving the increase. But do continue to try to debate it.

I didn't mind putting in another response because it was just a copy and paste and there were thousands of hits when you did a query on why the minimum wage doesn't work (and you're certainly welcome to debate them)

As for the Milton Friedman comment. Let's see....Tulemutt, Milton Friedman, Tulemutt, Milton Friedman...uh, I think I'll go with Milton Friedman. But I suspect you think you'd win a debate with him (I'd give hefty odds that it wouldn't be close in a controlled debate).

Enjoy your boat

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

LOL, yes because the minimum wage debate hasn't been going on for any longer than 2013-2016



And then you sit there and cherry pick data with Zeyda and then try to discount any scenario where your theory doesn't quite work out (cute). Logic tells us that there are only a few logical conclusions to an increase in minimum wage: 1) Higher costs to be incurred by the customer (so a tax on the consumer), 2) Reduction in Corporate profit (which in turn could impact stock prices....a cost to stockholders), 3) Reduction of labor force to maintain same labor costs, 4) Cheapening of product (i.e. less product for same cost or cheaper material being used to create product) 5) Automation (this will be done anyway but higher labor costs will accelerate the process) and the one I'm sure you'll love 6) employees above the minimum wage level will have to accept less. And in the end, it really does very little for the person receiving the increase. But do continue to try to debate it.

I didn't mind putting in another response because it was just a copy and paste and there were thousands of hits when you did a query on why the minimum wage doesn't work (and you're certainly welcome to debate them)

As for the Milton Friedman comment. Let's see....Tulemutt, Milton Friedman, Tulemutt, Milton Friedman...uh, I think I'll go with Milton Friedman. But I suspect you think you'd win a debate with him (I'd give hefty odds that it wouldn't be close in a controlled debate).

Enjoy your boat

Your protests and head slaps are weak, at best.

1. I said aged data was not irrelevant. Just pointed out that as such it loses some usefulness.

2. If you feel I "cherry-picked data" in any manner that was less than accurate and legitimate, feel free to identify points and dispute them.

3. "Logic" tells us exactly none of the things you listed above. None. Zero. Each of your points (several of which are redundant, btw - I imagine you were just trying to make a limited set of potential factors seem very large indeed!) have reasonable likelihood of playing into the adjustment scenarios. So what? None of those things disprove the points I made about [profitable] survivability of the businesses and substantial continuing levels of employment. None. Zip.

4. Price hikes aren't "a tax on consumers". They are simply price hikes, just like any other price hikes for any other reason such as increased cost of materials, general inflation, avarice opportunity. Meh.

5. "Cost to stockholders"? So? Why would you even mention this? Stock acquisition is a gamble in any definition. Nothing is owed the stockholders except best efforts to maintain and grow if possible. And stockholder profit isn't a bit more important to the health of society than decent living wages for citizens.

6. "Reduction in labor forces"? Yeah. Maybe some. Maybe not. Some places appear to have experienced some job losses. Other places have not.

7. "Cheapening of product?" Yeah. Perhaps the most likely of all scenarios. So? Caveat emptor. Nothing new here in the world. Are you arguing that it's actually possible for a Big Mac to become even less purposeful to human existence than it already is? Lmfao. Oh Noes!

8. "Acceleration of automation?" That's no function of minimum wage growth. That's coming as fast as it can be developed and sold anyway. Employers don't want employees. And never have. Why would they?

Milton Friedman vs Tulemutt? Never suggested it was a debate between me and Friedman. I could, however, point out to various relevant Friedman contradictions and his own regrets about several of his most notable submissions to the world of economics. That's a topic for another thread, however. Friedman doesn't fit this discussion. Except to name drop to associate yourself with a big name.


Bottom line, body, is everything I pointed out in the previous post about the total failure of your debate entries, was entirely true.

[Nema98]

Originally Posted by JustMike77

I think that flights to Moscow leave on the quarter hour. Don't be late.

Thats not communism by the OP, and Russia is not communist.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

7. "Cheapening of product?" Yeah. Perhaps the most likely of all scenarios. So? Caveat emptor. Nothing new here in the world. Are you arguing that it's actually possible for a Big Mac to become even less purposeful to human existence than it already is? Lmfao. Oh Noes!

I have to admit, this one is hilarious. Out of all the examples you could have picked, you picked one of the best ones...the Big Mac.

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by the topper

They should raise the minimum wage to $31 an hour in California by 2018 and raise the standard of living and guard against the high cost of housing/rent in big cities in state. I even think all major businesses can afford it by putting the cap on middle man and the salary of executives. They should rein in the cost of management and spend the money on employees. So whatever job you take or like should not be a burden to you. Forget $15 an hour and raise it to over $30 and everyone can afford it if they manage their businesses right. What do you think?

your right, but most people on this thread are too ignorant to support your idea because they are vastly influence by the mainstream corporate media, ignoring the fact that the last time we had (as a nation) a 90% tax rate Eisenhower was president ( a republican) and we were growing faster than ever.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

your right, but most people on this thread are too ignorant to support your idea because they are vastly influence by the mainstream corporate media, ignoring the fact that the last time we had (as a nation) a 90% tax rate Eisenhower was president ( a republican) and we were growing faster than ever.

You are the one who is ignorant. Almost no one paid any portion of their income that 90% rate because of the massive deductions that were allowed. This has been discussed in other threads. Somehow I doubt you have a grasp of how our tax system works.....you don't even know the difference between your and you're.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

LOL, yes because the minimum wage debate hasn't been going on for any longer than 2013-2016



4) Cheapening of product (i.e. less product for same cost or cheaper material being used to create product) 5)

Just look at the size of the food now and 10 years ago. They have shrunk and even many packaged items are holding less volume in the same package.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Just look at the size of the food now and 10 years ago. They have shrunk and even many packaged items are holding less volume in the same package.

This is true. Now look also at the body size of the consumers. Interesting, no?

Definitely a shame downsizing portions, eh?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

This is true. Now look also at the body size of the consumers. Interesting, no?

Definitely a shame downsizing portions, eh?

It isn't working because the food today is even worse than a few years ago. Plus, like say Burger King, you can now get two burgers for $5.00 so people still eat more.

I also do NOT want to look at the bodies of people eating that junk. Whales belong in the ocean and under water most of the time.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by expatCA

It isn't working because the food today is even worse than a few years ago. Plus, like say Burger King, you can now get two burgers for $5.00 so people still eat more.

I also do NOT want to look at the bodies of people eating that junk. Whales belong in the ocean and under water most of the time.

I went to get a burrito at rubios last week and it looked like a taquito it was so tiny.