Here is a brain teaser: the Minimum Wage

(snip)Barleycorn generally acts like a troll and a childish jackass, and continually hurls insults at those with whom he generally disagrees.(snip) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Dude, that describes a whole lot of people who hang out in The Political Forum.

Dude, that describes a whole lot of people who hang out in The Political Forum. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Barleycorn is not alone in that respect, but few can match both his prolificacy and his obnoxiousness. Fewer still can check both of those boxes while matching his levels of cluelessness and ignorance. He's virtually in a class of his own.

Or if he's not in a class of his own, a famous quote from the late Bum Phillips comes to mind. When asked about the great Earl Campbell, former Houston Oilers coach Phillips said that if Campbell was not in a class of his own, it sure as hell didn't take long to call roll in whatever class he was in!

Sounds like you've got a personal axe to grind and not much of a case.

It works like this (sorry to sound obnoxious) but when you make a charge you then start presenting evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, make a charge and then rely on your non-existent charm to carry the day.

Maybe I've handed you your ass when you posted under another name???
(that's a supposition and not a charge)

Sounds like you've got a personal axe to grind and not much of a case.

No axe to grind. Like a lot of others, I simply have little patience with obnoxious assholes who seem incapable of understanding anything at all while hurling insults at everyone else.

It works like this (sorry to sound obnoxious) but when you make a charge you then start presenting evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, make a charge and then rely on your non-existent charm to carry the day.

Shouldn't you be one of the last people around here to hector others on how things work, asshole? And all the "evidence" anyone should need to see is your extensive and embarrassingly stupid, obnoxious compilation of posts.

Maybe I've handed you your ass when you posted under another name???
(that's a supposition and not a charge)

No, stupid. I've NEVER posted under another username. So you can take your charge...er, "supposition" -- and use it as a suppository! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Capisce?

if this is true then why didn't they increase the minimum wage when the democrats controlled both houses and the White House? There is also a state minimum wage so why don't they increase the minimum wage in California to $20 an hour or $25 an hour. Won't it be great if every person on the minimum wage (3% of Americans) made over $75,000 a year?

So why don't they and why didn't they? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What i got from your post is that poor people are an indispensable part of your capitalistic love affair. You want all of the benefits poor people provide you, but none of the responsibility.

The want the minimum wage to funnel more money to unions. Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up the unions get a raise. When they controlled everything they didn't need to raise it because they were paid off with the stimulas. And that, you stupid liberal motherfuckers is the ANSWER.

What i got from your post is that poor people are an indispensable part of your capitalistic love affair. You want all of the benefits poor people provide you, but none of the responsibility. Originally Posted by Doove

What I got from your post is that middle class people are a indispensable part of your socialist love affair. You want us to pay for the permanently dependent generational poverty sofa slug leaches that your party created.

We want to help the helpless... FUCK the clueless...

What i got from your post is that poor people are an indispensable part of your capitalistic love affair. You want all of the benefits poor people provide you, but none of the responsibility. Originally Posted by Doove

I could, rightfully, accuse you of poor comprehension skills but Captain Nightgown might have a conniption.

I could, rightfully, accuse you of poor comprehension skills but Captain Nightgown might have a conniption. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Then tell us why it would be so bad if people on minimum wage made $70,000/yr, teach.

The want the minimum wage to funnel more money to unions. Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up the unions get a raise. When they controlled everything they didn't need to raise it because they were paid off with the stimulas. And that, you stupid liberal motherfuckers is the ANSWER. Originally Posted by rodog44

When did they unionize fast food workers?

Then tell us why it would be so bad if people on minimum wage made $70,000/yr, teach. Originally Posted by Doove

State mandated minimum wage rates are statistically tied to higher unemployment rates. So, Doofus, while little Johnny collects his $70,000 salary, little Billy -- who is unemployed -- is looking for a job or collecting welfare.

State mandated minimum wage rates
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

We're not talking about state mandated minimum wage rates, so i didn't bother checking out the rest of your comment.

We're not talking about state mandated minimum wage rates, so i didn't bother checking out the rest of your comment. Originally Posted by Doove

You're lying again, Doofus. Odumbo, Pelosi, Biden, etc., are the "state", Doofus.

You're lying again, Doofus. Odumbo, Pelosi, Biden, etc., are the "state", Doofus. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh ok. I'm sure by "state" you meant "federal". Uh huh.

So what you're saying is, the unemployment rate is what it is because the minimum wage is too high. Meaning, if the wage was lower, more people would have jobs. Minimum wage jobs, no doubt. But only high-school kids work minimum wage jobs. So lowering the minimum wage would lower the unemployment rate of high school kids. So high school kids are a large makeup of the unemployment rate. So i'm thinking, the unemployment rate actually sounds worse than it really is. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyways, back to my original point. Even if we were to assume your premise was correct, that by no means refutes it. If unemployment increases with a higher minimum wage, it's because employers feel they can't pass on their costs to us, the consumer. Meaning, we want cheap stuff. Meaning, we rely on people making a pittance for their efforts. Meaning, we rely on poor people.

I'm not discriminatory here. I'll be the first to admit, i rely on poor people as much as anyone else. Yourself and Barleycorn included. But the difference between you and me is that i accept that if i'm going to rely on them making $7.25/hr so that i can have my stuff cheap, i might need to compensate them in different ways. Food stamps being one of those ways. Or assisting them in getting health insurance. Or helping to pay for their heating bill.

Again, you and Barleycorn, as i originally stated, want all the benefits they provide you by being poor, but you want none of the responsibility.

Oh ok. I'm sure by "state" you meant "federal". Uh huh.

So what you're saying is, the unemployment rate is what it is because the minimum wage is too high. Meaning, if the wage was lower, more people would have jobs. Minimum wage jobs, no doubt. But only high-school kids work minimum wage jobs. So lowering the minimum wage would lower the unemployment rate of high school kids. So high school kids are a large makeup of the unemployment rate. So i'm thinking, the unemployment rate actually sounds worse than it really is. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyways, back to my original point. Even if we were to assume your premise was correct, that by no means refutes it. If unemployment increases with a higher minimum wage, it's because employers feel they can't pass on their costs to us, the consumer. Meaning, we want cheap stuff. Meaning, we rely on people making a pittance for their efforts. Meaning, we rely on poor people.

I'm not discriminatory here. I'll be the first to admit, i rely on poor people as much as anyone else. Yourself and Barleycorn included. But the difference between you and me is that i accept that if i'm going to rely on them making $7.25/hr so that i can have my stuff cheap, i might need to compensate them in different ways. Food stamps being one of those ways. Or assisting them in getting health insurance. Or helping to pay for their heating bill.

Again, you and Barleycorn, as i originally stated, want all the benefits they provide you by being poor, but you want none of the responsibility. Originally Posted by Doove

What the hell is the difference between two individuals earning $35,000 each at two different jobs than one individual earning $70,000 only to be taxed $35,000 to give to someone who is unemployed, Doofus, because that's the direction you lib-retards are taking society? Which one is really "more fair and equitable", Doofus, while you pretend someone in Vietnam won't provide the same labor for $15,000?