Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed, You Should Starve

Gawd. Wave and Doove ganging up on meo. I am afraid of youo. LOL!

Grab a couple more guys, and maybe youo will come close to equalling one brain among youo. It's ok, I can wait.

It is difficult to argue with those informed economists who take statistics from the period after World War I when Germany faced crushing reparations payments and an economy ravaged by war that only recovered with the rise of the Nazis . . . .
I suppose saying that an increase in minimum wage only helps for a month makes sense of you aren't earning minimum wage. If you are earning minimum wage it means you only go hungry for 11 months. Originally Posted by Mr.Chan

“The majority of historians, such as the Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan in her 2001 book Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War, have since disagreed with the assertion that reparations destabilized the German economy. The French economist Étienne Mantoux in his 1946 book The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes established that Germany could have paid all of the reparations had they wanted to, and that the problem was not the Germans were unable to pay, but rather that they were unwilling to pay.”

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

The purpose of the illustration was to show that even when a wage earner was earning a ridiculously “high income” of 6,800 Marks per hour there was still a shortfall between wages and expenses: it's relative. Furthermore, and try as you might, you cannot refute – as you have here demonstrated – the fact that inflation occurs when “money” is pumped into an economic system.

Walmart survived when the Feds upped the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in the last few years didn't they?
Originally Posted by waverunner234

Because prices went up.

I have never been surprised that the wealthy can make plausible arguments for why they should be rich and everyone else should be poor. Most surprising is the readiness of the poor to accept the argument.

“The majority of historians, such as the Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan in her 2001 book Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War, have since disagreed with the assertion that reparations destabilized the German economy. The French economist Étienne Mantoux in his 1946 book The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes established that Germany could have paid all of the reparations had they wanted to, and that the problem was not the Germans were unable to pay, but rather that they were unwilling to pay.”

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

The purpose of the illustration was to show that even when a wage earner was earning a ridiculously “high income” of 6,800 Marks per hour there was still a shortfall between wages and expenses: it's relative. Furthermore, and try as you might, you cannot refute – as you have here demonstrated – the fact that inflation occurs when “money” is pumped into an economic system. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have never been surprised that the wealthy can make plausible arguments for why they should be rich and everyone else should be poor. Most surprising is the readiness of the poor to accept the argument. Originally Posted by Mr.Chan

You obviously don't.

COT I would expect more from you Originally Posted by waverunner234

Why? He's a one trick pony...always has been.

There are other ways to avoid sweatshops and the like. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Perhaps you can tell us what those other ways are. Originally Posted by Doove

Bump.

Walmart survived when the Feds upped the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in the last few years didn't they?
Doesn't that prove enough? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Because prices went up. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IB Hankering......whining because his financial benefit at the hands of poor people decreased when they got a raise. Poor guy!

IB Hankering......whining because his financial benefit at the hands of poor people decreased when they got a raise. Poor guy! Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, Walmart's prices increased to compensate for the increased cost (labor) of doing business. This compensation - which occurs across the whole market (not just Walmart) - offsets any advantage gained by mandating a minimum wage increase for low wage earners.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...e-Minimum-Wage

Because prices went up. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's only a very little part of how they solved it. It was enough though and people were able and willing to pay the new prices. But the majority of the recoup of their money they got back by just strangling their Chinese workers a little bit more. They still had a little breathing room so Walmart thought it was okay. I've seen a documentary about Walmart workers in China ............

It was disgusting!! Slavery in 2011.

I cannot imaging that "leadership" can live with that.
My dog really has a much better life than Chinese workers for Walmart.
And I just wonder how much of their stuff comes from labor camps in North Korea

This compensation - which occurs across the whole market (not just Walmart) - offsets any advantage gained by mandating a minimum wage increase for low wage earners. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So if they only made, say, $2/hr, prices would drop across the spectrum to where they'd actually benefit overall?

Is that your argument?

So if they only made, say, $2/hr, prices would drop across the spectrum to where they'd actually benefit overall?

Is that your argument? Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, as usual, you choose to distort.

Doofus, as usual, you choose to distort. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And your correction was stellar.

I believe you stated that minimum wage increases were offset by higher prices across the board, thus more than negating the benefit of minimum wage increases. I think it follows that you're suggesting that the beneficiaries of minimum wage increases would be better off if they were only making $2/hr.

Wave, you have no crediblity.

Doove, you have no brain.

And your correction was stellar.

I believe you stated that minimum wage increases were offset by higher prices across the board, thus more than negating the benefit of minimum wage increases. I think it follows that you're suggesting that the beneficiaries of minimum wage increases would be better off if they were only making $2/hr. Originally Posted by Doove

Damn Doofus! Did a search of this entire thread and the only place where someone said that was in your pathetic little post!

Wave, you have no crediblity.

Doove, you have no brain. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And you're becoming pretty boring.