Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2014 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Minimum wages laws are outdated 1930s depression-era bullshit.      We, as a society, are more than happy to wipe outdated laws from the books.   This one should be next.

I have field full of strawberries to be picked, I offer $3 an hour and no one shows up.   What do I do?   I offer more or I let my strawberries rot.   Seems like a pretty simple choice. 

The economy isn't as simple as things are in your head.

"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

It's truly hilarious how many of your own arguments you refuted with that single admission.  "It's not about working hard...I wouldn't take that harder job."  "It's about making enough to survive...I could survive, but why take on all that?"

It's been fun playing, but it's obvious that we're done here.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

LOL.   "I can just live off assistance.   **** that work ****."

Yeah, good argument for cutting every social program.   Or, at the very least, making it much more tougher to get assistance. 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

I have always argued that your conclusion is the only logical conclusion someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken.

You choose to defend the system by standing behind the standard "It's not about being unwilling to sacrifice or work hard" arguments that sound good, have been spouted for years, and don't hold up under simple scrutiny.  But it's nice to see that you've come around.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by raucous on 5/2/2014 4:23:00 PM (view original):
The answer is to get people off of minimum wage, by education and rewarding people for hard work and not rewarding them for sitting on their ***** all day.  Back in the Clinton era, there were so many jobs available that you could get a job at Micky D's starting at 33% over the minimum wage.

...and to reward people is to cut their taxes so they can put more money into the marketplace and get it moving again.  It won't happen though because just about everyone in DC wants to keep it the same way as it is going.

"and to reward people is to cut their taxes so they can put more money into the marketplace and get it moving again.  It won't happen though because just about everyone in DC wants to keep it the same way as it is going."


You're right, Keynesian policies are a good way to stimulate the economy.

Keynesian policies encourages the government to meddle in the economy for more desired results.

I should have been more specific.  The government needs to cut taxes and cut spending X 1000 to get out of the way of the consumers.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

I have always argued that your conclusion is the only logical conclusion someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken.

You choose to defend the system by standing behind the standard "It's not about being unwilling to sacrifice or work hard" arguments that sound good, have been spouted for years, and don't hold up under simple scrutiny.  But it's nice to see that you've come around.

The system is important. Not only does it allow people to get by, it keeps wages up. Without a social safety net, any blip on the economic radar would drive wages into the ground.

Posted by raucous on 5/2/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by raucous on 5/2/2014 4:23:00 PM (view original):
The answer is to get people off of minimum wage, by education and rewarding people for hard work and not rewarding them for sitting on their ***** all day.  Back in the Clinton era, there were so many jobs available that you could get a job at Micky D's starting at 33% over the minimum wage.

...and to reward people is to cut their taxes so they can put more money into the marketplace and get it moving again.  It won't happen though because just about everyone in DC wants to keep it the same way as it is going.

"and to reward people is to cut their taxes so they can put more money into the marketplace and get it moving again.  It won't happen though because just about everyone in DC wants to keep it the same way as it is going."


You're right, Keynesian policies are a good way to stimulate the economy.

Keynesian policies encourages the government to meddle in the economy for more desired results.

I should have been more specific.  The government needs to cut taxes and cut spending X 1000 to get out of the way of the consumers.

I agree on tax cuts (though I bet we disagree on whose taxes should be cut).

Please explain how spending cuts help the economy.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

I have always argued that your conclusion is the only logical conclusion someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken.

You choose to defend the system by standing behind the standard "It's not about being unwilling to sacrifice or work hard" arguments that sound good, have been spouted for years, and don't hold up under simple scrutiny.  But it's nice to see that you've come around.

The system is important. Not only does it allow people to get by, it keeps wages up. Without a social safety net, any blip on the economic radar would drive wages into the ground.

It would?  If we overhauled the welfare system, wages would be driven down below the minimum wage at our next blip on the economic radar?  I wasn't aware the minimum wage law contained a provision allowing for its abolishment upon overhaul of the welfare system.

Or are the minimum wage and welfare inseparable, like Windows and Internet Explorer before the anti-trust suits?

You were making more sense when you were refuting your own arguments.

If you want people to get back to work, stop rewarding people who don't work.  Cut "social" policies.  No 2 years unemployment. No forced healthcare.  Be much more strict about disability (thow Binder and Binder in jail??  jk).  Cut back some of the military when it is safe to do so.  Unfortunately we can't do that at this time, thanks to Live Shot Kerry and his continued bumbling and Obama taking the usual road of not working with his adversaries to solve problems, but that is another subject.
...and that is just to start.

...and the Republicans like Boner have just as much of a hand in this crapfest as Obama does.

My credo is



...or actually everyone in DC.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

I have always argued that your conclusion is the only logical conclusion someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken.

You choose to defend the system by standing behind the standard "It's not about being unwilling to sacrifice or work hard" arguments that sound good, have been spouted for years, and don't hold up under simple scrutiny.  But it's nice to see that you've come around.

The system is important. Not only does it allow people to get by, it keeps wages up. Without a social safety net, any blip on the economic radar would drive wages into the ground.

It would?  If we overhauled the welfare system, wages would be driven down below the minimum wage at our next blip on the economic radar?  I wasn't aware the minimum wage law contained a provision allowing for its abolishment upon overhaul of the welfare system.

Or are the minimum wage and welfare inseparable, like Windows and Internet Explorer before the anti-trust suits?

You were making more sense when you were refuting your own arguments.

Your first line "...someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken." The system I was referring to was welfare, etc.

Without things like unemployment and food stamps, people would be forced to take any job offered to them in times of economic downturn. Or face homelessness. This would drive wages down. You understand that point, correct?

Posted by raucous on 5/2/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):
If you want people to get back to work, stop rewarding people who don't work.  Cut "social" policies.  No 2 years unemployment. No forced healthcare.  Be much more strict about disability (thow Binder and Binder in jail??  jk).  Cut back some of the military when it is safe to do so.  Unfortunately we can't do that at this time, thanks to Live Shot Kerry and his continued bumbling and Obama taking the usual road of not working with his adversaries to solve problems, but that is another subject.
...and that is just to start.

...and the Republicans like Boner have just as much of a hand in this crapfest as Obama does.

My credo is



...or actually everyone in DC.

When you look at the economy and the recession we were (are?) in, do you see:

a) a shortage of people willing to work

or

b) a shortage of jobs 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
"They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.

I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice."

Thank you for making the argument against yourself.  Social welfare is supposed to hold you over until you get a job.  Not until you get a job you like.

You're all about the companies acting rationally. Why not apply that same standard to workers?

I have always argued that your conclusion is the only logical conclusion someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken.

You choose to defend the system by standing behind the standard "It's not about being unwilling to sacrifice or work hard" arguments that sound good, have been spouted for years, and don't hold up under simple scrutiny.  But it's nice to see that you've come around.

The system is important. Not only does it allow people to get by, it keeps wages up. Without a social safety net, any blip on the economic radar would drive wages into the ground.

It would?  If we overhauled the welfare system, wages would be driven down below the minimum wage at our next blip on the economic radar?  I wasn't aware the minimum wage law contained a provision allowing for its abolishment upon overhaul of the welfare system.

Or are the minimum wage and welfare inseparable, like Windows and Internet Explorer before the anti-trust suits?

You were making more sense when you were refuting your own arguments.

Your first line "...someone on welfare could draw.  That's why the system is so horribly broken." The system I was referring to was welfare, etc.

Without things like unemployment and food stamps, people would be forced to take any job offered to them in times of economic downturn. Or face homelessness. This would drive wages down. You understand that point, correct?

I don't recall ever arguing for doing away with welfare.  Perhaps you could quote where I did.  Or, perhaps this is an attempt to deflect from the argument you previously lost with yourself.

The mimimun wage provides an absolute floor for wages.  Nothing, outside of a passage of law reducing/abolishing the minimum wage, could change that.  Welfare and unemployment were designed to provide a bridge from the end of one job to the availability of another.  You yourself have shown that it doesn't work that way.  I simply believe that it makes more sense to adjust those programs so that they work as intended, then it does to adjust other programs around it (such as raising the minimum wage).  It is the very basic difference between throwing money at a problem and hoping it gets better, or doing the hard work (damn, there's that phrase again) of actually making the existing programs do as they were intended to do.

Now, if you'd like to tell me you're not in favor of welfare reform because the current programs provide a large group of people who are invested in voting for their continued inefficiency, and your beliefs are in line with those who receive those votes, that would make perfect sense.  It would be despicable, but it would make perfect sense.  I believe you're arguing around the issue, though, because there is no other argument in favor of keeping welfare as is that makes any kind of sense.

How would you suggest adjusting welfare/unemployment?

"Welfare and unemployment were designed to provide a bridge from the end of one job to the availability of another."

That's one goal. But not the only goal. Safety net programs also keep wages from plummeting by forcing companies to pay employees enough so that the job being offered is worth taking.

EDIT: Maybe your confusion is the inclusion of minimum wage in this discussion. I'm not talking about minimum wages here, but all wages. Like the truck driver wages you talked about in a prior post.