Raising the minimum wage has been repeatedly demonstrated to raise the unemployment rate of the people most likely to receive it and it's also reasonable to assume it's a contributor to inflation.
Correction: that's a proven right wing lie.
Wingers complain that every minimum wage increase will result in lost jobs, but they've been proven to be liars every single time. Because every business already hires the minimum number of workers needed to operate with maximum efficiency. It's called economics of scale, and you should have had this in high school. So if a business owner will make the greatest profit with 20 workers, it doesn't matter if the minimum wage is 25 cents or 25 dollars per hour. If he could fire five people and generate the same level of profit - he would go ahead and do so. Even if those five people were making 25 cents an hour.
It strikes me that if you just let this man run the country for the remainder of his term without obstruction America could be the country that most people in the world have been told it is. And the whole world would be a better place.
Are you still laboring under the quaint notion that Obama has been obstructed into supporting neocon neoliberal crap like cuts to Social Security and indefinite military detention of American citizens? Obama has gotten exactly the policies and laws he's wanted. Or did you think the words coming out of his mouth in public in any way match up with the deals he's pushed in private?
So, what you are proposing is that Congressmen prove that they are in favor of democracy by voting the opposite of the way their constituents elected them to
This would be a change? Neither party gives a rat's ass what their constituents want - if that were the case we'd have a public option, but no bank bailouts or telecom immunity.
a man who believes that the government can order you to act against your religious beliefs?
Here's your sign: if birth control is against your religion, don't take it. But denying others access to it is imposing your religious beliefs on others.
Considering that polls consistently show that more U.S. citizens oppose Obama's policies than support them, I am not sure how you get the idea that voting for his policies represents democracy in action.
Not addressing the obstruction, which was the parent poster's point. If, during the Bush years, the Democrats filibustered nearly every appointee and bill from the Republicans, you would have lost your friggin mind. If the Democrats were to, say, block the FBI from properly operating until they got some crazy policy demands like a handgun ban, the way the GOP is with the CFPB, you would have lost your friggin mind.
Which is why it's funny that this is sidestepping Obama's dirty little secret: he is not and never has been held back by Congress, despite the claims of his fanboys. Obama wanted Romneycare, indefinite detention, and wants to cut SS and Medicare. Just ignore the words coming out of his mouth and pay attention to what he actually does and the deals he makes.
The only options are to raise prices (which is a business killer in fast food) or to cut staff and hope the service doesn't degrade.
Two problems with that conservative dogma:
1. Prices are already set to maximize revenue. If a business can raise prices without driving away customers, it will go right ahead and raise them.
2. Businesses already employ the minimum number of employees to run with maximum efficiency. If the manager could fire a few employees and keep more money for himself - he'd go right ahead and do that too. It doesn't matter if he's paying the workers 25 cents or 25 dollars an hour.
Fantasy libertarian economics do not trump economics of scale, nor supply and demand.
Do you have an example that doesn't suck? Tree spiking is about preventing the trees from being stripmined for profit in the first place, not hurting people.
It's that bob, the technician who crimps connectors on a wire then comes to the boss and asks why he's now making minimum wage (his wage was previously higher than the janitor's wage).... so bob's wage has to go up. Then Fred in IT complains that his wages are not that much more than the less-skilled Bob.... so Fred's wages go up Then Jane the engineer complains that her wages are not rising as fast as the wages of the IT guy..... so her wages go up.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Then the company needs to pay for all the extra money going to Joe and Sue and Bob and Fred and Jane..... so prices for their products must go up.
All prices are already set to maximize revenue.
Then one day, Joe the janitor goes into the store to buy something and the prices are higher.
Question: why doesn't this Concern ever arise over ever-increasing executive pay and compensation? Does the pay for Wal-Mart's boss - who earns more in a month than a Wal-Mart employee does in his entire lifetime - not mean higher prices at the till? Why is it only the working stiffs, the base of the pyramid, have to "take one for the team"?
The minimum wage is about establishing a minimum standard of living. If you're against that, then you're for turning America into a dystopia straight out of a Charles Dickens' novel.
Because the trend is to turn us into either unemployed, or independent contractors, or temporary workers. An independent contractor can work for lower than minimum wage so the minimum wage doesn't matter when not everyone is paid in wages.
Nonsense for two reasons: McDonalds can't hire Bob as an independent contractor, pay him less than minimum wage, and then tell him what to wear and when to work. Because then he's not an independent contractor, he's an employee.
So McDonalds hires a burger-flipping staffing agency to be Bob's direct employer...well the agency still has to pay Bob a minimum wage. And you can only use such temporary labor for so long until you run into problems with the Department of Labor. Because then you're again treating your temp as an employee.
Exactly what do you mean by a "right to food, health care, or housing"? What does that mean?
It means not being a sociopath and having an iota of empathy. But, that's the nice thing for the socipaths: even if they suffer misfortune and find their own asses out on the streets, the dirty fucking hippies will still be fighting for their right to food, health care, and a roof. Not to let them suffer in a modern Charles Dickens dystopia.
This just shows how overreaching our federal government has become. Minimum wage should be a local issue (and is for a lot of states) because the cost of living differs from state to state so greatly.
You mean: so southern states (and Teabagged ones like Michigan and Ohio) can compete in a race to the bottom, luring employers to relocate with the promise of complaint wage slaves. Even more than they already do.
Which, unless you're a Walton, is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Even if you're a good little boostrapping self-reliant Randian elitist, you're still just one layer in the pyramid, resting on the layers below you. Without a minimum wage, there is no floor, which means your own standard of living is at risk as well.
The "free market" does not meant that there are no rules whatsoever.
Which means Libertarians are no different from everyone else when pressed: because they want the "right amount" of marketplace regulation. Which is why, in end, every Libertarian is a political hack. Market regulation for my pet issues, free market for everything else.
Take this ad for instance. They are willing to pay around $100k to an experienced sw engineer to work in Cleveland, OH. That's around 4 times the median income in the area.
Except....that's just proving the point that employers are skinflints. They want highly trained, highly experienced professionals, but complain when "you get what you pay for" applies to them. They don't want to fork over $150k if that's what it takes, but start talking "median incomes" and offering the same salary that you'd find for an assistant manager of a McDonalds.
So, they apply for some H1-B's, who are willing to accept entry level pay for a job that demands skill and experience.
There is only one solution, everything else is only borrowing time: STOP HAVING SO MANY FUCKING KIDS.
One sliiiight detail left out of your storyline: not everyone consumes resources at the same rate. Yeah, it's great that your lawn growing, pool owning suburban Arizonan ass self and your wife had a single child. But you're using the same amount of resources as a hundred people living in Africa.
Yes, the American who manages to think his country is the greatest in the history of the world while at the same time harboring a massive insecurity complex.
Wants highly trained, highly skilled people when immigrating. Try to immigrate to Mexico.
If Bumbfuckistan wants to import highly trained labor at the expense of their own citizens, is that your problem? Do you have a say in the immigration policy in Bumbfuckistan? No? Then why are you comparing it to the United States where you are impacted by policies enacted by your elected Representatives?
Given the context YOU established ("libertarian"), government created patents/copyrights cease to exist as do most of their franchises. Also, were I to accept the widespread existence of 'natural monopolies' (a set that pales in comparison to the unnatural variety), your posts continue to assume that the libertarian mindset has some hard on for competition. It doesn't.
IOW: the old "Libertarianism cannot fail, it can only be failed". I guess sticking by a mantra is easier than dealing with the fact that your ideology has no answers for monopoly power, or stopping the process of consolidation that leads to it.
Get fucked. The only people talking about the Holocaust are denialists trying to deflect the issue by playing the victim, when the only making that connection are your fellow climate change denailsits.
This is the same bullshit that the Teabaggers pull by whining about homophobic insults. Those guys can get fucked, too, because everyone knows they are mocked for railing that government keep its hands off it's Medicare, while putting on stupid costumes on issues they never cared about when Bush was in office.
Climate change denialists are called denialists because they repeatedly ignore science in favor of their own fact-free ideology.
Not because anyone is trying them to the Holocaust, so spare us this bullshit misdirection.
The wars, bailouts, and trashing the Constitution are supported by Obama and the Democrats
You say that like it makes a difference or something.
and are therefore a case of supporting government power by a left-leaning establishment
On what planet are Obama and his lapdogs in Congress "left-leaning"? They engage in wars, bailouts, and Constitution-trashing because they're all a bunch of freaking right-wingers, just like Obama's predecessor.
Cuz it's not like you would call gun control a conservative issue just because it's backed by Republicans like Mike Bloomberg, now would you? Party labels don't mean shit - it's actions that count.
There are jobs out there...just maybe some that people think are beneath them.
Having a hard time with "there are millions more unemployed than there are job openings"?
Sorry, I don't buy it
Of course. Because, as I said, you're a conservative, and facts like a depressed economy and corporations sitting on hundreds of billions in cash rather than hire workers need not enter your storyline. Similar to how climate change is really a conspiracy of Al Gore, nevermind the last 20 years of rising temperatures, or how single payer doesn't actually provide better care for less money.
All anyone needs is the willingness to work and tough it for awhile, but you can work and earn in ways that don't require you to take your clothes off.
And when you and two hundred other people turn up for the same 6 open positions at a nearby warehouse? There aren't enough freaking jobs out there. If there were, you wouldn't have a steady 14% U6 unemployment rate. But, I guess if we don't keep clapping our hands for these magical jobs to drop out of the sky, the Randian Tinkerbell will die.
Because Mac Pros are a niche that doesn't sell that many units. As such they haven't done a redesign in a long time.
Except:
1. Everything not iOS is now a "niche product" for Apple 2. The even more niche Mac Mini will have had USB 3 and Thunderbolt for the better part of a year before the Mac Pro will finally have them 3. Maybe the reason Apple doesn't move so many Mac Pros is that it is outdated and overpriced 4. Apple is foolish to let it's pro offering wither when that user base has saved them in the past
Between killing XServer, the ossification of the Mac Pro, and treating Final Cut as redheaded stepchild, Apple hasn't been showing much love for their pro users for over two years now. Sure sure, most of their money comes from the iOS ecosystem, but Apple is letting it's competitors take it's lunch the way Apple once did it to Premier.
Establishment frequently errors on the side of government power, which is why there is sometimes a seeming left-leaning bias.
In supporting the wars, the bailouts, or the trashing the Constitution?
But it's purely an accident of the fact that the left has been trying to use control over government for the past few decades to try to force people to act more like the left thinks they ought to.
Oh, I see now, you're a Randian. Yes, because you should be free to dump toxic waste into rivers and sell fraudulent products without any government oversight...
And they race sports cars against people on bicycles and bobsleds. Play conkers with caravans. Build their own boat-cars. And launch rocket powered cars off of ski lifts...
And a car running out of gas (or in this case batteries) is...not such an obviously absurd scenario. If Top Gear were bitching that the Tesla didn't have the same towing capacity as an F-250, I doubt Musk would have been pissed.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: that's a proven right wing lie.
Wingers complain that every minimum wage increase will result in lost jobs, but they've been proven to be liars every single time. Because every business already hires the minimum number of workers needed to operate with maximum efficiency. It's called economics of scale, and you should have had this in high school. So if a business owner will make the greatest profit with 20 workers, it doesn't matter if the minimum wage is 25 cents or 25 dollars per hour. If he could fire five people and generate the same level of profit - he would go ahead and do so. Even if those five people were making 25 cents an hour.
Are you still laboring under the quaint notion that Obama has been obstructed into supporting neocon neoliberal crap like cuts to Social Security and indefinite military detention of American citizens? Obama has gotten exactly the policies and laws he's wanted. Or did you think the words coming out of his mouth in public in any way match up with the deals he's pushed in private?
This would be a change? Neither party gives a rat's ass what their constituents want - if that were the case we'd have a public option, but no bank bailouts or telecom immunity.
Here's your sign: if birth control is against your religion, don't take it. But denying others access to it is imposing your religious beliefs on others.
Not addressing the obstruction, which was the parent poster's point. If, during the Bush years, the Democrats filibustered nearly every appointee and bill from the Republicans, you would have lost your friggin mind. If the Democrats were to, say, block the FBI from properly operating until they got some crazy policy demands like a handgun ban, the way the GOP is with the CFPB, you would have lost your friggin mind.
Which is why it's funny that this is sidestepping Obama's dirty little secret: he is not and never has been held back by Congress, despite the claims of his fanboys. Obama wanted Romneycare, indefinite detention, and wants to cut SS and Medicare. Just ignore the words coming out of his mouth and pay attention to what he actually does and the deals he makes.
Even more likely: the company sets big expectations and low pay so it makes more money. Occam's razor....
LOL. Your post is the boilerplate Faux News Hatorade, whereas the above AC rattles of a list of real-world shit that actually matters.
Proving once again that the only honest criticism of Obama comes from the left and anti-imperialist Libertarians.
So...you go from rebutting a stereotype (hunters don't care about environment) to making one (environmentalists don't care about the environment)?
Huh, interesting.
Two problems with that conservative dogma:
1. Prices are already set to maximize revenue. If a business can raise prices without driving away customers, it will go right ahead and raise them.
2. Businesses already employ the minimum number of employees to run with maximum efficiency. If the manager could fire a few employees and keep more money for himself - he'd go right ahead and do that too. It doesn't matter if he's paying the workers 25 cents or 25 dollars an hour.
Fantasy libertarian economics do not trump economics of scale, nor supply and demand.
Do you have an example that doesn't suck? Tree spiking is about preventing the trees from being stripmined for profit in the first place, not hurting people.
That old debunked right wing crap? Why didn't you start off with that, so we'd know just how much credibility you have.
That's a feature, not a bug.
All prices are already set to maximize revenue.
Question: why doesn't this Concern ever arise over ever-increasing executive pay and compensation? Does the pay for Wal-Mart's boss - who earns more in a month than a Wal-Mart employee does in his entire lifetime - not mean higher prices at the till? Why is it only the working stiffs, the base of the pyramid, have to "take one for the team"?
The minimum wage is about establishing a minimum standard of living. If you're against that, then you're for turning America into a dystopia straight out of a Charles Dickens' novel.
Nonsense for two reasons: McDonalds can't hire Bob as an independent contractor, pay him less than minimum wage, and then tell him what to wear and when to work. Because then he's not an independent contractor, he's an employee.
So McDonalds hires a burger-flipping staffing agency to be Bob's direct employer...well the agency still has to pay Bob a minimum wage. And you can only use such temporary labor for so long until you run into problems with the Department of Labor. Because then you're again treating your temp as an employee.
It means not being a sociopath and having an iota of empathy. But, that's the nice thing for the socipaths: even if they suffer misfortune and find their own asses out on the streets, the dirty fucking hippies will still be fighting for their right to food, health care, and a roof. Not to let them suffer in a modern Charles Dickens dystopia.
You mean: so southern states (and Teabagged ones like Michigan and Ohio) can compete in a race to the bottom, luring employers to relocate with the promise of complaint wage slaves. Even more than they already do.
Which, unless you're a Walton, is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Even if you're a good little boostrapping self-reliant Randian elitist, you're still just one layer in the pyramid, resting on the layers below you. Without a minimum wage, there is no floor, which means your own standard of living is at risk as well.
Which means Libertarians are no different from everyone else when pressed: because they want the "right amount" of marketplace regulation. Which is why, in end, every Libertarian is a political hack. Market regulation for my pet issues, free market for everything else.
Except....that's just proving the point that employers are skinflints. They want highly trained, highly experienced professionals, but complain when "you get what you pay for" applies to them. They don't want to fork over $150k if that's what it takes, but start talking "median incomes" and offering the same salary that you'd find for an assistant manager of a McDonalds.
So, they apply for some H1-B's, who are willing to accept entry level pay for a job that demands skill and experience.
One sliiiight detail left out of your storyline: not everyone consumes resources at the same rate. Yeah, it's great that your lawn growing, pool owning suburban Arizonan ass self and your wife had a single child. But you're using the same amount of resources as a hundred people living in Africa.
Yes, the American who manages to think his country is the greatest in the history of the world while at the same time harboring a massive insecurity complex.
If Bumbfuckistan wants to import highly trained labor at the expense of their own citizens, is that your problem? Do you have a say in the immigration policy in Bumbfuckistan? No? Then why are you comparing it to the United States where you are impacted by policies enacted by your elected Representatives?
IOW: the old "Libertarianism cannot fail, it can only be failed". I guess sticking by a mantra is easier than dealing with the fact that your ideology has no answers for monopoly power, or stopping the process of consolidation that leads to it.
delusional asshole, spare us the projection.
Get fucked. The only people talking about the Holocaust are denialists trying to deflect the issue by playing the victim, when the only making that connection are your fellow climate change denailsits.
This is the same bullshit that the Teabaggers pull by whining about homophobic insults. Those guys can get fucked, too, because everyone knows they are mocked for railing that government keep its hands off it's Medicare, while putting on stupid costumes on issues they never cared about when Bush was in office.
Climate change denialists are called denialists because they repeatedly ignore science in favor of their own fact-free ideology.
Not because anyone is trying them to the Holocaust, so spare us this bullshit misdirection.
You say that like it makes a difference or something.
On what planet are Obama and his lapdogs in Congress "left-leaning"? They engage in wars, bailouts, and Constitution-trashing because they're all a bunch of freaking right-wingers, just like Obama's predecessor.
Cuz it's not like you would call gun control a conservative issue just because it's backed by Republicans like Mike Bloomberg, now would you? Party labels don't mean shit - it's actions that count.
Having a hard time with "there are millions more unemployed than there are job openings"?
Of course. Because, as I said, you're a conservative, and facts like a depressed economy and corporations sitting on hundreds of billions in cash rather than hire workers need not enter your storyline. Similar to how climate change is really a conspiracy of Al Gore, nevermind the last 20 years of rising temperatures, or how single payer doesn't actually provide better care for less money.
And when you and two hundred other people turn up for the same 6 open positions at a nearby warehouse? There aren't enough freaking jobs out there. If there were, you wouldn't have a steady 14% U6 unemployment rate. But, I guess if we don't keep clapping our hands for these magical jobs to drop out of the sky, the Randian Tinkerbell will die.
Except:
1. Everything not iOS is now a "niche product" for Apple
2. The even more niche Mac Mini will have had USB 3 and Thunderbolt for the better part of a year before the Mac Pro will finally have them
3. Maybe the reason Apple doesn't move so many Mac Pros is that it is outdated and overpriced
4. Apple is foolish to let it's pro offering wither when that user base has saved them in the past
Between killing XServer, the ossification of the Mac Pro, and treating Final Cut as redheaded stepchild, Apple hasn't been showing much love for their pro users for over two years now. Sure sure, most of their money comes from the iOS ecosystem, but Apple is letting it's competitors take it's lunch the way Apple once did it to Premier.
In supporting the wars, the bailouts, or the trashing the Constitution?
Oh, I see now, you're a Randian. Yes, because you should be free to dump toxic waste into rivers and sell fraudulent products without any government oversight...
And a car running out of gas (or in this case batteries) is...not such an obviously absurd scenario. If Top Gear were bitching that the Tesla didn't have the same towing capacity as an F-250, I doubt Musk would have been pissed.
Tesla isn't competing with Civics. They're competing with high end Acuras - but you knew that already.