Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350343 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:47 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 22:05 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 17:36 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:49 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 14:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:31 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 14:42 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:11 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:27 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 16:23 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:06 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:24 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:16 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-16 17:08 -0400
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-16 20:00 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:02 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 17:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 14:25 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 21:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 15:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 16:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:01 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:40 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:54 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:09 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:41 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:40 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:31 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:36 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 18:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:51 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:22 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:58 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:26 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:50 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:24 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:34 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:45 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:49 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:30 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:35 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:55 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:21 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 22:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:42 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:39 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:55 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:33 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:55 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:36 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 12:52 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:56 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 14:14 -0700
Re: Am I poorer if you're richer ? No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 01:55 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:53 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:25 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 12:15 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:44 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 08:44 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 07:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 12:03 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 14:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:53 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-17 20:07 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 19:56 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:28 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 12:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:14 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 08:59 -0500
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 10:37 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 16:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:51 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:47 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:16 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:52 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 09:42 +0100
Re: Countless SMALL vendors write to the Microsoft Standard. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 05:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160418055555.29170556@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #350595 |
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:47:03 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 8:35 PM, in article 20160418053503.11c4bb53@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > >>>> Per hour. > >>> > >>> Wow! That's high! > >> > >> I can see where that is high for the country as a whole. It might > >> be fine in NY and CA but not in many other states. But it should, > >> clearly, go up to what it has been in the past and then set to > >> match inflation. > >> > >>>> Federal minimum wage here is currently $7 something an hour. > >>>> States are not allowed to set it lower. Some states have set it > >>>> higher. A couple of states IIRC just raised theirs to $15 per > >>>> hour. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a proponent of > >>>> raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. It's insane. > >>>> Our country will be a wasteland soon even if it continues at its > >>>> current level. Double it and it's goodnight Irene. > >>> > >>> 15$ per hour is wage that is about 5 times greater than official > >>> average wage here in Serbia, while actually 10 times greater. > >>> Everything above 3 average wages in Serbia is additionally > >>> taxed. > >> > >> In the US we have had massive income redistribution to the rich. > >> Part of the idea of the higher minimum wage is to correct for that > >> and help make a stronger tie between productivity and financial > >> reward. That connection is heavily broken in the US right now. > > > > Here in Serbia people barely survive... One wage is not enough to > > pay bills and food. Only two wages combined are barely enough. And > > rich are still richer and richer. > > Sounds much like the US. > > Are you sure? Prices of food here are on par with EU while wages are embarrassingly low. eg 1000 euros is more worth in Prag than in Belgrade. Also, Germany has cheaper food than Serbia. My wife has wage of 200euros... while our electricity bill is around 80euros... Fortunately I work for foreign company so we are ok.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D339B00A.7032A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350598 |
On 4/17/16, 8:55 PM, in article 20160418055555.29170556@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>> In the US we have had massive income redistribution to the rich. >>>> Part of the idea of the higher minimum wage is to correct for that >>>> and help make a stronger tie between productivity and financial >>>> reward. That connection is heavily broken in the US right now. >>> >>> Here in Serbia people barely survive... One wage is not enough to >>> pay bills and food. Only two wages combined are barely enough. And >>> rich are still richer and richer. >> >> Sounds much like the US. >> >> > > Are you sure? Prices of food here are on par with EU while wages are > embarrassingly low. eg 1000 euros is more worth in Prag than in > Belgrade. Also, Germany has cheaper food than Serbia. > My wife has wage of 200euros... while our electricity bill is around > 80euros... > Fortunately I work for foreign company so we are ok. Not saying it is the exact same - but the idea of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 10:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf8335$56c$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350598 |
On 4/17/2016 11:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > Are you sure? Prices of food here are on par with EU while wages are > embarrassingly low. eg 1000 euros is more worth in Prag than in > Belgrade. Also, Germany has cheaper food than Serbia. > My wife has wage of 200euros... while our electricity bill is around > 80euros... That's way out of wack. 200/80 (just for electricity) = 2.5x I'm SO glad to live in the US. My wife's monthly gross pay alone is 33x our monthly utilities (electric/gas/water/sewer). I'd guess avg in the country is 10x - 15x. > Fortunately I work for foreign company so we are ok. American company?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf1h4p$rr8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350572 |
On 4/17/2016 10:24 PM, owl wrote: > Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of > bread next month. Not at ALDI, where a loaf is $0.85.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhafe0.a893@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350575 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 4/17/2016 10:24 PM, owl wrote: > > >> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of >> bread next month. > > > Not at ALDI, where a loaf is $0.85. > I'd rather bake my own bread than shop at aldi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 11:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf87ri$o57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350580 |
On 4/17/2016 10:46 PM, owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/2016 10:24 PM, owl wrote: >> >> >>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of >>> bread next month. >> >> >> Not at ALDI, where a loaf is $0.85. >> > > I'd rather bake my own bread than shop at aldi. I felt the same way for a long time, but I now understand it's a great store for what it is: low price, low selection, low customer svc. You have to be a little careful - some stuff is crap, but most of it is good quality. All my life I ate Kraft American singles - I found out a month ago the ALDI version (Happy Farms Deluxe slices) is far better. They're barely cheaper per oz., and not even individually wrapped, but they have a really good taste and texture. It's no contest, for me. Dog friend loves them, too. On the other hand their $1.99 braunschweiger isn't close to Kahn's (sold at Publix for $3.20). Sometimes they have great, great deals. Not too long ago I got 5 or 6lbs of Ocean Spray Ruby Red grapefruit for $1.79. You think I didn't make a mess of my face with those?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33996DA.702E4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350572 |
On 4/17/16, 7:24 PM, in article gyuef.jig98sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>> >>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >> >> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >> not respected. >> >>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >> >> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. > > If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. Evidence? > People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced > by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. Evidence? > And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. Evidence? > It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your > income will purchase. Right. And if people are not making the money they earn - if productivity is not closely associated with financial reward - people buy less. When people buy less there is less market demand. Less production. Fewer jobs. More poverty. It is a cycle that is nasty... and you end up some rich people being able to exploit the poor and a shrinking middle class. > And what matters most is that you actually *have* an income. So as long as you make a penny a year you should be happy... no matter how productive you are. That is silly. > This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum wage and trying to compete in a > world economy against nations whose workers make pennies a day is *not* a good > plan, Mr. Sanders. That is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US > economy. > > Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of bread next > month. It may mean some prices go up... but it will also mean more market demand which means more jobs. Really we should have a minimum wage tied to inflation. If the corporations work to punish people for no longer getting socialized support of their labor force it ends up costing them more in labor. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjfoa03.araplg@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350576 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 7:24 PM, in article gyuef.jig98sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> >>>> >>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >>> >>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >>> not respected. >>> >>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >>> >>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >> >> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. > > Evidence? > >> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced >> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. > > Evidence? > >> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. > > Evidence? > >> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your >> income will purchase. > > Right. And if people are not making the money they earn - if productivity is > not closely associated with financial reward - people buy less. When people > buy less there is less market demand. Less production. Fewer jobs. More > poverty. It is a cycle that is nasty... and you end up some rich people > being able to exploit the poor and a shrinking middle class. > >> And what matters most is that you actually *have* an income. > > So as long as you make a penny a year you should be happy... no matter how > productive you are. That is silly. > >> This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum wage and trying to compete in a >> world economy against nations whose workers make pennies a day is *not* a good >> plan, Mr. Sanders. That is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US >> economy. >> >> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of bread next >> month. > > It may mean some prices go up... but it will also mean more market demand > which means more jobs. What market demand are you talking about? > Really we should have a minimum wage tied to > inflation. If the corporations work to punish people for no longer getting > socialized support of their labor force it ends up costing them more in > labor. > What do you think doubling the minimum wage is going to do to people on fixed Social Security incomes who already struggle and don't get proper cost of living increases, if they're lucky enough to get them at all? For some reason you don't seem to get that if you double the minimum wage to $30,000, wages across the board are going to go through the roof. And that means that everything you buy is going to go up in price. Then suddenly with your shiny new $15 per hour salary you are just as poor as you were the day before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D339A070.70303%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350584 |
On 4/17/16, 7:55 PM, in article hjfoa03.araplg@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 7:24 PM, in article gyuef.jig98sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> >>>>> >>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >>>> >>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >>>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >>>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >>>> not respected. >>>> >>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >>>> >>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >>> >>> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. >> >> Evidence? None. So the idea that starvation wages will lead to low prices of goods in general is not supported. OK. >>> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced >>> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. >> >> Evidence? None. No evidence that governments would be coerced as you say. >>> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. >> >> Evidence? No evidence that starvation wages and a lack of human rights (in this area - you did not say none at all) would somehow hurt nobody. >>> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your >>> income will purchase. >> >> Right. And if people are not making the money they earn - if productivity is >> not closely associated with financial reward - people buy less. When people >> buy less there is less market demand. Less production. Fewer jobs. More >> poverty. It is a cycle that is nasty... and you end up some rich people >> being able to exploit the poor and a shrinking middle class. And no comment from you. >>> And what matters most is that you actually *have* an income. >> >> So as long as you make a penny a year you should be happy... no matter how >> productive you are. That is silly. And no comment from you. >>> This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum wage and trying to compete in >>> >>> a world economy against nations whose workers make pennies a day is >>> *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That is a plan that leads to the >>> devastation of the US economy. >>> >>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of bread next >>> month. >>> >> It may mean some prices go up... but it will also mean more market demand >> which means more jobs. > > What market demand are you talking about? The demand from people spending money. The more money people at the lower end of the economic scale have, the higher the demand. What other demand were you thinking of? >> Really we should have a minimum wage tied to >> inflation. If the corporations work to punish people for no longer getting >> socialized support of their labor force it ends up costing them more in >> labor. > > What do you think doubling the minimum wage is going to do to people on > fixed Social Security incomes who already struggle and don't get proper > cost of living increases, if they're lucky enough to get them at all? We should expand SS, too. Of course. Have it keep up with inflation. > For some reason you don't seem to get that if you double the minimum > wage to $30,000, wages across the board are going to go through the > roof. What "seems" to you is not relevant to my views. > And that means that everything you buy is going to go up in > price. When asked for support of this you showed NONE. > Then suddenly with your shiny new $15 per hour salary you > are just as poor as you were the day before. I suggest you look up the idea of inflation adjustment. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 03:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgo8a34.90a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350588 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 7:55 PM, in article hjfoa03.araplg@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 7:24 PM, in article gyuef.jig98sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >>>>> >>>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >>>>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >>>>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >>>>> not respected. >>>>> >>>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >>>>> >>>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >>>> >>>> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. >>> >>> Evidence? > > None. So the idea that starvation wages will lead to low prices of goods in > general is not supported. OK. > >>>> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced >>>> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. >>> >>> Evidence? > > None. No evidence that governments would be coerced as you say. > >>>> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. >>> >>> Evidence? > > No evidence that starvation wages and a lack of human rights (in this area - > you did not say none at all) would somehow hurt nobody. > >>>> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your >>>> income will purchase. >>> >>> Right. And if people are not making the money they earn - if productivity is >>> not closely associated with financial reward - people buy less. When people >>> buy less there is less market demand. Less production. Fewer jobs. More >>> poverty. It is a cycle that is nasty... and you end up some rich people >>> being able to exploit the poor and a shrinking middle class. > > And no comment from you. > >>>> And what matters most is that you actually *have* an income. >>> >>> So as long as you make a penny a year you should be happy... no matter how >>> productive you are. That is silly. > > And no comment from you. > >>>> This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum wage and trying to compete in >>>> >>> a world economy against nations whose workers make pennies a day is >>>> *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That is a plan that leads to the >>>> devastation of the US economy. >>>> >>>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of bread next >>>> month. >>>> >>> It may mean some prices go up... but it will also mean more market demand >>> which means more jobs. >> >> What market demand are you talking about? > > The demand from people spending money. Hahahahaha What fucking money!? The only demand will be, "We now demand $10 for that loaf of bread, sir." > The more money people at the lower > end of the economic scale have, the higher the demand. > > What other demand were you thinking of? > >>> Really we should have a minimum wage tied to >>> inflation. If the corporations work to punish people for no longer getting >>> socialized support of their labor force it ends up costing them more in >>> labor. >> >> What do you think doubling the minimum wage is going to do to people on >> fixed Social Security incomes who already struggle and don't get proper >> cost of living increases, if they're lucky enough to get them at all? > > We should expand SS, too. Of course. Have it keep up with inflation. > Never happens. They just decide to calculate inflation differently to show that it wasn't so high after all. >> For some reason you don't seem to get that if you double the minimum >> wage to $30,000, wages across the board are going to go through the >> roof. > > What "seems" to you is not relevant to my views. > >> And that means that everything you buy is going to go up in >> price. > > When asked for support of this you showed NONE. > >> Then suddenly with your shiny new $15 per hour salary you >> are just as poor as you were the day before. > > I suggest you look up the idea of inflation adjustment. > Assuming you are referring to SS income here, I suggest you look up the idea of Medicare premium increases, which always seem to cancel any COLA increase. It's amazing. I didn't realize I would tire of talking to you so soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D339B0A9.7032C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350597 |
On 4/17/16, 8:50 PM, in article fhjgo8a34.90a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 7:55 PM, in article hjfoa03.araplg@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 7:24 PM, in article gyuef.jig98sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >>>>>> >>>>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >>>>>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, >>>>>> the >>>>>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >>>>>> not respected. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >>>>> >>>>> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. >>>> >>>> Evidence? >> >> None. So the idea that starvation wages will lead to low prices of goods in >> general is not supported. OK. >> >>>>> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced >>>>> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. >>>> >>>> Evidence? >> >> None. No evidence that governments would be coerced as you say. >> >>>>> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. >>>> >>>> Evidence? >> >> No evidence that starvation wages and a lack of human rights (in this area - >> you did not say none at all) would somehow hurt nobody. >> >>>>> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your >>>>> income will purchase. >>>> >>>> Right. And if people are not making the money they earn - if productivity >>>> is >>>> not closely associated with financial reward - people buy less. When people >>>> buy less there is less market demand. Less production. Fewer jobs. More >>>> poverty. It is a cycle that is nasty... and you end up some rich people >>>> being able to exploit the poor and a shrinking middle class. >> >> And no comment from you. >> >>>>> And what matters most is that you actually *have* an income. >>>> >>>> So as long as you make a penny a year you should be happy... no matter how >>>> productive you are. That is silly. >> >> And no comment from you. >> >>>>> This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum wage and trying to compete >>>>> in >>>>>>>> a world economy against nations whose workers make pennies a day is >>>>> *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That is a plan that leads to the >>>>> devastation of the US economy. >>>>> >>>>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of bread >>>>> next >>>>> month. >>>>> >>>> It may mean some prices go up... but it will also mean more market demand >>>> which means more jobs. >>> >>> What market demand are you talking about? >> >> The demand from people spending money. > > Hahahahaha What fucking money!? The only demand will be, "We now demand > $10 for that loaf of bread, sir." > >> The more money people at the lower >> end of the economic scale have, the higher the demand. >> >> What other demand were you thinking of? >> >>>> Really we should have a minimum wage tied to >>>> inflation. If the corporations work to punish people for no longer getting >>>> socialized support of their labor force it ends up costing them more in >>>> labor. >>> >>> What do you think doubling the minimum wage is going to do to people on >>> fixed Social Security incomes who already struggle and don't get proper >>> cost of living increases, if they're lucky enough to get them at all? >> >> We should expand SS, too. Of course. Have it keep up with inflation. >> > > Never happens. They just decide to calculate inflation differently > to show that it wasn't so high after all. > > >>> For some reason you don't seem to get that if you double the minimum >>> wage to $30,000, wages across the board are going to go through the >>> roof. >> >> What "seems" to you is not relevant to my views. >> >>> And that means that everything you buy is going to go up in >>> price. >> >> When asked for support of this you showed NONE. >> >>> Then suddenly with your shiny new $15 per hour salary you >>> are just as poor as you were the day before. >> >> I suggest you look up the idea of inflation adjustment. >> > > Assuming you are referring to SS income here, I suggest you > look up the idea of Medicare premium increases, which always > seem to cancel any COLA increase. > > It's amazing. I didn't realize I would tire of talking to you > so soon. > You fail to back your claims and then just make more to try to hide that. Not really interested in such a conversation. You say you are tired of it as well. If you get the strength to try to back your claims I would love to hear it... but for now you sound like the Trump supporter stereotype. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 08:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf2k0k$137$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350572 |
On 2016-04-17 10:24 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>> >>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >> >> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >> not respected. >> >>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >> >> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >> > > If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. > People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced > by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. > And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. > > It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your > income will purchase. And what matters most is that you actually > *have* an income. This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum > wage and trying to compete in a world economy against nations whose > workers make pennies a day is *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That > is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US economy. > > Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of > bread next month. It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which end up costing them less in the long run. Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will order a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state. People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company can place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the same way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not only is it faster and more convenient but also less expensive. So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become homeless. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A5F1B.703E3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350635 |
On 4/18/16, 5:33 AM, in article nf2k0k$137$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<peter@klown.is> wrote:
> On 2016-04-17 10:24 PM, owl wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>
>>>>
>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion.
>>>
>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical
>>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the
>>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was
>>> not respected.
>>>
>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up.
>>>
>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason.
>>>
>>
>> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow.
>> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced
>> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values.
>> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your
>> income will purchase. And what matters most is that you actually
>> *have* an income. This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum
>> wage and trying to compete in a world economy against nations whose
>> workers make pennies a day is *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That
>> is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US economy.
>>
>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of
>> bread next month.
>
> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business
> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which
> end up costing them less in the long run.
While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15
can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of
labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad
reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor.
If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it.
> Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a
> counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I
> mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for
> instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will order
> a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state.
Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they
did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place
completely other than where the image said.
> People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company can
> place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the same
> way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not only is it
> faster and more convenient but also less expensive.
>
> So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become
> homeless.
Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why:
* This has not been seen in the past
* Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor
I do not back that form of socialism.
<https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster>
-----
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their
jobs.
Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders
urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists,
including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have
been important developments in the academic literature on the
effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the
weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage
have had little or no negative effect on the employment of
minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor
market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have
a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers
spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth,
and providing some help on the jobs front."
-----
I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep
socializing the cost of labor.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ea747bc-7ecb-416a-a852-49d3ad7a9f15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350683 |
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 10:53:40 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 5:33 AM, in article nf2k0k$137$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > > On 2016-04-17 10:24 PM, owl wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> > >>>> > >>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. > >>> > >>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical > >>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the > >>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was > >>> not respected. > >>> > >>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. > >>> > >>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. > >>> > >> > >> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. > >> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced > >> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. > >> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. > >> > >> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your > >> income will purchase. And what matters most is that you actually > >> *have* an income. This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum > >> wage and trying to compete in a world economy against nations whose > >> workers make pennies a day is *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That > >> is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US economy. > >> > >> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of > >> bread next month. > > > > It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business > > owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which > > end up costing them less in the long run. > > While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15 > can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of > labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad > reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor. > > If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it. So why are you often seen talking about "the rich" on this topic when you should be talking about the politicians who are responsible for it? Meanwhile... you'll see more and more of this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/minimum-wage-marches-15-small-businesses-adapt-38362947 Gee, it's too bad we can't have the government write a law that tells people they must keep their failing business open no matter what, huh <eyeroll>? > > Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a > > counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I > > mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for > > instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will order > > a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state. > > Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they > did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place > completely other than where the image said. > > > People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company can > > place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the same > > way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not only is it > > faster and more convenient but also less expensive. > > > > So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become > > homeless. > > Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why: > * This has not been seen in the past > * Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor > > I do not back that form of socialism. > > <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster> > ----- > Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their > jobs. > > Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders > urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, > including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have > been important developments in the academic literature on the > effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the > weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage > have had little or no negative effect on the employment of > minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor > market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have > a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers > spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, > and providing some help on the jobs front." > ----- > > I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep > socializing the cost of labor. So talk to the politicians already!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e3cf466-1cde-4632-a410-8e64223fd203@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350683 |
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 10:53:40 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster> > ----- > Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their > jobs. > > Not true More libtard bullsh*t... it certainly *can* and has. It depends upon a number of conditions but to say it's a myth is completely false. If you're too lazy to do in depth research at least look at this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage Here's something else you should look at but will undoubtedly deny most of: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 13:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350683 |
On 2016-04-18 12:53 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 5:33 AM, in article nf2k0k$137$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-17 10:24 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 6:51 PM, in article afji03a.0244@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> >>>>> >>>>> Abolish the minimum wage and this economy would go crazy with expansion. >>>> >>>> A claim you cannot in any way support and goes against all historical >>>> precedence and reason. The extreme of it is, literally, slavery. Yeah, the >>>> South did economically well off the backs of the poor... but equality was >>>> not respected. >>>> >>>>> Raise it to $15 and watch the jobs dry up. >>>> >>>> Another claim you will never back up and goes against basic reason. >>>> >>> >>> If wages are allowed to seek the bottom, prices of goods will follow. >>> People with mortgages would feel pain, but banks could be coerced >>> by the government to rewrite loans to reflect the new property values. >>> And if this were planned for in advance, no one would be hurt. >>> >>> It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is what your >>> income will purchase. And what matters most is that you actually >>> *have* an income. This crazy idea of the US having a $15 minimum >>> wage and trying to compete in a world economy against nations whose >>> workers make pennies a day is *not* a good plan, Mr. Sanders. That >>> is a plan that leads to the devastation of the US economy. >>> >>> Mark my words. A $15 minimum wage this month means a $10 loaf of >>> bread next month. >> >> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business >> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which >> end up costing them less in the long run. > > While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15 > can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of > labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad > reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor. > > If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it. And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it costs them less. >> Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a >> counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I >> mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for >> instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will order >> a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state. > > Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they > did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place > completely other than where the image said. I can't tell you exactly because I don't recall. >> People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company can >> place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the same >> way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not only is it >> faster and more convenient but also less expensive. >> >> So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become >> homeless. > > Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why: > * This has not been seen in the past > * Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor > > I do not back that form of socialism. > > <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster> > ----- > Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their > jobs. > > Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders > urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, > including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have > been important developments in the academic literature on the > effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the > weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage > have had little or no negative effect on the employment of > minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor > market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have > a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers > spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, > and providing some help on the jobs front." > ----- > > I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep > socializing the cost of labor. I trust what the government says on the matter of "minimum wage" about as much as I do Crackhead Tyrone's stories of how the government is out to get him. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A6E4F.7040C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350690 |
On 4/18/16, 10:39 AM, in article nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<peter@klown.is> wrote:
...
>>> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business
>>> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which
>>> end up costing them less in the long run.
>>
>> While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15
>> can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of
>> labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad
>> reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor.
>>
>> If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it.
>
> And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it
> costs them less.
And their should be consequences to that, too.
Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the
minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a
family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*).
But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to
the economy.
<http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC>
-----
Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million
jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
-----
Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a
picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad for
the economy is silly.
And, really, it comes down to common sense for me. I think most would agree
with these facts / ideas:
1) The wealthy tend to not spend much of their money
2) The poor and middle class have relatively little savings
3) A strong tie between productivity and reward is good for the economy
Right now the tie in #3 is weakening. Raising the minimum wage helps reduce
that problem. It also helps to get more money into the wage / wealth earners
and that gets the economy going. When you have more people looking to buy
TVs and cars and food and clothing and widgets and services in general, then
there is going to be more demand. Companies will do more business. Yes,
their labor costs will go up (though really not that much, and if they
balance paying those that do the front line work with reducing the cost of
their executives to what they have historically been maybe not at all).
In the end they make MORE money.
The idea that they cannot afford to pay their workers what they earn (or
closer to it) - and thus need socialized support for their labor AS their
profits go up AND they pay their top executives MASSIVELY more than they
have in the past just does not make sense.
>>> Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a
>>> counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I
>>> mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for
>>> instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will
>>> order a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state.
>>>
>> Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they
>> did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place
>> completely other than where the image said.
>
> I can't tell you exactly because I don't recall.
Fair enough. Perhaps the story referenced here:
<http://www.snopes.com/mcdonalds-kiosks-minimum-wage/>
-----
McDonald's kiosks have been in development globally since 2011,
well before movements to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
had galvanized in the U.S. McDonald's has always cited food
customization issues (not automation) as its goal in adding kiosks
in test markets. Finally, no evidence has been presented by anyone
spreading the rumor to prove kiosks represent any overall cost
savings to fast food restaurants (as they must be purchased,
programmed, maintained, partially manned, and otherwise are
themselves a cost of doing business). While it's true McDonald's
has been testing kiosks for self-serve ordering since 2011, it is
false that the chain has done so specifically or primarily in
response to minimum wage increases.
-----
>>> People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company
>>> can place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the
>>> same way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not
>>> only is it faster and more convenient but also less expensive.
>>>
>>> So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become
>>> homeless.
>>
>> Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why:
>> * This has not been seen in the past
>> * Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor
>>
>> I do not back that form of socialism.
>>
>> <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster>
>> -----
>> Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their
>> jobs.
>>
>> Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders
>> urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists,
>> including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have
>> been important developments in the academic literature on the
>> effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the
>> weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage
>> have had little or no negative effect on the employment of
>> minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor
>> market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have
>> a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers
>> spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth,
>> and providing some help on the jobs front."
>> -----
>>
>> I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep
>> socializing the cost of labor.
>
> I trust what the government says on the matter of "minimum wage" about
> as much as I do Crackhead Tyrone's stories of how the government is out
> to get him.
This is not just the government but hundreds of economists. I do realize
there are some who disagree... but overall the idea it would harm the
economy is not something that has been seen much in the past and for which
there is not much support for.
With that said, I think if you push it to absurd levels then there are true
risks... say $100/hour. That would be insane. Is $15 too high? Perhaps but I
think with the give and take in the law-making process it is not going to be
that high to start off with anyway. And even Sanders says to gradually move
it up to that... over "the next several years."
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5799c745-3f1e-42cd-b73c-a2c756a8177d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350697 |
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 10:39 AM, in article nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > ... > >>> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business > >>> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which > >>> end up costing them less in the long run. > >> > >> While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15 > >> can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of > >> labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad > >> reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor. > >> > >> If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it. > > > > And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it > > costs them less. > > And their should be consequences to that, too. > > Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the > minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a > family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*). > > But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to > the economy. > > <http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC> > ----- > Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says > > Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million > jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. > ----- > > Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a > picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad for > the economy is silly. Nah... what's "silly" is to claim to know what it will do, like Friedman has done (as shown in the article you cited) as based on his admitted *assumptions*. Here's an analysis that highlights some of the issues and tempers things with reality. https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf38nh$iht$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350697 |
On 2016-04-18 1:58 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 10:39 AM, in article nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > ... >>>> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business >>>> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which >>>> end up costing them less in the long run. >>> >>> While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that $15 >>> can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost of >>> labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad >>> reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor. >>> >>> If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it. >> >> And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it >> costs them less. > > And their should be consequences to that, too. But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent their products from being sold within American borders but no politician would dare to do such a thing. > Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the > minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a > family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*). > > But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to > the economy. What "economists" think is inconsequential. These "economists" are the same ones who believed that it was a good idea to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and that deregulation was the wave of the future. These are also the morons who believe that keynesian economics lead to prosperity. Essentially, they don't know shit and keep advocating for impoverishment under the guise of "helping." Keynesians LOVE Sanders because he'd spend, spend and spend some more regardless of whether he has money or not. > <http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC> > ----- > Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says > > Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million > jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. > ----- Shockingly, CNN, a left-wing enterprise, believes it would work... > Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a > picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad for > the economy is silly. > > And, really, it comes down to common sense for me. I think most would agree > with these facts / ideas: > > 1) The wealthy tend to not spend much of their money They do, but they're wealthy because they invest it in the hope of making more. Unlike the middle-class morons who enrich them, they DON'T believe that they need to buy the latest technology first and save last. > 2) The poor and middle class have relatively little savings Because they're buying things they don't need to keep up with the Joneses rather than invest in their own future. > 3) A strong tie between productivity and reward is good for the economy Yes, hence capitalism and its numerous rewards. > Right now the tie in #3 is weakening. Raising the minimum wage helps reduce > that problem. It also helps to get more money into the wage / wealth earners > and that gets the economy going. When you have more people looking to buy > TVs and cars and food and clothing and widgets and services in general, then > there is going to be more demand. Companies will do more business. Yes, > their labor costs will go up (though really not that much, and if they > balance paying those that do the front line work with reducing the cost of > their executives to what they have historically been maybe not at all). > > In the end they make MORE money. > > The idea that they cannot afford to pay their workers what they earn (or > closer to it) - and thus need socialized support for their labor AS their > profits go up AND they pay their top executives MASSIVELY more than they > have in the past just does not make sense. Nobody asked these workers who work for minimum wage to be in the shit as they are. If they work at McDonald's or Walmart and can't afford to pay their bills, it's nobody's fault but their own. Those minimum wage jobs were meant for young people and students as temporary work, not careers for the uneducated. Like everyone else, they were told from their youth that getting an education or gaining skills was of utmost importance if they planned on having money. If they ignored that lesson because they were too immature to recognize wisdom, it's not society's fault. It's survival of the fittest; the smart make the right decisions and thrive and the dumb die. I have no pity whatsoever for the dumb people who refused to do something to work their way out of the cesspool they live in, ESPECIALLY if they're black. >>>> Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a >>>> counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I >>>> mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for >>>> instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will >>>> order a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state. >>>> >>> Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they >>> did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place >>> completely other than where the image said. >> >> I can't tell you exactly because I don't recall. > > Fair enough. Perhaps the story referenced here: > <http://www.snopes.com/mcdonalds-kiosks-minimum-wage/> > ----- > McDonald's kiosks have been in development globally since 2011, > well before movements to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour > had galvanized in the U.S. McDonald's has always cited food > customization issues (not automation) as its goal in adding kiosks > in test markets. Finally, no evidence has been presented by anyone > spreading the rumor to prove kiosks represent any overall cost > savings to fast food restaurants (as they must be purchased, > programmed, maintained, partially manned, and otherwise are > themselves a cost of doing business). While it's true McDonald's > has been testing kiosks for self-serve ordering since 2011, it is > false that the chain has done so specifically or primarily in > response to minimum wage increases. > ----- However, it shows that it would be possible for them to replace workers with kiosks if ever the worker becomes too expensive. >>>> People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company >>>> can place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the >>>> same way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not >>>> only is it faster and more convenient but also less expensive. >>>> >>>> So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become >>>> homeless. >>> >>> Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why: >>> * This has not been seen in the past >>> * Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor >>> >>> I do not back that form of socialism. >>> >>> <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster> >>> ----- >>> Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their >>> jobs. >>> >>> Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders >>> urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, >>> including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have >>> been important developments in the academic literature on the >>> effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the >>> weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage >>> have had little or no negative effect on the employment of >>> minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor >>> market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have >>> a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers >>> spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, >>> and providing some help on the jobs front." >>> ----- >>> >>> I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep >>> socializing the cost of labor. >> >> I trust what the government says on the matter of "minimum wage" about >> as much as I do Crackhead Tyrone's stories of how the government is out >> to get him. > > This is not just the government but hundreds of economists. I do realize > there are some who disagree... but overall the idea it would harm the > economy is not something that has been seen much in the past and for which > there is not much support for. > > With that said, I think if you push it to absurd levels then there are true > risks... say $100/hour. That would be insane. Is $15 too high? Perhaps but I > think with the give and take in the law-making process it is not going to be > that high to start off with anyway. And even Sanders says to gradually move > it up to that... over "the next several years." I don't believe in a minimum wage; Switzerland didn't raise theirs and the result is that people are paid BETTER than countries where there IS a minimum wage. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A7BAC.7042F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350704 |
On 4/18/16, 11:27 AM, in article nf38nh$iht$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<peter@klown.is> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18 1:58 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/18/16, 10:39 AM, in article nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>> <peter@klown.is> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business
>>>>> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which
>>>>> end up costing them less in the long run.
>>>>
>>>> While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that
>>>> $15
>>>> can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost
>>>> of
>>>> labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad
>>>> reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor.
>>>>
>>>> If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it.
>>>
>>> And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it
>>> costs them less.
>>
>> And their should be consequences to that, too.
>
> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent
> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician
> would dare to do such a thing.
Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main
focus is on how bad the current ones are.
<https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/>
-----
Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China
that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of
jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they
need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China
or other low-wage countries.
-----
Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in
the video at the bottom of the page.
I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being
seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time.
>> Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the
>> minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a
>> family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*).
>>
>> But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to
>> the economy.
>
> What "economists" think is inconsequential. These "economists" are the
> same ones who believed that it was a good idea to repeal the
> Glass-Steagall Act and that deregulation was the wave of the future.
> These are also the morons who believe that keynesian economics lead to
> prosperity. Essentially, they don't know shit and keep advocating for
> impoverishment under the guise of "helping." Keynesians LOVE Sanders
> because he'd spend, spend and spend some more regardless of whether he
> has money or not.
I have offered my reasoning and shown there is strong expert support for
similar ideas. I am open to other ideas... but you know me, I will ask for
similar levels of support that I offer. :)
>> <http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC>
>> -----
>> Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
>>
>> Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million
>> jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
>> -----
>
> Shockingly, CNN, a left-wing enterprise, believes it would work...
I have seen right wing sites offer different analysis... so I know there is
no solid agreement.
>> Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a
>> picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad for
>> the economy is silly.
>>
>> And, really, it comes down to common sense for me. I think most would agree
>> with these facts / ideas:
>>
>> 1) The wealthy tend to not spend much of their money
>
> They do, but they're wealthy because they invest it in the hope of
> making more. Unlike the middle-class morons who enrich them, they DON'T
> believe that they need to buy the latest technology first and save last.
The wealthy tend to not spend their money because they do not have to. The
poor have to so they can live.
Does not mean people have to have the newest car and the biggest TV and the
fastest computer. I do get that and many spend beyond their means... but if
they actually had the money they earned they would be able to afford more.
>> 2) The poor and middle class have relatively little savings
>
> Because they're buying things they don't need to keep up with the
> Joneses rather than invest in their own future.
The truly poor cannot afford that. They are buying food and paying for
housing.
>> 3) A strong tie between productivity and reward is good for the economy
>
> Yes, hence capitalism and its numerous rewards.
But with massive socialization of the costs and risks of the rich, as we
have no, we do not have that.
There as a lot of talk on Sanders' tax return. He finally released it. The
big scandal I see on it is that he paid more in income taxes than many
corporations do!
>> Right now the tie in #3 is weakening. Raising the minimum wage helps reduce
>> that problem. It also helps to get more money into the wage / wealth earners
>> and that gets the economy going. When you have more people looking to buy
>> TVs and cars and food and clothing and widgets and services in general, then
>> there is going to be more demand. Companies will do more business. Yes,
>> their labor costs will go up (though really not that much, and if they
>> balance paying those that do the front line work with reducing the cost of
>> their executives to what they have historically been maybe not at all).
>>
>> In the end they make MORE money.
>>
>> The idea that they cannot afford to pay their workers what they earn (or
>> closer to it) - and thus need socialized support for their labor AS their
>> profits go up AND they pay their top executives MASSIVELY more than they
>> have in the past just does not make sense.
>
> Nobody asked these workers who work for minimum wage to be in the shit
> as they are.
We are talking the largest employers in the country: McDonald's, Walmart,
etc. While we can look at an individual and hypothesize that they can move
to another job, the reality is that spot will just be filled by someone
else.
Those jobs are not going to change. Human rights will not be respected by
pure capitalism.
> If they work at McDonald's or Walmart and can't afford to pay their bills,
> it's nobody's fault but their own. Those minimum wage jobs were meant for
> young people and students as temporary work, not careers for the uneducated.
That is not who is in these jobs. Does not match the stats at all. We are
talking the largest employers in the country here... not some small
percentage of the economy.
> Like everyone else, they were told from their youth that getting an education
> or gaining skills was of utmost importance if they planned on having money. If
> they ignored that lesson because they were too immature to recognize wisdom,
> it's not society's fault.
Again: you are focusing on the individual and not the societal problem.
Individuals cannot change the system by getting a better education. And the
system is rigged there, too. The wealthy get a better education.
> It's survival of the fittest; the smart make the right decisions and
> thrive and the dumb die. I have no pity whatsoever for the dumb people
> who refused to do something to work their way out of the cesspool they
> live in, ESPECIALLY if they're black.
Has little to do with whom is smart and whom is not.
>>>>> Why would you need a pimply-faced teenager with an attitude problem at a
>>>>> counter when you can easily get the equivalent of an ATM to do his job. I
>>>>> mean, it's not like you need the kid's expert advice. McDonald's, for
>>>>> instance, is already doing this because it knows that its customers will
>>>>> order a hamburger or a Big Mac in its default state.
>>>>>
>>>> Where are they doing this? I saw a story on it claiming to show where they
>>>> did it because of the min. wage but it turned out they did so in a place
>>>> completely other than where the image said.
>>>
>>> I can't tell you exactly because I don't recall.
>>
>> Fair enough. Perhaps the story referenced here:
>> <http://www.snopes.com/mcdonalds-kiosks-minimum-wage/>
>> -----
>> McDonald's kiosks have been in development globally since 2011,
>> well before movements to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
>> had galvanized in the U.S. McDonald's has always cited food
>> customization issues (not automation) as its goal in adding kiosks
>> in test markets. Finally, no evidence has been presented by anyone
>> spreading the rumor to prove kiosks represent any overall cost
>> savings to fast food restaurants (as they must be purchased,
>> programmed, maintained, partially manned, and otherwise are
>> themselves a cost of doing business). While it's true McDonald's
>> has been testing kiosks for self-serve ordering since 2011, it is
>> false that the chain has done so specifically or primarily in
>> response to minimum wage increases.
>> -----
>
> However, it shows that it would be possible for them to replace workers
> with kiosks if ever the worker becomes too expensive.
There is the possibility... but they are heading that way anyway, no matter
what the min. wage is.
>>>>> People won't ask to remove the pickles or hold the mustard so the company
>>>>> can place a screen in front of the customer and it will take the order the
>>>>> same way that an automaton will make the burger (perfectly) for him. Not
>>>>> only is it faster and more convenient but also less expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yeah, go ahead with the $15 minimum wage and watch your citizens become
>>>>> homeless.
>>>>
>>>> Those who claim this have the hard job of explaining why:
>>>> * This has not been seen in the past
>>>> * Why we should continue to socialize the cost of labor
>>>>
>>>> I do not back that form of socialism.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster>
>>>> -----
>>>> Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their
>>>> jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders
>>>> urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists,
>>>> including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have
>>>> been important developments in the academic literature on the
>>>> effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the
>>>> weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage
>>>> have had little or no negative effect on the employment of
>>>> minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor
>>>> market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have
>>>> a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers
>>>> spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth,
>>>> and providing some help on the jobs front."
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> I tend to find that more convincing than those who insist we have to keep
>>>> socializing the cost of labor.
>>>
>>> I trust what the government says on the matter of "minimum wage" about
>>> as much as I do Crackhead Tyrone's stories of how the government is out
>>> to get him.
>>
>> This is not just the government but hundreds of economists. I do realize
>> there are some who disagree... but overall the idea it would harm the
>> economy is not something that has been seen much in the past and for which
>> there is not much support for.
>>
>> With that said, I think if you push it to absurd levels then there are true
>> risks... say $100/hour. That would be insane. Is $15 too high? Perhaps but I
>> think with the give and take in the law-making process it is not going to be
>> that high to start off with anyway. And even Sanders says to gradually move
>> it up to that... over "the next several years."
>
> I don't believe in a minimum wage; Switzerland didn't raise theirs and
> the result is that people are paid BETTER than countries where there IS
> a minimum wage.
I believe in human rights... and the min. wage is a part of that. If you
have another way to promote human rights for the poor I am open to them. One
idea is the libertarian idea I shared earlier of everyone getting a stipend
from the government.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web