Left Behind Economics

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
The real issue IMO is why must you and your ilk spread your never-ending blanket of negativity everywhere, making people's hard lot in life seem that much harder? Whine whine bitch bitch complain misery loves company. It's no wonder you're a loser and want everyone else to be too.

You mean like, "Oh noes! The sky is falling! Raising the minimum wage will destory the economy! I'm meltinggggg!" (Slightly paraphrased )



Edit: fixed quoting

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Socialist whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be losers who never got properly weaned from their mama's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that something somewhere controls everything and grants all prayers. They reject the true reality, that nothing and no one is in actual control or authority, because it fills them with terror. All they really know is that all is not well and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

To put it a bit more nicely, they're externalists. Someone else must be the change they wish to see in the world.

Nice troll. Here's your .

Let me try:

Wealth-worshipping whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be greedy losers who never got properly weaned from their patron's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that they are entitled to have more than anyone else, and that the government is responsible for rigging the playing field so they can. They reject the true reality, that wealth is built upon the backs of the working class, because the thought of sharing their success with those who helped make it fills them with terror. All they really know is that they want more and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

How's that?

Hilariously way off the mark. Of course the system is rigged. I not only agree with that, I state it here often. And you're the one who thinks the solution is to increase the power and authority of the system. That's why I make fun of you.

Another straw man.

Even funnier is that you think the desire to live one's own ideal life makes one greedy and selfish, but your desire to force other people to live YOUR ideal life makes your charitable and unselfish.

I love you people. Laugh a minute!

Way to dodge the points ... again. Wonder why you're so unwilling to engage in an honest and direct discussion of the counter-arguments to your claims?



Edit: gotta go. When I don't respond to your latest evasions, don't get your hopes up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
You ignore the fact that workers outnumber CEO's by more than 100,000-to-1.

When you can show the average company has 100,000 employees, your comment might be credible. Of course you'd also need to demonstrate that only CEOs receive exorbitant compensations (as opposed to presidents and officers and other executives).

?

BBond abused statistics. How many CEO's actually make the kind of income he called "average." How many business owners are protected by minimum wage? (answer: none) More to the point, in what way do their salaries drive down worker's wages, which was my argument that he ignored.

You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BBond
[ ... ]
The real issue IMO is why must you and your ilk spread your never-ending blanket of negativity everywhere, making people's hard lot in life seem that much harder? Whine whine bitch bitch complain misery loves company. It's no wonder you're a loser and want everyone else to be too.

You mean like, "Oh noes! The sky is falling! Raising the minimum wage will destory the economy! I'm meltinggggg!" (Slightly paraphrased )

I never said anything even remotely similar. That particular comment you are pretending to paraphrase was not directed to you or about the minimum wage subtopic. You appear to be getting desperate now. What I actually did say about minimum wage is, "Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing."
How you equate that to my saying the sky will fall only demonstrates your growning need to make personal attacks in the face of your losing argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Socialist whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be losers who never got properly weaned from their mama's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that something somewhere controls everything and grants all prayers. They reject the true reality, that nothing and no one is in actual control or authority, because it fills them with terror. All they really know is that all is not well and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

To put it a bit more nicely, they're externalists. Someone else must be the change they wish to see in the world.

Nice troll. Here's your .

Let me try:

Wealth-worshipping whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be greedy losers who never got properly weaned from their patron's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that they are entitled to have more than anyone else, and that the government is responsible for rigging the playing field so they can. They reject the true reality, that wealth is built upon the backs of the working class, because the thought of sharing their success with those who helped make it fills them with terror. All they really know is that they want more and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

How's that?

Hilariously way off the mark. Of course the system is rigged. I not only agree with that, I state it here often. And you're the one who thinks the solution is to increase the power and authority of the system. That's why I make fun of you.

Another straw man.

Even funnier is that you think the desire to live one's own ideal life makes one greedy and selfish, but your desire to force other people to live YOUR ideal life makes your charitable and unselfish.

I love you people. Laugh a minute!

Way to dodge the points ... again. Wonder why you're so unwilling to engage in an honest and direct discussion of the counter-arguments to your claims?



Edit: gotta go. When I don't respond to your latest evasions, don't get your hopes up.

No straw man or dodge on my part there. You have been the one trying to put false arguments in my mouth all along. In this instance, you claim I am trying to use the government to rig the playing field, as though that were something bad (which I agree, it is), while you discuss openly how to go about exactly that as matter of policy. So your argument there is basically that if you do one thing for a purpose you disagree with, it's evil, but if you do the exact same thing for a purpose you agree with, it's good. That's quite the doublethink you have there. And you call me dishonest! :roll:

Cya, coward.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

No, it's not. Read all the words this time.


Edit: By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

O RLY?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
You ignore the fact that workers outnumber CEO's by more than 100,000-to-1.

When you can show the average company has 100,000 employees, your comment might be credible. Of course you'd also need to demonstrate that only CEOs receive exorbitant compensations (as opposed to presidents and officers and other executives).

?

BBond abused statistics. How many CEO's actually make the kind of income he called "average." How many business owners are protected by minimum wage? (answer: none) More to the point, in what way do their salaries drive down worker's wages, which was my argument that he ignored.

You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

I "abused" statistics? How many CEOs actually make the kind of income I called "average" ???

You tell me.

Oh, wait. Reuters already did.

CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data, a nonprofit think-tank said on Wednesday.

In fact, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks, said the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said.

In recent years, compensation has been a hot issue with shareholders who have been bombarded with news stories about chief executives who are given multimillion dollar bonus and pay packages even if shares have declined.

For example, the chief executives of 11 of the largest companies were awarded a total of $865 million in pay in the last two years, even as they presided over a total loss of $640 billion in shareholder value, a recent study from governance firm the Corporate Library, found.

In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies earned 24 times a worker's pay. That ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000, according to EPI.

CEO pay is defined by the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant and other long-term incentives. Worker pay is hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory works, EPI said.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
You ignore the fact that workers outnumber CEO's by more than 100,000-to-1.

When you can show the average company has 100,000 employees, your comment might be credible. Of course you'd also need to demonstrate that only CEOs receive exorbitant compensations (as opposed to presidents and officers and other executives).

?

BBond abused statistics. How many CEO's actually make the kind of income he called "average." How many business owners are protected by minimum wage? (answer: none) More to the point, in what way do their salaries drive down worker's wages, which was my argument that he ignored.

You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

I "abused" statistics? How many CEOs actually make the kind of income I called "average" ???

You tell me.

Oh, wait. Reuters already did.

CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data, a nonprofit think-tank said on Wednesday.

In fact, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks, said the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said.

In recent years, compensation has been a hot issue with shareholders who have been bombarded with news stories about chief executives who are given multimillion dollar bonus and pay packages even if shares have declined.

For example, the chief executives of 11 of the largest companies were awarded a total of $865 million in pay in the last two years, even as they presided over a total loss of $640 billion in shareholder value, a recent study from governance firm the Corporate Library, found.

In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies earned 24 times a worker's pay. That ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000, according to EPI.

CEO pay is defined by the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant and other long-term incentives. Worker pay is hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory works, EPI said.

Breaking news! Statistical science proves that wild bears usually sh!t in the woods!

You have not yet addressed either of my points, which is what percentage of those CEO's make such monster salaries, and how do their salaries drive down worker wages?

You see, I am by no means in favor of their extravangence, but OTOH I don't see you offering any solutions besides whining and bitching either. Think about it, while you complain about the average CEO salary and claim that raising the minimum wage is the great solution to this wealth disparity problem, you also point out that the average worker's wage is more than $21/hour. Do you actually think about what you post? I would be much more inclined to support your arguments if they were actually coherent and well-thought out.

 

[BBond]

One more time for those for whom reading isn't fundamental...

"Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data, a nonprofit think-tank said on Wednesday.

In fact, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks, said the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond
One more time for those for whom reading isn't fundamental...

"Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data, a nonprofit think-tank said on Wednesday.

In fact, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks, said the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said."

One more time for those for whom reading isn't fundamental...

You have not yet addressed either of my points, which is what percentage of those CEO's make such monster salaries, and how do their salaries drive down worker wages?

You see, I am by no means in favor of their extravangence, but OTOH I don't see you offering any solutions besides whining and bitching either. Think about it, while you complain about the average CEO salary and claim that raising the minimum wage is the great solution to this wealth disparity problem, you also point out that the average worker's wage is more than $21/hour. Do you actually think about what you post? I would be much more inclined to support your arguments if they were actually coherent and well-thought out.

You can't just put your hands over your ears and scream LALALALA and make my argument go away. You're just being yet another member of the noisy, distracting, knee-jerking sheeple. How can you claim to really care when your solution to everything is so simplistic?
"The rich make too much money? Why jack up the minimum wage! That's the solution! Government solves everything! Forget the fact that the typical worker already makes more than 4 times the minimum wage!"

Sigh....

 

[BBond]

Perhaps this will make it clear for you. But somehow I doubt it.

You obviously just don't want to fact the ugly facts.

CEO pay-to-minimum wage ratio soars

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

The chart below shows the ratio of the average annual compensation of CEOs?including all bonuses, incentives, and so on*?to the annual compensation of a full-time, full-year minimum wage earner (assumed to receive an average amount of benefits).

This extreme compensation ratio reflects both the extraordinary growth of CEO pay and also the diminishing value of the federal minimum wage that has not been raised since 1997: adjusting for inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest since 1955.

The ratio wasn't always so extreme. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners.

*Data note:
CEO pay is realized direct compensation defined as the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant, and other long-term incentive award payments from a Mercer Survey conducted for the Wall Street Journal and prior Wall Street Journal-sponsored surveys. This survey covered 350 large industrial and service firms that filed their proxy statements by the beginning of April. The minimum wage earners' compensation is based on the level of the federal minimum wage at a full-time, year-round job along with benefits calculated at the economy-wide ratio of compensation to wages.

CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows

n 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker?s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

*Data note:
CEO pay is realized direct compensation defined as the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant, and other long-term incentive award payments from a Mercer Survey conducted for the Wall Street Journal and prior Wall Street Journal-sponsored surveys. Worker pay is the hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory workers, assuming the economy-wide ratio of compensation to wages and a full-time, year-round job.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

No, it's not. Read all the words this time.


Edit: By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

O RLY?

Pity. You used to be fairly rational. Did you even bother to read your link?

First, let's look at what I said:

• "If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are 'teenage kids at McD's', you might have a point."

Charrison replied that "This is backed up by bls stats," and you then posted the link above to support his claim.

Now let's look at what BLS says, from your link:

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent.

So, not only are you wrong about what BLS backs up, you're not even close. It is not "only teenage kids" making minimum wage, it is not even mostly teenage kids. In fact, only about 25% of those earning minimum wage are teenagers.

Just to set the record straight.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alchemize
[
120 examples of partisan hackery by the esteemed Krugman

I also happen to think he's a partisan hack.

I guess the part of the country I live in is much different than where Krugman or some of you others live. Unemployment is practically non-existant, new contruction is everywhere (my construction clients are literally booming), new busineses opening all the time, real estate values are rising an average of 14% per year etc...

Yeah, this economy sucks.

Another person that didn't actually read the alleged examples . . .

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

No, I'm really not using a straw man. I am not attempting to limit your arguments. I am simply pointing out that the one example you've beaten to death is irrelevant to the question asked. You are equally disingenuous when you alleged I tried to "claim total victory over the entire debate" based on pointing out your one example does not address the question. I made no claim other than the fact your example is irrelevant. I've invited you several times to offer relevant examples, but you apprently can't. Instead you just cry about me shooting down the one example you did give.

Rather than demonstrate why I'm wrong or provide other, relevant examples, I suspect you'll continue crying. It's easier than accepting that you have no basis for believing the propaganda about minimum wages and inflation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
The real issue IMO is why must you and your ilk spread your never-ending blanket of negativity everywhere, making people's hard lot in life seem that much harder? Whine whine bitch bitch complain misery loves company. It's no wonder you're a loser and want everyone else to be too.

You mean like, "Oh noes! The sky is falling! Raising the minimum wage will destory the economy! I'm meltinggggg!" (Slightly paraphrased )

I never said anything even remotely similar. That particular comment you are pretending to paraphrase was not directed to you or about the minimum wage subtopic. You appear to be getting desperate now. What I actually did say about minimum wage is, "Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing."
How you equate that to my saying the sky will fall only demonstrates your growning need to make personal attacks in the face of your losing argument.

Read it again. I did not suggest your comment was directed at me, nor did I attribute the "sky is falling" comments to you (not that it would be inaccurate to do so, IMHO). I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your comment, showing that "you and your ilk" are just as prone to "whine bitch bitch complain" as those you attacked. You are simply whiney about different things, e.g., the minimum wage and taxes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

No, it's not. Read all the words this time.


Edit: By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

O RLY?

Pity. You used to be fairly rational. Did you even bother to read your link?

First, let's look at what I said:

• "If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are 'teenage kids at McD's', you might have a point."

Charrison replied that "This is backed up by bls stats," and you then posted the link above to support his claim.

Now let's look at what BLS says, from your link:

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent.

So, not only are you wrong about what BLS backs up, you're not even close. It is not "only teenage kids" making minimum wage, it is not even mostly teenage kids. In fact, only about 25% of those earning minimum wage are teenagers.

Just to set the record straight.

Yes it is all cleared up now. Yes my memory was off, but the facts are still largely the same, younger workers are more likely to earn minimam wage and even then it still a very small portion of the working population. And of those of ages between 19 and 25 are primary breadwinners for a family and how many are still dependant on their folks to some degree. My guess is there are more poor college students than primary breadwiners in that group.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Yes it is all cleared up now. Yes my memory was off, but the facts are still largely the same, younger workers are more likely to earn minimam wage and even then it still a very small portion of the working population. And of those of ages between 19 and 25 are primary breadwinners for a family and how many are still dependant on their folks to some degree. My guess is there are more poor college students than primary breadwiners in that group.

I imagine you are right for those under 25 (re. not being primary breadwinners). Note, however, that about 50% of minimum wage earners are are 25 or older, and that the elderly are more likely to get minimum wage than those 25+. The point is that increasing the minimum wage benefits a broad cross-section of employees, not just teens.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Yes it is all cleared up now. Yes my memory was off, but the facts are still largely the same, younger workers are more likely to earn minimam wage and even then it still a very small portion of the working population. And of those of ages between 19 and 25 are primary breadwinners for a family and how many are still dependant on their folks to some degree. My guess is there are more poor college students than primary breadwiners in that group.

I imagine you are right for those under 25 (re. not being primary breadwinners). Note, however, that about 50% of minimum wage earners are are 25 or older, and that the elderly are more likely to get minimum wage than those 25+. The point is that increasing the minimum wage benefits a broad cross-section of employees, not just teens.

I never said it would not affect the other 50% that are not young workers. We just disagree on the results. I see the exercise as being largely pointless as the market is driving up wages for those low skills jobs without interference from the fed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

No, it's not. Read all the words this time.


Edit: By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

O RLY?

Pity. You used to be fairly rational. Did you even bother to read your link?

First, let's look at what I said:

• "If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are 'teenage kids at McD's', you might have a point."

Charrison replied that "This is backed up by bls stats," and you then posted the link above to support his claim.

Now let's look at what BLS says, from your link:

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent.

So, not only are you wrong about what BLS backs up, you're not even close. It is not "only teenage kids" making minimum wage, it is not even mostly teenage kids. In fact, only about 25% of those earning minimum wage are teenagers.

Just to set the record straight.

Just to set the record straight, the only people "making" minimum wage are teenage kids and restaurant servers who also make tips. That's exactly what that report says. Learn to read.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

No, I'm really not using a straw man. I am not attempting to limit your arguments. I am simply pointing out that the one example you've beaten to death is irrelevant to the question asked. You are equally disingenuous when you alleged I tried to "claim total victory over the entire debate" based on pointing out your one example does not address the question. I made no claim other than the fact your example is irrelevant. I've invited you several times to offer relevant examples, but you apprently can't. Instead you just cry about me shooting down the one example you did give.

Rather than demonstrate why I'm wrong or provide other, relevant examples, I suspect you'll continue crying. It's easier than accepting that you have no basis for believing the propaganda about minimum wages and inflation.

Your capacity for self-delusion is quite fascinating.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
The real issue IMO is why must you and your ilk spread your never-ending blanket of negativity everywhere, making people's hard lot in life seem that much harder? Whine whine bitch bitch complain misery loves company. It's no wonder you're a loser and want everyone else to be too.

You mean like, "Oh noes! The sky is falling! Raising the minimum wage will destory the economy! I'm meltinggggg!" (Slightly paraphrased )

I never said anything even remotely similar. That particular comment you are pretending to paraphrase was not directed to you or about the minimum wage subtopic. You appear to be getting desperate now. What I actually did say about minimum wage is, "Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing."
How you equate that to my saying the sky will fall only demonstrates your growning need to make personal attacks in the face of your losing argument.

Read it again. I did not suggest your comment was directed at me, nor did I attribute the "sky is falling" comments to you (not that it would be inaccurate to do so, IMHO). I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your comment, showing that "you and your ilk" are just as prone to "whine bitch bitch complain" as those you attacked. You are simply whiney about different things, e.g., the minimum wage and taxes.

My "whine bitch bitch complain" is limited to this internet forum, and not an attempt to establish government policy.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Vic


My "whine bitch bitch complain" is limited to this internet forum, and not an attempt to establish government policy.

So let me get this straight, you're argument is the rest of us are attmepting to influence government policy by posting on this forum but you aren't so your "whining and bitching" is OK?

That's ridiculous.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
Just to set the record straight, the only people "making" minimum wage are teenage kids and restaurant servers who also make tips. That's exactly what that report says. Learn to read.

Wrong again! You're on a roll.

The BLS page you linked -- have you read it yet? -- reports 59.1% of those earning minimum wage or less are in "Food preparation and serving related occupations". That means -- stay with me here, math can be hard -- 40.9% are NOT. The report also says 24.8% are teenagers 16-19. That means -- more math -- 75.2% are NOT. Even if one makes the absurd claim that the two groups don't overlap, i.e., that no teenagers work in food services, that would still mean only 83.9% (40.9 + 24.8) meet your criteria, leaving 16.1% who do not. In other words, even if we stipulate the patently absurd, your claim about "the only people 'making' minimum wage" is factually wrong.

We know, of course, there is substantial overlap between the two sets of people. Indeed, you started this tangent by insinuating the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", and threw out the BLS link to prove it. I proved you wrong, so now you're trying to weasel away from your disinformation. I find this rather frustrating since we know you're a smart guy. If you can understand the IRS rules and calculations, you're certainly capable of understanding the relatively simple BLS stats. That leaves us either with a blind partisanship that willfully denies truth, or a massive ego that simply cannot admit you made a mistake. Either way, "Your capacity for self-delusion is quite" pathetic.

I think I've shown your claims are exactly NOT what the report says. I'd echo your suggestion that you "learn to read". Moreover, I'd suggest you learn to think. Toodles,

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
[ ... ]
You are engaging in straw man once again. You ignored it, obviously due to ignorance, with a lot of vapid rhetoric when I called you out on it last time, so let me explain it so you can understand it. You are attempting to limit my own arguments to your own narrowly defined parameters, and then seek to claim total victory over the entire debate if I were to let you do so. That is the very definition of straw man. You're trying to set up my argument to your own liking so you can more easily knock it down. It's transparent and pathetic.

No, I'm really not using a straw man. I am not attempting to limit your arguments. I am simply pointing out that the one example you've beaten to death is irrelevant to the question asked. You are equally disingenuous when you alleged I tried to "claim total victory over the entire debate" based on pointing out your one example does not address the question. I made no claim other than the fact your example is irrelevant. I've invited you several times to offer relevant examples, but you apprently can't. Instead you just cry about me shooting down the one example you did give.

Rather than demonstrate why I'm wrong or provide other, relevant examples, I suspect you'll continue crying. It's easier than accepting that you have no basis for believing the propaganda about minimum wages and inflation.

Your capacity for self-delusion is quite fascinating.

Exactly as expected, still no examples to support your claims. Just more empty personal attacks. *shrug*

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Nothing I can recall, perhaps some devout Republican can bother looking it up if anything is to be said on his behalf. Still, I don?t recall solutions from you either. Were those left behind with the politics of "hate your enemy"?

That tired old bullsh!t isn't going to fly. I am not in a position to solve the problems that the bush administration has caused. I'm pointing out the facts of the matter, what bush and his feed the rich and starve the poor and middle class policies are doing to America. Why don't you stop the partisan bullsh!t and address the facts? bush's idea of economics is unbridled greed. Period. The facts speak for themselves. Only a blind fool could miss them.

I don't much like the mentality of "If you don't have a solution to a problem, don't complain about it."

If you've been shot, but you don't know what to do about it, should you just quietly bleed to death, or go to a hospital and say "I've been shot and I don't know the solution to this problem. Do you?"

Originally posted by: martinez
A very big part of the problem is that it is getting easier and easier to access all kinds of debt, even for people with lower incomes. This is how the governing and business/financial elite have managed to keep the economies in many western countries(basically the global economy) ticking in the right direction.

Very true. In the college book store, every damn time you'd go to buy something, it was like being offered an extended warranty on electronics - they want you to sign up for their credit card. Yeah, great. College kids who are probably on their own for the first time, burdened already with the expense of college. Sure, let's push MORE debt-based spending on them. On the other hand, if they're stupid enough to spend money they don't have, well then it's merely an attack on the stupid. Either that, or it's training for how to spend money in government.

Michael Moore, love him or hate him made an interesting observation about why Americans are loathe to complain about the rich, it's because they all believe that one day it will be them at the top, what with the American dream and all.

I wonder how many people truly believe this? Surely some must realize that if everyone is "at the top", then no one is. Everyone would all just be middle class then.

Originally posted by: bobdelt
"That ain't from gas prices, bub. That's the effects of the greed of a very few very rich Americans."

Can you really blame them? What do you want them to do? Give away all their money? Wait, Gate and Buffet are already doing that.

Ok, we have two billionaires giving away money. Forbes 400 lists 346 billionaires. Soo by your count, 0.578% of the billionaires are being generous. Most impressive.

"Trickle down" never worked and never will because the people who came up with the theory failed to include one essential calculation -- basic human greed. The more these mega-rich have the more they want. The more they control the more they want to control.

If anyone doubts it just look around at what bush and his mega-rich, greedy friends have created today.

Well sure. Government does it too. If they develop a budget surplus, what do they do? Pay off debt? Naah, look for more ways of spending that money. Once it's all spent, the momentum keeps going, so the surplus quickly turns into a deficit again.
Similarly with large corporations - if there's a big profit, who gets most of it? The workers who did the grunt work to generate the profit, or the shareholders and those who are already excessively wealthy? The workers might see a bonus, which will be just enough to placate them momentarily, but not really anything significant.

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Never mind even raising the possibility of considering a pay cut to the executives in the company.
So the message is, piss on the poor all you want. They can't afford lobbyists. They can't afford to organize campaigns. Some can't afford to leave their jobs for a day or two to do any of this. They can't afford media exposure. Thus they have no power, and are not a threat.