Magox

To your two points. 1) I do, and honestly I don't really care what you find to be ironic. 2) And your "fiat declaration" that it doesn't make it so, doesn't make it so. "Throwing more money at it" What?? First off, they are earning their wage. There is no handout, there are no taxes being placed on anyone that is being redistributed. So your characterization is faulty at best. The crux of it all is that you are against minimum wages, period. Right? Now that we have it, because it is law, when do you propose is the right time to increase those wages? Of course you are, because you usually are where I am right now.

Because the market dictates so? You're not gonna have me defend the reasoning behind mandates, and the notion that I'm some sort of mandater in chief is absurd. I for the most part believe in free markets, I just think that in some cases there do need to be regulations and mandates. My conclusions are usually derived from pragmatism, logic and numbers, and I do not automatically subscribe to all conservative economic orthodoxy. I discount opinions based purely on ideology, and I know that many here on this board and that follow politics are usually people who either toe the party line or the accepted view of the ideology they follow. Which means that they are held prisoners to their indoctrinated views. I'm not saying you are one of them, you may or may not, but I know many here do.

Well good, I'm glad to hear that.

Yes, but if the cost of living is increasing, just because the majority of these recipients are "temp" workers and young shouldn't exclude them for having their standards of living rise. By the way, those "temp" jobs, what age do you think most of them are? Ok, lets flip this, show me where minimum wage hikes have stifled growth and broadly negatively impacted corporations? Yep, I'm the great mandating dictator now. In regards to why should they see an increase over others? that's an absurd point to make. Think about that question for a second. We are talking MINIMUM here. Let the word Minimum sink in for a second, and then rethink your comment. No. GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth.

Well, I didn't make that claim. Also, rarely are there solutions that are of the variety of the be-all and end-all silver bullet ones. My view is based on three main points. 1) Cost of living is rising and wages should reflect that, if it is doable. In other words from the workers perspective. 2) Corporations are flushed with cash, and it is my belief that they easily could withstand this increase, without skipping a beat. 3) That there would be a net positive effect on the economy. Listen, you think that I like being on the side of an argument that defends mandates? I just normally don't agree with them in many instances because it usually from my perspective doesn't produce the intended results. This just happens to be one instance where I happen to believe that an increase to the level we are talking about, won't detrimentally harm corporations and would have a small net positive effect on a tiny sect of workers and the economy. I've thought about this issue a good bit over the years, and I've simply come to a different conclusion than most of you here.

No, he hates minimum wage and my idea. Same thing. In regards to it being a bad idea. I disagree with you all. Please illustrate to me how when they did raise the minimum wage it stifled growth. The burden of proof is on you. Thank you in advance.

No, I was responding to BB's comment, and I wanted to offer my opinion on energy... And then I responded to another comment.

That's fine, you believe it would stifle growth, I don't. Secondly I know that when I go to a fast food restaurant, there are many people who are working there that aren't teenagers and I assume that many of these people have families. So I don't care that you believe it was "intended" for teenagers, the reality is that there are many people who don't fall under your criteria of who should hold these jobs. In regards to family solving societal problems, sure I think that's important, and that would be the ideal situation, but it's not realistic. You can talk about "should" all day long, and I will agree with that, but you will never see your ideal "should" scenario play out in your life time. It's simple. I believe that it won't stifle growth, that it won't effect profits much for most corporations and that I believe it will benefit employees earning minimum wage, and I believe it will produce positive effects on the economy.

So now you are resorting to retarded comments? Seriously is that what you got out of what I said? Let's take a look at what I said: Doesn't seem to me that I was implying that it was THE "way" to get more money into the economy. I wasn't even making that point. I was speaking specifically to this issue. The point I made was two fold, one that the cost of living is rising for people and that an increase in wages would help their situation, and two that corporations are flushed with cash and that I believe are easily able to absorb these costs. Also It Doesn't have to be Jose, it could be Juan, Miguel, Pedro, hell it could even be John. Did I imply that it did? Where did you get this from?

I absolutely believe that the energy sector represents the best way to structurally improve our economy. I believe it has the potential to create millions of jobs throughout the U.S that are directly connected to this sector, whether it's through Drilling, building pipelines, manufacturing jobs related to energy sector parts, trucking, rail etc. Not to mention all the indirectly related jobs that would flourish as a result of these added jobs. And when you combine this with how it would impact energy prices not just at the consumer level, which would free up more disposable cash for more savings and spending, but also what it would do to lower costs for manufacturers, allowing more profits and wage increases. It's a game changer. Listen dipshit, I don't like many mandates either, but that doesn't make all mandates nonsensical. Your point of view has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with ideology. My argument is that inflation and the cost of living is rising and thatcorporations are flushed with cash and would be able to absorb the extra cost, and that I believe it would lead to a positive development for the economy. Your argument is "I hate government mandates"

Yes I get it, you hate the minimum wage.

So, two is now complicated? I mean it's only one more than one.

Chef, seriously man! Are you having a problem comprehending ****??? I said it like 3 !@#$ing times and I even specifically responded to this same issue... Here it is AGAIN!

I didn't imply that it would "magically appear". I said that it would be transferred from employer to employee. And I would fully expect some of those increases to be passed down to the consumer. However, what I wouldn't expect is that the entirety of it would be passed down, there is enough competition and profit right now for some of those costs to be absorbed. Like I said earlier, I do believe there would have to be an honest study from neutral sources in looking into the impact of raising the minimum wage. From my perspective, I believe that a move to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour would be a net positive for the economy. I don't have any study or proof to support what I'm saying, other than my own intuition. I sorta like the way the Germans view their relationships between employer and employee. I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but there are certainly elements of their economy that we could look to.

First of all, as I mentioned in an earlier thread I believe that a comprehensive study from honest non ideological brokers would need to be done on the effects it would have on businesses and the overall effects on the economy due to the added wages. Secondly, I did say this:

I hear what your saying, but I'm looking at this purely from a pragmatical point of view. I just believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to survive on. And I reject the notion that minimum wage is just for teenagers or young people, there are many people who work in these jobs that are using these wages in order to try to get by. And yes, it would have been more wise for them to get an education so they wouldn't be in this position, but I don't believe that because they didn't they should be shackled to the current minimum wage. We know that profits are soaring for many big businesses, and an increase in wages by less than $2 an hour wouldn't be a devastating development for many of these companies. The reason why I support many economic "conservative" principles is because I believe them to be rational. However pure ideology doesn't influence my decisions, if something makes sense that doesn't go with standard economic conservative orthodoxy, then I'll support it. From my point of view, corporations are flushed with cash and even without the raising of minimum wages, I believe it is just a matter of time before we start seeing wage increases once the job market tightens up some. But at the end of the day, I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it would be an overall positive for the economy. And that's what trumps everything from my perspective. Yes, I meant to say wouldn't be saved.

No, it would come from Businesses and then transfer over to employees. I think that is kinda obvious isn't it?

I honestly don't believe an increase to $9/hr would have much of a negative impact to the economy. It may harm some small businesses, but I would venture to guess that it would have negligible effect. Of course on the flip side, that is an additional $11 Billion (from bd's link) that would be placed into the economy, and my guess is that most of those funds would be saved and recycled back into the economy. I may be wrong. Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help.

He certainly would have.

I don't really see the distinction between the two.

Geno, Nassib and Barkley... Barkley simply because there are some scouts who are absolutely convinced that he is the best quarterback in this year's draft. Not saying I agree with that, but the level of conviction from some of these guys, sorta swayed me.

He's one of the four QB's that I'd be happy with from this year's draft.

Unfortunately, there are no ramifications for his deceitful antics of demagoguery, apart from a few head shakes and chuckles from conservatives. Much like Obama, the guy is like teflon.

Since we're talking about media, I thought this was sorta an intriguing friendship. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/03/maddow-roger-ailes-is-the-most-important-republican-159710.html?hp=f1