birdog1960

does routine meddling include waiting til after sending a head coach (wade phillips) to the east-west shrine game before firing him while there and then suing him? have you heard any talk among the premier coaches and gm's in the game about what a good/bad owner wilson is to work for? what happened to the proposition of spending top dollar on a top coach, only to land chan gailey? why so many "not interested's"? no doubt you have much more info than us regular joes so how bout fielding some of these questions.

cool. but the out of tune chorus will likely ignore your input here as well.

here's a link to the resolution that unfortunately failed: ballsy even to try it. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101221226

well if krugamn felt obliged to explain it to nyt readers in terms of burgers, what was i to conclude for ppp posters? it's not reinventing the wheel. there are examples where low wage jobs are paid a living wage and they do pretty well eg switzerland. and yup, dinner out is very expensive as are groceries but it works for them overall. now if they'd only have passed the resolution to limit pay fdifferential between top and bottom, they'd have become progressive icons.

it's difficult to take a personal attack seriously as an argument. you're painting with a wide brush against my argument as it's essentially the same as krugman's but i realizre that his academic credentials are marks against him in your view. let me try again. lets say bananas are 50 cents a pound at walmart. they sell one hundred pounds a day (for simplicity). walmart's labor costs amount to 5 cents of the price. after all costs, that profit is 10 cents a pound. doubling minimum wage doesn't double labor costs overall for the bananas (not all the work product of any minimum wage worker is used on this one product and not only minimum wage workers are included in the 5 cent labor cost attributed to labor). so lets say the price goes up to 52 cents per pound and the profit down to 9 cents a pound after the wage increase. if 10% more bananas are sold because more minimum wage workers can buy more of them, it's a wash. there is some wage increase point where it's no longer a wash and more than a 10% increase in sales results. now extrapolate to other consumer products.

the minimum wage in inflation adjusted dollars is extremely low, therefore their buying power is extremely low. unless wages are 100% of costs for walmart and fast food businesses, there is an inflection point where higher wages for low wage workers would likely increase sales and profits. is it $15. don't know. i'd leave that up to folks like krugm,an to calculate.

thanks. i'd think that the big employers would realize that many of the people buying their products and supporting their businesses are the same folks making minimum wage and slightly more. they need those customers buying power, a point in krugman's article that nearly everyone else here seems to have missed.

yet, it's possible to consistently field a winner and make money. the threshold for satisfaction with a given profit amount is certainly an important variable. if you mean to imply that the bills can never do both simultaneously, then i'd rather they just fold their tent right now.

i'm not saying it's ok. it's allowed since it's considered training/education. same for internships in law firms, investment banks etc. technically, they are not considered employment. i can see how it can be rationalized. there's no reasonable person claiming that working at wal mart or fast food joints is education.

i made $6k/yr on an nih stipend in grad school. for the hours i worked it was well below the minimum wage. in residency, i made about 20k per year. again, on an hourly basis, less than the minimum wage. wasn't happy about it but i knew well it would pay off in the end. fast food workers, not so much. apples and oranges.

i don't think anyone expects them to get $15 right away. it's an opening salvo. it's also designed to shape public opinion on what a low wage their current pay is. and it's working....

nice. the brandon part struck me at the time, just not as eloquently or thoroughly teased out. but in the end, wilson wins, right? and we fans lose, some even believing that he was a good guy. luckily, i choose not to believe "he that dies with the most toys, wins".

perhaps you can jin up another personality that can comprehend that nearly anything or anyone can be alluded to.

there is plenty of data regarding the lack of effect on unemployment on states raising the min wage next to states that didn't. he alluded to that fact. it wasn't a scholarly paper but an editorial.

adjacent states with higher minimum wage

so where are all these up the ladder jobs? they look attractive only when there's nothing else. without those jobs what's the unemployment rate right now? and before you answer that the jobs go away with an increased minimum wage, read krugman. they don't.

the issue is that they aren't all low skill workers and there aremn't enough alternative jobs. fast food and walmart have taken the place of steel mills and factories. bicycle economy is coming on faster than we're peddling.

or maybe they learned from they're much more successful masters: bargain down, not up. seriously, would you list your house at a low price hoping to negotiate more later?

agree with your points. heres a few more: there are at least 10 teams every year that have nearly no chance of making the playoffs starting the first day of training camp. there are 5-7 or more teams that have little to no chance for the foreseeable future and haven't for years.. the head injury and player safety issues are turning off many folks the cost of attending games and the value of the game day experience to fans the ever increasing effect of cheering for the jerseys- teams turning over players quickly with little identity except for the few true franchise players.

talk to me after you've won the nobel prize for economics and land a job a princeton.

1. robert kraft 2. dan rooney 3. tom benson

there's a large pool of data that comes to a different conclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/opinion/krugman-better-pay-now.html?_r=0

as opposed to 20 pages on marginal players or coaches on a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 14 years. plenty of wisdom there as well. now, if you check out some of theppp showdown threads ther's some real deep stuff there in the form of a soliloquy as we now know. this particular thread had a point. one, many of us have suspected for a long time. perhaps now we can begin having some honest debate on topics.

maybe something you've heard of but never possessed.

can't be bothered to look it up but didn't you pronounce that you'd fire your gardner in the winter? lot's of gardening to be done in midwinter new england is there? you don't say. must have been hell on you. i know, i know, lybob but it's like slowing down to look at a wreck...you know you shouldn't but...