Magox Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Would you agree that talking about COLA adjustments/minimum wage increases is not equal to the "living wage" idiocy? Also, would you agree that if we created your "tiered" plan, liberal douchebaggery would find a way to FUBAR it, such that, even if your plan has merit, it's better not to do it, since this prevents the inevitable bastardization, and failure? Now, today, it appears he has changed his tune significantly. All goofing aside, under normal circumstances, isn't GG supposed to be arguing Magox's point, and vice versa? I don't quite follow the first part, in regards to COLA adjustments being equal to living wages. In regards to the future fubaring of what I proposed, yeah probably, but that's a separate issue, because if we go along with the assumption that any legislation moving forward is destined to be fubared then what's the point of writing any legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I don't quite follow the first part, in regards to COLA adjustments being equal to living wages. In regards to the future fubaring of what I proposed, yeah probably, but that's a separate issue, because if we go along with the assumption that any legislation moving forward is destined to be fubared then what's the point of writing any legislation? It's Not equal. As in: if we made a COLA adjustment to minimum wage, or, even if we doubled the COLA....that is NOT equal to moving the new "living" minimum wage up to $14-6/hr adjusted for local cost of living etc. Essentially, would you agree that moving it up $2 is not the same as moving it up $8-10? And, why the 2nd part ties into the first: once we begin the process of moving it up $2....what exactly will stop the demagogues from trying to move it up $4...$6...or the whole way to $14-6/hr? They've already proven that they cannot be trusted to debate: 1. Tax Reform 2. Entitlement Reform 3. Health care 4. Defense spending 5. Anything other than Gay Marriage in an honest and equitable fashion. Why should anyone entertain discussing the possibility of minimum wage increases with Obama or Senate Democrats, until they prove they can actually not play politics with it, for the very first time ever, and actually approach the issue in a genuine problem solving fashion? Aren't these the people who refuse to admit that we have a clear issue with babyboomers vs. medicare ....and I am supposed to think they will be responsible when it comes ot COLA adjustments? IF they can't even see the big problems properly, why should we think they will be able to do the small stuff right? OTOH, perhaps this is the way? Start with something small and train them on that first? Someday they might be able to act "like people". I just see your idea, however comprised, being turned into yet another nightmare, when Obama, once again, refuses to lead on it, and again, turns it over to Democrats in Congress who will, again, FUBAR it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I do. GG reigns in the bizarre around here just fine. However, speaking of bizarre...I was trolling here about the minimum wage a few years back, and interestingly, it was GG who telling me not to be an ideologue about it, and that I shouldn't be against it. He specifically said something along the lines of "you just can't let the politics go, can you". The fact that was trolling a liberal douche, and getting said liberal douche to make all kinds of hilarious claims, didn't register with him. Now, today, it appears he has changed his tune significantly. All goofing aside, under normal circumstances, isn't GG supposed to be arguing Magox's point, and vice versa? Well, aren't you special? Any reason you didn't post a link to that exchange? I wonder if it had anything to do with providing context to your assertion? If memory serves me right, your argument was that the minimum wage needs to be eliminated to lower the unemployment rate and to stimulate the economy - a polar opposite view of Magox's current one where a higher minimum wage would stimulate the economy. My point is that under the current construct, the minimum wage is a political argument and it doesn't significantly affect the economy. My argument back then was that a) people earning minimum wage right now are too small of a demographic to move the growth needle and b) people who lost their jobs in the recession were in the mid-tier wage class, who wouldn't be interested in a minimum wage job in the first place. If they're not flocking to these jobs with a set minimum wage now, what makes you think that they would be interested in the same job at less pay? And finally, to improve the economy and grow incomes, you don't focus on the minimum wage tier. That's why I said the argument was political and not economic. And if you for once, read and comprehend what people write, you may get it through your head that my position is perfectly consistent between the two threads. Never mind that they're not exactly the same arguments. Now back to your bizarro world. Edited March 27, 2013 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, aren't you special? Any reason you didn't post a link to that exchange? I wonder if it had anything to do with providing context to your assertion? If memory serves me right, your argument was that the minimum wage needs to be eliminated to lower the unemployment rate and to stimulate the economy - a polar opposite view of Magox's current one where a higher minimum wage would stimulate the economy. My point is that under the current construct, the minimum wage is a political argument and it doesn't significantly affect the economy. My argument back then was that a) people earning minimum wage right now are too small of a demographic to move the growth needle and b) people who lost their jobs in the recession were in the mid-tier wage class, who wouldn't be interested in a minimum wage job in the first place. If they're not flocking to these jobs with a set minimum wage now, what makes you think that they would be interested in the same job at less pay? And finally, to improve the economy and grow incomes, you don't focus on the minimum wage tier. That's why I said the argument was political and not economic. And if you for once, read and comprehend what people write, you may get it through your head that my position is perfectly consistent between the two threads. Never mind that they're not exactly the same arguments. Now back to your bizarro world. Your problem is you don't speak emotocon, it's like jazz either you get it or you don't, ignore the words and concentrate on the shape and the emotocons it's art like a HR Giger painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Well, aren't you special? Any reason you didn't post a link to that exchange? Sheer laziness. But, given the content of the rest of your post, looks like I didn't need to, did I? I wonder if it had anything to do with providing context to your assertion? Context of my assertion? I was trolling, moron. The context is whatever is necessary, in this case, whatever would make silly liberal douche carry his logic forward, so I could expose it. If memory serves me right, your argument was that the minimum wage needs to be eliminated to lower the unemployment rate and to stimulate the economy - a polar opposite view of Magox's current one where a higher minimum wage would stimulate the economy. My point is that under the current construct, the minimum wage is a political argument and it doesn't significantly affect the economy. Fine. My point was that market value is market value, and that artificial F abouts with it only serve to shift things in unintended ways. Well, actually, that is my point now. I never really made that point, because I wanted the effect of calling for an end of the minimum wage. The reason I was calling for and end? It IS a political argument, and said liberal douche was making a political argument, rather than one based on any sort of rational/accepted macroeconomic tenet(s). Come on, you should know by now that fighting fire with fire is my way. My argument back then was that a) people earning minimum wage right now are too small of a demographic to move the growth needle and b) people who lost their jobs in the recession were in the mid-tier wage class, who wouldn't be interested in a minimum wage job in the first place. If they're not flocking to these jobs with a set minimum wage now, what makes you think that they would be interested in the same job at less pay? And finally, to improve the economy and grow incomes, you don't focus on the minimum wage tier. That's why I said the argument was political and not economic. And if you for once, read and comprehend what people write, you may get it through your head that my position is perfectly consistent between the two threads. Never mind that they're not exactly the same arguments. Again, fine, but...what about the fact that so many other salaries and wages are determined using the minimum wage as a baseline, or as part of an equation? Or do you not know that? The effect reaches a much larger demographic than you've described, doesn't it? But on the flip: if you are right, and it doesn't matter, then why have it at all? Thus the completion of my trolling: the only reason you want a minimum wage, said liberal douche, is so that you can try to use it to get votes. Once again, it's not about the poor: it is about power. Again, the argument was political. I was repsonding to economics-free idiocy with...economics-based idiocy, but still: political. "Not exactly the same"... Your problem is you don't speak emotocon, it's like jazz either you get it or you don't, ignore the words and concentrate on the shape and the emotocons it's art like a HR Giger painting. Babbling idiot. You give the concept of free association a bad name. Edited March 27, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hey Narcissus, step away from the mirror. Who cares what you were trolling about in another thread? That's not what this discussion is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Hey Narcissus, step away from the mirror. Who cares what you were trolling about in another thread? That's not what this discussion is about. Yeah...nice comeback. Hilarious, for me. You care, moron. Otherwise, you wouldn't have responded. Actually, you had to, didn't you? You were: compelled. Almost too easy. Although I will admit it took me 1/2 hour to get it right. In this entire exchange, I've alluded to trolling how many times? "All goofing aside" blew right by you, didn't it? It was all...right there. Let's see..."what this discussion is about"... I'll help you out. This discussion is about two things: 1. me pointing out a slight inconsistency in your vaunted...position (we must first bow, then genuflect, twice). 2. me doing that for no other reason than because there was 0 chance you wouldn't lose your schit if I did. Who's the narcissist again? Come on man...don't tell me this isn't funny. Just shaking my head and laughing here. What else is there to do? I've come to the conclusion that the propensity for a successful troll is directly proportional to the target's propensity for pomposity. Look at how much fun I have with birdog.... Ultimately, I work with the material I'm given, and there's plenty of pomp here, so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts