Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure

[Stormbringer]

However, it doesn't work this way in 99% of the comanies in America. There is plenty of economic profit, not to mention hyper-inflated budgeting for executives outside of salaries (HP recently spent $150 million just to upgrade a 3 year old jet fleet).

Let me give you an example. Chip manufacturing works on a high initial investment yet low manufacturing per chip model. When a company like Intel sells a lot of chips, they make a lot of profit. Are these savings per-chip passed on to the consumer? Of course not, prices are fixed by market demand for the products, not by selling according to strict manufacturing costs.

And what makes you think that that'll be cut rather than pass the cost on to the cosumer? Buddy, business doesn't work like you think it does.

Moore tends to be rather idealistic, but his message is that we need to redistribute the wealth in America which is absolutely correct. There is simply too much wealth that has been pooled into too few peoples hands and that gap is increasing.

Standard class warfare crap.

I am not against having a wealthy upper class. People who work hard need to be rewarded with suitable luxury. However, what I am against is the huge income disparity between the wealthy elite and the lower class.

If all you've got is the education for a menial, lowing paying job you shouldn't be rewarded with luxury. You want to be rich, go out and make it happen for yourself.

This is a false analogy predicated on the assumption that other countries can overcome huge barriers to entry and the advantages of working with an educated population. Sure, menial labor can be done more efficiently in other countries (and it is). This has caused a great deal of specialization in the United States which means that me concentrate on importing the things that are not cost-effectively produced here and exporting the things that are.

And that means that other countries with a leaner labor cost can't compete? A lot of supposedly third world countries have people with the know how to beat the US in the labor market. It's nice to talk about everyone getting nice benefits but you'll get killed by the guys that don't

The only countries that are a threat to this system are the rapidly developing nations such as Singapore was. I say was because it is inevitable that in a country that moves from a third world nation to a first, the population will start to demand higher pay which brings them into parity with us. This has already occured in Singapore (their per-capita income has nearly reached parity with ours) and will occur in any developing country that excercises free trade.

True, but that doesn't mean that they'll instantly achieve parity nor that everyone will automatically achieve the high degree of pay and benefits that we enjoy now. The fact is that in the time it takes time and can ruin an industry in the mean time.

[Stormbringer]

Good for him then. I don't really care what the Oscar's committee said, he earned the right to speak to America about whatever he wanted by winning an Oscar.

Maybe so, but he made a tasteless speech that offended many and which he was asked not to. He could and did but he rightly caught flak for it.

Wrong. Whoppi Goldberg was SUPPOSED to win the Oscar for The Color Purple and when she didn't, many people suspected it was because she was black. Then the Oscar committee was so afraid of being labled racist that they gave her the Oscar for a sub-par peformance in a sub-par movie. Classic political bullshit.

\


Your previous statement:

The Oscars aren't politcally related? Gee, they made an awfully big deal about Whoppi Goldberg winning an Oscar for being black didn't they?

You're back tracking on that one or you screwed up. Either way it doesn't have much bearing on the fact that Michael Moore had to be a jackass and make his speech even though they didn't want the Oscars politicized.

[The Kernel]

And what makes you think that that'll be cut rather than pass the cost on to the cosumer? Buddy, business doesn't work like you think it does.

Because of competition moron. How do you think prices are set in the first place?

Standard class warfare crap.

I'm going to paraphrase Al Franken for a sec. Please bear with me.

In the eleventh century there were a number of peasant revolts in Medieval Europe. At one particular estate, the peasants decided to sack the Manor house. One inside they butchered the knight in front of his wife and children, then repeatedly violated the wife while the children watched.

After a few hours of this they cooked the knight over a burning fire, then forced the wife and children to eat his remains. They then evicerated them quite messily.

THAT my friend is class warfare. Asking for certain standards of living for the lower class is not.

If all you've got is the education for a menial, lowing paying job you shouldn't be rewarded with luxury. You want to be rich, go out and make it happen for yourself.

Luxury? A person that works at McDonalds is lucky if he can feed his family and provide them with decent health care. Don't fucking talk to me about luxury.

And that means that other countries with a leaner labor cost can't compete? A lot of supposedly third world countries have people with the know how to beat the US in the labor market. It's nice to talk about everyone getting nice benefits but you'll get killed by the guys that don't

You obviously don't understand the differances between a specialized, educated labor force and a third world, uneducated one. OF COURSE they can compete in certain industries, which means those industries are moved to third world countries (I have a lot to say about this, but I'll keep it on point). It's the same thing as a country with an arid, rocky terrain to farm out (no pun intended) farming to nations with fertile lands. It's called globalization and it has worked for the last 50 years just fine.

True, but that doesn't mean that they'll instantly achieve parity nor that everyone will automatically achieve the high degree of pay and benefits that we enjoy now. The fact is that in the time it takes time and can ruin an industry in the mean time.

Of course it takes time, but did Singapore ruin the high technology manufacturing or financial services industries? No, because it takes time to build up industry, educate your population and attract foreign direct investment and by that time your population will have already demanded greater wages. This is an oversimplification, but I see no reason to get specific with someone who is generalizing as much as you are.

[The Kernel]

Maybe so, but he made a tasteless speech that offended many and which he was asked not to. He could and did but he rightly caught flak for it.

I doubt there is much to be gained from us arguing a matter of taste.

Wrong. Whoppi Goldberg was SUPPOSED to win the Oscar for The Color Purple and when she didn't, many people suspected it was because she was black. Then the Oscar committee was so afraid of being labled racist that they gave her the Oscar for a sub-par peformance in a sub-par movie. Classic political bullshit.

Your previous statement:

The Oscars aren't politcally related? Gee, they made an awfully big deal about Whoppi Goldberg winning an Oscar for being black didn't they?

You're back tracking on that one or you screwed up. Either way it doesn't have much bearing on the fact that Michael Moore had to be a jackass and make his speech even though they didn't want the Oscars politicized.

No you just didn't understand the spirit of my statement. I meant that there was a lot of controversey surrounding her losing, then winning (because it was deserved for The Color Purple whereas it wasn't for Ghost) and that it was made a big deal.

[Stormbringer]

Because of competition moron. How do you think prices are set in the first place?

By trial and error. They charge us the most they can get away with considering product and competition.

That doesn't explain why the cost of the bloated benefits wouldn't be passed on to the consumer.

I'm going to paraphrase Al Franken for a sec. Please bear with me.

In the eleventh century there were a number of peasant revolts in Medieval Europe. At one particular estate, the peasants decided to sack the Manor house. One inside they butchered the knight in front of his wife and children, then repeatedly violated the wife while the children watched.

After a few hours of this they cooked the knight over a burning fire, then forced the wife and children to eat his remains. They then evicerated them quite messily.

THAT my friend is class warfare. Asking for certain standards of living for the lower class is not.

Thanks for making no point what so ever.

Luxury? A person that works at McDonalds is lucky if he can feed his family and provide them with decent health care. Don't fucking talk to me about luxury.

McDonalds is a part time job for high schoolers. If some one tries to make a career out of it they're deservedly screwed.

You obviously don't understand the differances between a specialized, educated labor force and a third world, uneducated one. OF COURSE they can compete in certain industries, which means those industries are moved to third world countries (I have a lot to say about this, but I'll keep it on point). It's the same thing as a country with an arid, rocky terrain to farm out (no pun intended) farming to nations with fertile lands. It's called globalization and it has worked for the last 50 years just fine.

And you're ignoring the difference between American and say Russia or India. Both have lots of low paid, highly skilled workers that can under cut the US in a lot of high tech arenas.

Of course it takes time, but did Singapore ruin the high technology manufacturing or financial services industries? No, because it takes time to build up industry, educate your population and attract foreign direct investment and by that time your population will have already demanded greater wages. This is an oversimplification, but I see no reason to get specific with someone who is generalizing as much as you are.

And you're again ignoring the fact that it's possible to have a workforce capable of competing with the US's with out having a pack of bloated benefits tacked on.

[Stormbringer]

I doubt there is much to be gained from us arguing a matter of taste.

Not with you anyway.

No you just didn't understand the spirit of my statement. I meant that there was a lot of controversey surrounding her losing, then winning (because it was deserved for The Color Purple whereas it wasn't for Ghost) and that it was made a big deal.

No, I didn't understand your statement period because you offered a single sentence that was incredibly vague and isn't particularly relevant to Michael Moore dragging his speech into the Oscars.

[The Kernel]

By trial and error. They charge us the most they can get away with considering product and competition.

Thank you for proving my point. They are going to change prices based on the market, not internal expenses.

That doesn't explain why the cost of the bloated benefits wouldn't be passed on to the consumer.

As oppossed to bloated executive benefits? Anyways, it doesn't matter; they will ALWAYS sell at the price that nets them the most total proft, which means finding the ideal price given competition.

Thanks for making no point what so ever.

My point is that it that America is the country with the greatest amount of wealth concentrated in such a small group. Is it too much to ask that we have certain standards for the lower class?

McDonalds is a part time job for high schoolers. If some one tries to make a career out of it they're deservedly screwed.

Where you live, maybe. Here, even legal immigrants have little choice but to work at menial jobs like fast food.

And you're ignoring the difference between American and say Russia or India. Both have lots of low paid, highly skilled workers that can under cut the US in a lot of high tech arenas.

And yet, we still have thriving industries in America. Industries don't grow overnight and by the time they do, price parity occurs. Beside, America still has reputation and established companies/infrastructure that these developing countries can't match. If this wasn't the case, Globalization wouldn't work.

And you're again ignoring the fact that it's possible to have a workforce capable of competing with the US's with out having a pack of bloated benefits tacked on.

A workforce is only part of the equation dingus. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and you are ignoring my previous points about this.

[Stormbringer]

Your whole point is flawed. Your whole idea is ridiculous. There's no way that a major increase in benefits (which is what Moore argues for) can be applied across the board with out regard to the value a job. Some jobs just aren't worth much. If all jobs are given arbitrarilly high pay it'll simply devalue the money and reduce the competitiveness of the American industry.

[The Kernel]

Your whole point is flawed. Your whole idea is ridiculous. There's no way that a major increase in benefits (which is what Moore argues for) can be applied across the board with out regard to the value a job. Some jobs just aren't worth much. If all jobs are given arbitrarilly high pay it'll simply devalue the money and reduce the competitiveness of the American industry.

And you have utterly failed to prove this.

[theski]

The Kernel Wrote:Quote:
Moore tends to be rather idealistic, but his message is that we need to redistribute the wealth in America which is absolutely correct. There is simply too much wealth that has been pooled into too few peoples hands and that gap is increasing.

I am not against having a wealthy upper class. People who work hard need to be rewarded with suitable luxury. However, what I am against is the huge income disparity between the wealthy elite and the lower class.



Who is to decide what is "suitable"??? You???? So does this affect the money Moore is making.. or Sports or just the working Rich.. So take the money from the Rich and "resdistribute" it to others.... Hmmmm Where have I heard this before...

So are you going to show me how you propose to do this.... or it is just another "Workers Paradise" wankfest

[Iceberg]

Anybody who thinks that the minimum wage is high enough and welfare needs to be slashed further than it already has, needs to read the book Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

It is most unfortunate that Senator Wellstone died; one of the noble crusades left unfinished by his passing was a bill that would have required retailers like Wal-Mart to allow their employees to unionize.

[theski]

Iceberg wrote:

Anybody who thinks that the minimum wage is high enough and welfare needs to be slashed further than it already has, needs to read the book Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Iceberg... What do you think the minimum wage should be??

[Iceberg]

Iceberg wrote:

Anybody who thinks that the minimum wage is high enough and welfare needs to be slashed further than it already has, needs to read the book Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Iceberg... What do you think the minimum wage should be??

HIGHER THAN IT IS. The purchasing power of minimum wage has eroded by almost a third since John F. Kennedy set the original minimum wage at a dollar thirty-one in 1961.

People try to live (barely) off of 6-7 dollars an hour because they have no skills that can earn them a higher wage. And then they get trapped there, because 6-7 dollars an hour doesn't pay for an education. Often people on that end of the economic spectrum have to choose between eating and paying rent at the end of the month. I call this unacceptable, and I reject the conservative dogma that increasing the minimum wage would drive prices up. Those kinds of starvation wages cost productivity, because a hungry worker CAN'T work as hard, nor can a worker who's wondering at the end of the month whether he'll have enough money to stave off homelessness for another thirty days.

[Joe]

Hey, if feeling good about yourself is more important to you than having to deal with higher levels of unemployment among teenagers and minorities, go ahead, support the minimum wage.

[Hamel]

Hey, if feeling good about yourself is more important to you than having to deal with higher levels of unemployment among teenagers and minorities, go ahead, support the minimum wage.

The last time it was raised, unemployment didn't go up.

Huk

Increasing the minimum wage will not increase unemployment.

* Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that employment increased, and unemployment decreased, since the last increases in the minimum wage took effect in 1996 and 1997.
* Economists at the Economic Policy Institute studied the 1996-1997 minimum wage increases and found that overall there was no statistically significant effect on job opportunities.
* The Jerome Levy Economics Institute surveyed small businesses in 1998 about the impact of a minimum wage increase. Nearly nine out of ten businesses (89.4 percent) said the 1996-1997 minimum wage increase did not affect their hiring or employment decisions.
* Two Princeton economists studied a New Jersey state minimum wage increase in the early 1990s and found that employment actually increased. They also found that higher wages meant better-motivated, more stable workers with higher productivity levels and lower turnover rates.
* According to Robert Solow, a Nobel Laureate, research on increasing the minimum wage shows that "the evidence of the job loss is weak.... And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests the impact on jobs is small."

Without regular increases, inflation quickly erodes the value of the minimum wage.

[Iceberg]

Hey, if feeling good about yourself is more important to you than having to deal with higher levels of unemployment among teenagers and minorities, go ahead, support the minimum wage.

I was wondering how long it would take to bring up this asinine argument. Companies that want to pursue such policies (punishing employees for daring to demand a wage they can live on) can live with the class-action wrongful-dismissal lawsuits that such actions WILL generate.

Why are you so comfortable with the fact that a shameful number of working Americans live within one ill stroke of homelessness or death?

[Joe]

Bullshit. According to the DoL, 20,000 jobs were lost after the 1996 increase in the minimum wage. Unemployment among black teenage males shot from 37 percent to 41 percent. Among white teenagers, unemployment is also consistently in the double digits, usually ranging from 15-20 percent (the law has a disproportionate effect on blacks).

Why are you so comfortable with the fact that a shameful number of working Americans live within one ill stroke of homelessness or death?

It's not a permanent condition; typically, the lowest wage earners tend to be younger workers without a great deal of job skills who still receive support from family members.

I could ask the same question of you, as well, given that you are indirectly advocating that larger amounts of the people you claim to care so much about go without jobs.

[Iceberg]

So why is it right for CEOs to make literally tens of thousands of dollars an hour, then?

[Iceberg]

Why are you so comfortable with the fact that a shameful number of working Americans live within one ill stroke of homelessness or death?

It's not a permanent condition; typically, the lowest wage earners tend to be younger workers without a great deal of job skills who still receive support from family members.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to screw people who are young because they've got time to get over it?

I could ask the same question of you, as well, given that you are indirectly advocating that larger amounts of the people you claim to care so much about go without jobs.

20,000 jobs lost in the last minimum wage hike is a statistical rounding error compared to the 3 million plus jobs lost since President Bush's inauguration, let alone the overall job market (20,000 jobs is outside of the third standard deviation of a work force totaling some hundred and fifty million people).

[Joe]

So why is it right for CEOs to make literally tens of thousands of dollars an hour, then?

Lovely, with the red herring. CEOs get paid a lot more because they can perform services that only a tiny minority of people can perform. Being a CEO is a much more difficult job than being a minimum-wage earner.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to screw people who are young because they've got time to get over it?

No, I'm not saying that, because they're not getting screwed.

20,000 jobs lost in the last minimum wage hike is a statistical rounding error compared to the 3 million plus jobs lost since President Bush's inauguration, let alone the overall job market (20,000 jobs is outside of the third standard deviation of a work force totaling some hundred and fifty million people).

20,000 jobs is certainly not a statistical rounding error for the purposes of government estimates.

And that still doesn't explain the insanely high unemployment rates facing black teenagers (they weren't even that high during the 1950s, before the Civil Rights Movement).

[Hamel]

Bullshit. According to the DoL, 20,000 jobs were lost after the 1996 increase in the minimum wage. Unemployment among black teenage males shot from 37 percent to 41 percent. Among white teenagers, unemployment is also consistently in the double digits, usually ranging from 15-20 percent (the law has a disproportionate effect on blacks).

Link?

I searched thru DoL stats for 96 and 97, here's what I found.

Oct 1, '96 min wage increase
Increase to $4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers

'96 data during and after Oct

• Oct - unchanged from Sept - 5.2%, unchanged for blacks
• Nov - 5.4%, unchanged for blacks
• Dec - 5.3%, improved for blacks at 10.5%

'97 data

• Jan - 5.4%, blacks at 10.8%
• Feb - 5.3%, blacks at 11.3%
• Mar - 5.2%, blacks at 10.7%
• Apr - 4.9%, blacks at 9.8%
• May - 4.8%, blacks at 10.3%
• Jun - 5.0%, blacks at 10.4%
• Jul - 4.8%, blacks at 9.4%
• Aug - 4.9, blacks at 9.3%

Sept 1, '97 min wage increase
$5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers
$4.25 sub min introduced

'97 data after increase

• Sep - 4.9%, blacks at 9.6%
• Oct - 4.7%, blacks at 9.5%
• Nov - 4.6%, blacks at 9.6%
• Dec - 4.7%, blacks at 9.9%

If I feel like it, I'll go through the years after.

[Iceberg]

So why is it right for CEOs to make literally tens of thousands of dollars an hour, then?

Lovely, with the red herring. CEOs get paid a lot more because they can perform services that only a tiny minority of people can perform. Being a CEO is a much more difficult job than being a minimum-wage earner.

Tens of thousands of times more? Hundreds of thousands, including benefits, bonuses and options? Minimum wage earners' "benefits" are a discount on the price of a hamburger - when they can even get THAT these days.

I've seen American CEO pay, it's obscene by any standard - almost as much so as sports star pay.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to screw people who are young because they've got time to get over it?

No, I'm not saying that, because they're not getting screwed.

In what way is making minimum wage, having to kiss the asses of outright hostile bosses who dangle your job by a thread just to watch you dance, and praying that you or your kids don't get sick because a trip to the doctor will cost you the rent for the month, NOT getting screwed!?

You're not making very much sense.

[Hamel]

'98 unemployment stats
No min wage increase in 98

• Jan - 4.7%, 9.3% (second # will be blacks from now on)
• Feb - 4.6%, 9.7%
• Mar - 4.7%, 9.2%
• Apr - 4.3%, 8.9%
• May - 4.3%, 9.0%
• Jun - 4.5%, 8.2%
• Jul - 4.5%, 9.7%
• Aug - 4.5%, 9.0%
• Sep - 4.6%, 9.2%
• Oct - 4.6%, 8.6%
• Nov - 4.4%, 8.7%
• Dec - 4.3%, 7.9%

'99 data
no min wage increase in 99

• Jan - 4.3%, 7.8%
• Feb - 4.4%, 8.3%
• Mar - 4.2%, 8.1%
• Apr - 4.3%, 7.7%
• May - 4.2%, 7.5%
• Jun - 4.3%, 7.3%
• Jul - 4.3%, 8.8%
• Aug - 4.2%, 7.8%
• Sep - 4.2%, 8.3%
• Oct - 4.1%, 8.3%
• Nov - 4.1%, 8.1%
• Dec - 4.1%, 7.9%

[Hamel]

Conclusion from the stats: Up until the end of 99, overall unemployment went down after minimum wage increases. Unemployment among blacks went down as well. If the increase ever had a negative effect, it sure took its time to do the damage

[theski]

Lets look at it this way...

The impact on the income distribution of raising the minimum wage is largely agreed–most of the increase in wages paid goes to families that are not poor or even near-poor. Even Bernstein and Schmitt find that only about one-third of the increased wage bill goes to families in the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution.
Burkhauser et al, found that only 20 cents on the dollar went to poor families, while nearly 50 cents went to families with incomes at least twice the poverty level. Thus, compared to the Earned Income Tax Credit or refunding a portion of the FICA tax to low-income workers, the minimum wage is not an effective public policy to improve the economic well-being of the working poor

Linky http://www.epf.org/ebyte/eb990510.htm



So it doesn't even have the effect Iceberg is looking for... IMO