Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-22 02:11pm

theski wrote:
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

Gee, here's an idea: why don't you try actually READING the back and forth between me and Stormbringer?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-22 02:20pm

I read them again .... Still no answer on How you actually plan to "redistribute the wealth" and find a suitable level of income.

or is that little Medival analogy supposed to be it...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-22 02:35pm

That "Employment Policy Foundation" sounds disturbingly close to these guys...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-22 02:39pm

"Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought." - disinfopedia.org

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-22 02:41pm

Wasn't this thread once about Ann Coulter, not Michael Moore? *reads back* Ah yes, the standard tactic of "A person in my party acts like a moron, lets shift the focus to someone in another party so we don't have to talk about the first person anymore."

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-22 02:44pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Wasn't this thread once about Ann Coulter, not Michael Moore? *reads back* Ah yes, the standard tactic of "A person in my party acts like a moron, lets shift the focus to someone in another party so we don't have to talk about the first person anymore."

Actually it was the Kernel that hijacked it just because I wondered if they'd be coming out with a whole set of wackos of fringe politics set of dolls.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-22 02:44pm

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.

Of course the pay should be hundreds of thousands of times higher, because only a handful of CEOs out of hundreds of thousands of laborers can perform the services required of CEOs. It's not as if they're stealing from anyone by being highly paid, so what's your problem?

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!?

So how was your psychic journey into the head of every minimum wage earner in the country?

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

Admittedly, the overall unemployment figures for whites are usually not heavily affected by minimum wage increases, given that the vast majority of whites in the work force earn higher than the minimum wage; it is better to observe the figures for demographics (i.e. teenagers) more directly affected by the minimum wage to analyze its effects.

During the 80's, while the real minimum wage fell, unemployment among teenagers decreased consistently (see here).

It is also worth noting that white unemployment and minority unemployment rates only began to diverge significantly after the adoption of the minimum wage. Between 1890-1930, the rate of unemployment averaged 5.82 for whites and 5.90 for nonwhites. Today, unemployment rates for nonwhites (specifically blacks) are routinely double that of the unemployment rates for whites, as your figures prove. There is no reason for unemployment to have increased so greatly in the past half century, given the advances that blacks have made in achieving equal protection under the law and the passage of anti-discrimination legislation, but there the figures are.

Minimum wage laws were also quite popular in South Africa during the apartheid era. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-22 03:32pm

and this from the Cato Institute.. for Iceberg

Executive Summary

For nearly a decade, activists on the left have been conducting a highly effective nationwide campaign to mandate local minimum wages at levels that presumably eliminate poverty for full-time workers and their families. This "living wage," as it is known, is now the law in dozens of jurisdictions, and dozens more are actively considering similar measures. Typically, a living wage is set anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent above the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour and often higher if employers do not provide health benefits. Thus far, there has been only modest resistance, even from local governments for which the cost of doing business inevitably rises.

Most living wage ordinances apply to private-sector government contractors and, to a lesser extent, recipients of business aid or local government employees, or both. Supporters insist that the benefits are enormous and the costs minimal. But that view is an illusion, a product of the insular world of local government contracting. If the living wage were applied to all employees across the United States—the goal of advocates of a living wage—it would greatly magnify the well-documented pitfalls of the minimum wage.

Decades of research have shown that the minimum wage harms the least-skilled workers from poor families while heavily benefiting young workers from middle-income households. Several studies critical of the living wage come to similar conclusions. The main beneficiaries of the living wage are public-sector unionized employees because of the reduced incentives for local governments to contract out work. Instead of exploiting grievances of the marginally employed against "greedy" employers, advocates for the poor should focus their energies on building the skills of the poor.

Link... http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-493es.html

PDF file at bottom with complete story...[/code]

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-22 03:34pm

Cato is a biased pile of shit, Ski. Care to come up with research that ISN'T funded by companies in whose vested interest it is to make sure that labor standards in this country stay as low as possible?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 03:36pm

Admittedly, the overall unemployment figures for whites are usually not heavily affected by minimum wage increases, given that the vast majority of whites in the work force earn higher than the minimum wage; it is better to observe the figures for demographics (i.e. teenagers) more directly affected by the minimum wage to analyze its effects.

During the 80's, while the real minimum wage fell, unemployment among teenagers decreased consistently (see here).

Adults make up 2/3rds of minimum wage earners. One demographic has already been shown to not have been negatively affected by min wage (blacks). I'll take a look at DoL for teenager stats.

'96
Oct - 16.1% (Min wage increase here)
Nov - 17.0%
Dec - 14.3%

'97
Jan - 17.0%
Feb - 17.5%
Mar - 16.4%
Apr - 15.4%
May - 15.6%
Jun - 16.8%
Jul - 16.4%
Aug - 16.4%
Sep - 16.7% (min wage increase here)
Oct - 15.3%
Nov - 15.0%
Dec - 14.3%

'98
Jan - 14.1%
Feb - 14.7%
Mar - 15.0%
Apr - 13.1%
May - 14.2%
Jun - 14.6%
Jul - 13.8%
Aug - 15.0%
Sep - 15.4%
Oct - 16.0%
Nov - 15.1%
Dec - 14.0%

We see a bunch of spikes and sharp drops, with an overall trend of reduced unemployment. The teenage job market is always volatile, with so much turnover and other factors that make reliance on it as justification for anything questionable.

It is also worth noting that white unemployment and minority unemployment rates only began to diverge significantly after the adoption of the minimum wage. Between 1890-1930, the rate of unemployment averaged 5.82 for whites and 5.90 for nonwhites. Today, unemployment rates for nonwhites (specifically blacks) are routinely double that of the unemployment rates for whites, as your figures prove. There is no reason for unemployment to have increased so greatly in the past half century, given the advances that blacks have made in achieving equal protection under the law and the passage of anti-discrimination legislation, but there the figures are.

Despite all that, no logical connection has been established. You have to show WHY minimum wage would screw over non whites.

Minimum wage laws were also quite popular in South Africa during the apartheid era. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but whatever

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-22 03:38pm

In case it's hard to figure out what I'm looking for, it's PEER REVIEWED, JOURNAL PUBLISHED research papers, not stuff that some justification tank cranks out to give moneyed interests a weapon against reviewed journal articles that disagree with their preconceived notions of what labor should be happy to accept.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 03:46pm

Iceberg wrote:In case it's hard to figure out what I'm looking for, it's PEER REVIEWED, JOURNAL PUBLISHED research papers, not stuff that some justification tank cranks out to give moneyed interests a weapon against reviewed journal articles that disagree with their preconceived notions of what labor should be happy to accept.

Sometimes I wonder if Cato and other rightwing think tanks even bother to do any research, since practically all of them say that MW utterly destroys the job market, raising unemployment. Austrian economists say the most amusing things, don't they!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-22 04:03pm

We see a bunch of spikes and sharp drops, with an overall trend of reduced unemployment. The teenage job market is always volatile, with so much turnover and other factors that make reliance on it as justification for anything questionab

Don't play ignorant; the graph I've shown shows a very clear correlation between teenage unemployment levels and the real minimum wage. Your figures measure unemployment over a much shorter term than mine. There's also this, which shows an even stronger statistical correlation between nonwhite unemployment levels and the real minimum wage.

Despite all that, no logical connection has been established. You have to show WHY minimum wage would screw over non whites.

More unemployment = less jobs, and whites are still given preferential treatment in hiring practices.

Austrian economists say the most amusing things, don't they!

No they don't; first of all, Cato isn't Austrian, second of all, Austrians argue that the minimum wage does more harm than good but they don't argue that the minimum wage utterly destroys the job market.

Speaking of objectivity, in any case, you're hardly one to talk given your use of EPI figures.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 04:39pm

Where are they pulling that data from?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-22 04:57pm

The unemployment rates are from the DoL; the adjustment of the minimum wage is done via the Consumer Price Index.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 05:17pm

Code: Select all

Series Id:           LNS14000015
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs., White
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 to 19 years
Race:                White


Year   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec   Annual
1980   14.2   13.9   14.0   14.4   16.4   16.9   16.7   17.0   15.3   16.1   16.3   15.1   
1981   16.7   17.2   16.8   16.7   17.1   17.5   16.4   16.1   17.5   17.5   19.0   18.8   
1982   19.7   20.0   19.1   20.4   19.8   20.0   20.8   20.6   20.7   21.1   21.3   21.5   
1983   20.5   20.1   21.1   20.4   19.8   20.3   19.3   19.7   18.0   18.1   17.2   16.8   
1984   16.4   16.5   17.1   16.3   16.0   15.8   15.1   16.2   16.3   15.7   15.0   15.9   
1985   15.9   15.2   15.4   14.9   15.8   16.0   16.4   15.6   15.0   16.9   15.2   16.0   
1986   15.0   16.0   15.0   16.1   15.7   16.3   15.4   15.6   15.7   15.3   15.9   15.0   
1987   15.1   15.3   15.6   14.6   14.9   14.2   13.2   13.8   14.1   14.7   14.1   13.5   
1988   13.9   12.8   14.5   13.9   12.7   12.3   12.6   13.4   13.6   13.1   11.8   12.8   
1989   14.1   12.5   11.8   12.4   12.5   12.9   12.3   12.4   12.4   12.6   13.1   13.3   
1990   13.1   13.3   12.6   13.2   12.9   11.9   12.8   14.2   14.5   14.5   14.5   14.8   
1991   16.4   14.9   15.8   15.7   16.9   16.6   17.4   16.3   16.0   16.7   17.0   18.0   
1992   16.4   17.5   18.2   16.0   16.8   19.9   17.7   17.1   17.5   15.6   17.5   16.6   
1993   16.6   16.7   16.4   16.3   16.7   16.7   15.9   16.2   15.3   17.1   15.9   15.2   
1994   16.0   15.7   15.7   17.1   15.2   14.8   14.6   14.8   15.0   14.6   13.1   14.5   
1995   13.8   14.6   13.8   14.7   14.7   13.7   14.8   14.0   14.7   14.9   15.4   15.5   
1996   15.4   14.5   14.6   14.6   14.5   13.7   14.6   14.0   13.1   13.5   14.2   13.9   
1997   14.2   14.7   14.1   13.5   13.1   14.3   15.1   13.9   13.9   13.1   12.0   10.8   
1998   11.8   12.3   13.0   11.8   12.6   13.4   12.1   12.6   12.5   13.5   12.5   12.3   
1999   13.2   11.9   12.1   12.2   11.6   12.4   11.4   11.2   12.3   11.7   11.6   12.0

Code: Select all

Series Id:           LNS14000006
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                Black or African American


Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1980	13.0	12.9	12.9	13.8	14.4	14.6	15.3	14.6	14.8	15.1	15.1	15.0	 
1981	14.6	14.7	15.1	14.7	14.8	15.7	15.0	16.3	15.9	16.7	16.8	17.2	 
1982	17.3	17.7	18.1	18.2	18.5	18.5	18.8	18.9	19.7	20.1	20.2	20.9	 
1983	21.2	19.9	20.1	20.4	20.3	20.7	19.4	19.7	18.8	18.2	17.5	17.8	 
1984	17.3	16.2	16.6	16.5	15.7	15.6	16.7	16.0	15.0	15.3	15.0	15.2	 
1985	15.2	15.8	15.1	15.1	15.2	14.4	15.2	14.3	15.2	15.0	15.6	15.0	 
1986	14.5	14.4	14.6	14.8	14.6	15.1	14.4	14.8	14.9	14.6	14.3	13.7	 
1987	14.0	13.8	13.8	12.9	13.6	12.9	12.9	12.6	12.6	12.3	12.1	12.1	 
1988	12.0	12.4	12.7	12.2	12.3	11.5	11.6	11.4	11.0	11.1	11.0	11.3	 
1989	11.8	11.9	11.1	11.1	11.2	11.7	11.0	11.1	11.7	11.7	11.7	11.6	 
1990	11.1	11.0	10.9	10.7	10.6	10.5	11.4	11.7	12.1	12.1	12.4	12.4	 
1991	11.9	12.2	12.5	12.7	12.8	12.5	11.9	12.4	12.3	13.3	12.5	12.9	 
1992	13.5	14.2	14.1	14.1	14.7	14.6	14.4	14.2	13.9	14.3	14.1	14.3	 
1993	14.1	13.5	13.7	14.0	13.1	13.4	12.7	12.3	12.5	11.8	12.6	11.7	 
1994	13.1	12.8	12.4	11.9	11.7	11.3	10.9	11.2	10.6	11.3	10.8	9.9	 
1995	10.3	10.1	9.7	10.7	10.0	10.7	10.9	11.1	11.1	10.0	9.7	10.2	 
1996	10.6	10.0	10.6	10.7	10.2	10.4	10.6	10.6	10.6	10.7	10.6	10.5	 
1997	10.8	10.7	10.5	10.2	10.3	10.8	9.5	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.5	10.0	 
1998	9.4	9.3	9.2	9.1	8.9	8.8	9.5	8.8	9.1	8.6	8.6	7.7	 
1999	7.7	8.2	8.0	7.8	7.4	7.7	8.7	7.8	8.6	8.4	8.0	7.8

Code: Select all

Series Id:           LNS14000018
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs., Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 to 19 years
Race:                Black or African American


Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1980	38.3	39.6	37.2	35.5	38.2	36.9	38.8	38.5	39.9	39.7	37.9	40.3	 
1981	40.7	39.4	40.5	40.6	36.6	41.0	39.0	47.3	39.7	45.8	43.6	41.7	 
1982	42.9	44.3	47.1	47.9	50.1	52.0	49.4	49.7	47.9	47.7	49.5	48.0	 
1983	46.4	46.4	44.2	48.8	48.4	52.0	48.2	52.1	51.4	49.4	47.1	47.4	 
1984	46.8	43.0	45.1	43.8	43.6	38.6	42.2	43.1	42.7	41.4	41.9	41.7	 
1985	41.0	42.0	39.8	38.2	39.1	39.6	41.3	36.9	39.9	41.2	42.3	42.2	 
1986	40.8	38.6	41.5	41.4	39.0	40.4	39.3	41.0	39.9	36.2	36.4	37.4	 
1987	38.3	37.2	36.3	37.6	36.8	34.4	33.5	29.7	31.3	34.2	33.9	34.2	 
1988	33.8	36.9	36.0	32.5	34.2	29.1	31.9	31.2	32.4	30.2	30.7	30.1	 
1989	34.5	32.7	31.5	33.0	32.7	35.1	28.0	30.2	37.3	33.0	31.6	29.8	 
1990	27.8	28.7	28.2	27.6	29.4	31.0	32.2	33.1	31.2	32.0	34.7	36.0	 
1991	36.9	35.8	38.2	36.2	32.2	32.8	34.7	38.5	38.2	39.0	34.9	36.7	 
1992	37.0	39.1	36.9	38.1	40.5	40.4	40.3	37.9	43.6	42.2	41.4	39.9	 
1993	40.5	39.5	43.2	44.6	37.8	40.1	35.0	32.4	38.1	36.2	41.2	37.6	 
1994	32.7	35.5	35.3	36.1	39.2	35.6	36.4	34.0	32.8	38.0	33.1	34.1	 
1995	35.0	35.7	32.2	36.5	36.5	37.9	38.4	39.7	36.8	33.9	30.6	34.7	 
1996	33.5	30.9	32.0	34.0	30.5	32.9	34.8	37.3	32.9	34.5	34.0	34.7	 
1997	33.9	32.0	31.0	33.0	34.6	35.0	30.9	29.9	31.5	28.7	32.3	35.9	 
1998	29.7	29.9	27.7	24.8	30.4	24.7	28.9	27.9	29.6	28.7	28.0	21.9	 
1999	29.2	28.1	29.8	26.7	25.4	26.1	27.1	27.2	32.1	31.4	29.1	23.8

So you have a point about the increases during 80-81 and 90-91, but 96-97 still show improvements for the three groups, less so for black teenagers. Your source would have made a stronger case if it had included data from 80 and 81.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-22 07:36pm

Why does it have to be one minimum wage? Wouldn't a "living wage" be better- dispose of minimum wage for teenagers, and give more to the people who need them?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-10-22 09:16pm

"Living wage" is a codeword for more government intervention in the economy. What is it, who sets it, and how it's enforced, is the devil in the details. Do dishwashers working in Beverly Hills get paid more than bank teller in Podunk Iowa? They would have to, basing the formula on cost of living in the area. Given the level of training and trust each job takes, that seems ludicous.
Like "Economic justice," you will find the term to be a political one, pretending to be an economic one. Notice how nice and unobjectionable it sounds. Living wage. It's very coinage implies a "Non living wage."
You're not against a wage you can live on, are you? (Yes, if it's a fast food place! Entry level jobs shouldn't be carrers!)
Being against this poltical point implies you are for people not getting paid enough to live on. You heartless bastard!
Economic justice. (Implies economic INjustice)
You're not against justice, are you? Again, implying being against a poltical opinion is unjust! Proof capitalism is unjust!

Beware of political terms masquerading as scientific or economic ones.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 09:25pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:"Living wage" is a codeword for more government intervention in the economy. What is it, who sets it, and how it's enforced, is the devil in the details. Do dishwashers working in Beverly Hills get paid more than bank teller in Podunk Iowa? They would have to, basing the formula on cost of living in the area. Given the level of training and trust each job takes, that seems ludicous.
Like "Economic justice," you will find the term to be a political one, pretending to be an economic one. Notice how nice and unobjectionable it sounds. Living wage. It's very coinage implies a "Non living wage."
You're not against a wage you can live on, are you? (Yes, if it's a fast food place! Entry level jobs shouldn't be carrers!)
Being against this poltical point implies you are for people not getting paid enough to live on. You heartless bastard!
Economic justice. (Implies economic INjustice)
You're not against justice, are you? Again, implying being against a poltical opinion is unjust! Proof capitalism is unjust!

Beware of political terms masquerading as scientific or economic ones.

I understand what you're saying about "living wage", but what about "Free market"? Any term can be a front for something else entirely, sinister or not.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-10-22 10:21pm

The term "Free market" is precisly the same thing. *DING* Hamel wins a cookie!

You're not against freedom, are you?

(It's for the children, you know)

The market has NEVER been free. Before there was even money, there was taxes, tariffs, and regulation.
Some terms can't be compromised, like income, debt, and broke.
Minimum wage, is a description, not a value judgement. Stick with economic terms more than 50 years old.
It is only when moral and legal terms are combined, that the terms come to be propaganda by implication, not description of function.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-10-22 10:23pm

I see they have a Bill Clinton,probably come with a slutty intern under a desk.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-10-23 11:46pm

Ann Coutler's real skill, like most TV talk pundits, is recognizing the patent absurdity of the American political system and capitalizing on it to make valuable cash-money. I can't say I don't admire her tremendously for that, in a cynical, fatalistic sort of humor.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-10-24 07:37am

Wicked Pilot wrote:In the case of the Ann Coulter doll, they'd probably acheive more sales if they offered a life sized inflatable model complete with a mute button.

Good call.

In the mean time maybe you can get an Air Force GI Joe and he can take the talking Ann Coulter doll for a ride.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-24 11:42am

Tsyroc wrote: In the mean time maybe you can get an Air Force GI Joe and he can take the talking Ann Coulter doll for a ride.

The scary thing is that such a situation probably would be quite possible in Real Life (TM)....