CSNbbs

Full Version: Democrat policies
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.

housing
(04-17-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.
housing

But, but, but the unintended effects don't matter, as long as their hearts were in the right place.
(04-17-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.

housing

Does any politician anywhere do otherwise?
(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)Old Sammy Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-17-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.

housing

Does any politician anywhere do otherwise?

Don’t you know, on this board the Republican Party is the true party of America and freedom and intelligence and all things good in the world!
(04-20-2019 05:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)Old Sammy Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-17-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.

housing

Does any politician anywhere do otherwise?

Don’t you know, on this board the Republican Party is the true party of America and freedom and intelligence and all things good in the world!

Yes!!! Finally, your eyes are open.

Seriously, the party of AOC and Maxine Waters is criticizing the GOP as not being the party of intelligence? The party that thinks a shout out to keep looking for emails is secret instructions? Heck, I give secret instructions that way to all sorts of people and teams through my TV. Go Duke, beat VaTech. That's an order.
(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)Old Sammy Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-17-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But rarely do the Dems look beyond the primary effects to the secondary and tertiary effects.

housing

Does any politician anywhere do otherwise?

Well, I think we have to the edge to the ones who ask "How will we pay for that?" the most often.

The GND comes to mind.

You still a Biden guy?
Figured this was a best place to add this, apart from the generic "Trump Administration" thread.

For those who continuously talk about the double good great effects of a $15 national minimum wage:

CBO report on minimum wage effects

In short
Quote: But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.

What is left out is the geographic disparity --- much as California utterly ignored the disparate effects on inland and rural far north California to the 15/hr wage to the effect on the coastal regions.

But, why not 'rule' with a broad brush.....
(07-09-2019 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Figured this was a best place to add this, apart from the generic "Trump Administration" thread.

For those who continuously talk about the double good great effects of a $15 national minimum wage:

CBO report on minimum wage effects

In short
Quote: But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.

What is left out is the geographic disparity --- much as California utterly ignored the disparate effects on inland and rural far north California to the 15/hr wage to the effect on the coastal regions.

But, why not 'rule' with a broad brush.....

If the intent is to give every worker a "living wage', why not raise the MW to $100/hour? That way everybody will be upper middle class and have plenty of money to spend. Of course, some businesses may go broke if not allowed to raise their prices...but who cares? Damn greedy capitalists.
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Answer my question.
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

In distinction to your obvious choice of links, I dont consider flushing 1.3 million jobs down the toilet to be a 'grasp at straws'.

You are seemingly okay with that. Got it.

But, I wonder why I even bother to respond to the whack a mole.
(07-10-2019 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Answer my question.

I dont think AtEase is really capable of anything beyond the 'single biased' link method of discourse. I dont know why you bother, nor why I responded previously.
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Thanks for posting. Interesting that the jobs lost are primarily teenagers and part-time workers. A lot less of a problem, IMO, than 1.3 million full-time adult earners losing their jobs. Big difference in those categories.
(07-10-2019 01:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Thanks for posting. Interesting that the jobs lost are primarily teenagers and part-time workers. A lot less of a problem, IMO, than 1.3 million full-time adult earners losing their jobs. Big difference in those categories.

On the other hand, they are still people, and there may be a certain elitism in presuming that teenage and part-time jobs are more disposable to society, or less important to the job holders. Just as a home of any kind is almost always better for the individual and for society than homelessness, so to is a job almost always better than joblessness — perhaps especially for people whose participation in the labor force at all is most precarious.

I don’t know what the ideal balance is, but I know that no one else can reasonably claim to know for sure either, which is why the adamancy so frequently seen on this topic is hard to credit. Then again, non-adamancy is not what most people want to hear.
(07-10-2019 01:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Thanks for posting. Interesting that the jobs lost are primarily teenagers and part-time workers. A lot less of a problem, IMO, than 1.3 million full-time adult earners losing their jobs. Big difference in those categories.

True, there is a difference. But full time adult earners should not be working MW jobs, Especially not if they are trying to support a family of four and put kids through college.

If that is what you are trying do, either find a better job or learn a new skill. That's what I did 50+ years ago. On my eldest son's birth certificate, my occupation is listed as "parking garage cashier". I made minimum wage and worked 20 hours a week. The rest of the time I was a full time Rice student. I wanted to move up the employment chain, not make a living as a parking garage attendant. One's ambition should not be to slide burgers across a counter for 45 years, then retire.

Let the kids have their first jobs, learn how to work and how to manage their money. And then move on to bigger things.

As for the part time workers, they are usually people working to supplement family income. Often the reason they are part time is because they are full time somewhere else. The loss of their income will be deeply felt by their family. They are not people who are working to pass the time That is what volunteering at the hospital and library is for.

1.3 million jobs, youth and part time, and yes, full time, are nothing to sneeze at.

If $15/hr. is good, wouldn't $20/hr. be better? $25? $50? $100? $200? Why stop at $15? I asked AtEase to answer, now I ask you.

One thing $15/hr will do, it will attract more illegals from the south. Maybe this is one of those things leftists favor just before they claim to not want open borders.
Is it my imagination, or is there a seriously jolly food fight happening on the left side of the aisle? Pelosi and AOC seem to be at the forefront of this.
The article is so-so, but the title put a pool of ice coffee onto my keyboard;

Scaling Wokeback Mountain
I wonder if any Democratic caucus will ever serve Oreo cookies at a meal meeting.......
(07-14-2019 04:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if any Democratic caucus will ever serve Oreo cookies at a meal meeting.......

Qd.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's