more sanctions

Strange behavior for somebody who owes Putin favors. Maybe he is just trying to be less flexible.

Come on, somebody has to explain how these latest sanctions fit into the narrative of Trump being Putin's toady in return for Putin publishing the truth about the DNC.

For months, it was alleged that lack of sanctions proved the collusion. Now silence?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/rus...li=BBnb7Kz

(03-30-2018 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

It is just my personal opinion, that you show little divergence from the official stances of the DNC.

So what is your opinion on Hillary's latest tirade? Talk about thin skinned.

Interesting. I’d actually consider myself more on the Bernie wing philosophically. But I’ve generally found the Bernie people to be way too ideological and lacking in pragmatism/understanding that politics is about compromise and coalitions.

But in general elections and in opposition, it’s a lot easier to present a unified front, so I probably in practice haven’t varied much from the DNC. (It was a lot easier for Rs to agree on “Repeal and Replace” prior to actually having to come up with the replacement.) The DNC has moved left a bit since the election anyway.

Anyway, I’m finding it almost impossible to keep up these days. There are probably half a dozen points in this thread I meant to respond to, but since my last post, I think at least another half dozen things have come up. And now we have a Syria crisis just as the nutjob Bolton takes over.

(04-09-2018 08:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

It is just my personal opinion, that you show little divergence from the official stances of the DNC.

So what is your opinion on Hillary's latest tirade? Talk about thin skinned.

Interesting. I’d actually consider myself more on the Bernie wing philosophically. But I’ve generally found the Bernie people to be way too ideological and lacking in pragmatism/understanding that politics is about compromise and coalitions.

But in general elections and in opposition, it’s a lot easier to present a unified front, so I probably in practice haven’t varied much from the DNC. (It was a lot easier for Rs to agree on “Repeal and Replace” prior to actually having to come up with the replacement.) The DNC has moved left a bit since the election anyway.

Anyway, I’m finding it almost impossible to keep up these days. There are probably half a dozen points in this thread I meant to respond to, but since my last post, I think at least another half dozen things have come up. And now we have a Syria crisis just as the nutjob Bolton takes over.

There has been a Syria crisis since the infamous 'dont cross the red line', wait, maybe the 'dont cross the *other* red line' days, mind you.

(04-09-2018 08:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

It is just my personal opinion, that you show little divergence from the official stances of the DNC.

So what is your opinion on Hillary's latest tirade? Talk about thin skinned.

Interesting. I’d actually consider myself more on the Bernie wing philosophically. But I’ve generally found the Bernie people to be way too ideological and lacking in pragmatism/understanding that politics is about compromise and coalitions.

But in general elections and in opposition, it’s a lot easier to present a unified front, so I probably in practice haven’t varied much from the DNC. (It was a lot easier for Rs to agree on “Repeal and Replace” prior to actually having to come up with the replacement.) The DNC has moved left a bit since the election anyway.

Anyway, I’m finding it almost impossible to keep up these days. There are probably half a dozen points in this thread I meant to respond to, but since my last post, I think at least another half dozen things have come up. And now we have a Syria crisis just as the nutjob Bolton takes over.

"... in opposition, it’s a lot easier to present a unified front..."

Does that mean you support obstructionism?

You did not respond to the question about Hillary. She basically said the smart people voted for her and the rest didn't. Also, that married white women had to vote as their husbands tell them. You may not have heard the statement on CNN.

It is that way of viewing the opposition that caused such a groundswell of anger at the "deplorables" statement, which is what I think gave the election to Trump. A lot of people wanted this or that that Trump promised them, but a lot were just tired of being looked down on and demeaned by the power people in your party. Hillary wasn't the first or the last to slip up and let their true feelings be known.

On Bolton, I share your apprehension, but it is is time to try something new with NK, and yes, Russia. I hope a stronger position will yield better results. It seems you think continuing a weak position will produce different results.

My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich. Glad to hear that you, at least, were able to discern a lack of pragmatism in Bernie.

Speaking of deplorables, it brought to mind this incident:

In Las Vegas, summer of '16, I saw a man with a homemade teeshirt.

On the back, it said:

VETERAN

UNION MEMBER

CHRISTIAN

DEPLORABLE

He was a coal miner from Wyoming. I am guessing Wyoming is not one of the places with intelligent people in Hillary's mind.

The left needs to stop thinking we don't notice when they spit on us.

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

(04-09-2018 09:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Anyway, I’m finding it almost impossible to keep up these days. There are probably half a dozen points in this thread I meant to respond to, but since my last post, I think at least another half dozen things have come up. And now we have a Syria crisis just as the nutjob Bolton takes over.

There has been a Syria crisis since the infamous 'dont cross the red line', wait, maybe the 'dont cross the *other* red line' days, mind you.

Syria is today's Balkan Peninsula: to adapt Churchill's memorable phrasing, it produces more crises than it can consume.

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW. Same applies to the other liberal MW djinn dressed up as the pretty moniker 'living wage'.

(04-09-2018 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW.

This hits on my point - which situation is better? Speeding up the inevitable so that we are actually forced to tackle the automation issue head on. Or slowing that down and keeping jobs around that don't allow people who are willing to work the ability to earn a living wage?

You really didn't touch on that question, at all. Instead, you just provided a snide response describing one outcome of raising the MW, without any commentary on the question that I posed.

Do you not think the current system we have, which does not reward people who are willing to provide utility to society with a livable wage, is not broken in its current state? Why or why not?

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

Lad -- hate to tell you but the vast majority of MW jobs are designed to be entry level; i.e. designed to provide a training ground into the workforce. a teaching of basic job performance skill, and *not* to be a long term solution for anybody. Ask any HR professional....

But interestingly the MW (and living wage) is in the process of destroying those 'trainer jobs' en masse. Funny that...

(04-09-2018 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW.

This hits on my point - which situation is better? Speeding up the inevitable so that we are actually forced to tackle the automation issue head on. Or slowing that down and keeping jobs around that don't allow people who are willing to work the ability to earn a living wage?

You really didn't touch on that question, at all. Instead, you just provided a snide response describing one outcome of raising the MW, without any commentary on the question that I posed.

Do you not think the current system we have, which does not reward people who are willing to provide utility to society with a livable wage, is not broken in its current state? Why or why not?

Not just one outcome -- *the* outcome mind you. If you want to be a Luddite vis a vis job issues, so be it; I am not the one to change your mind.

The fundamental principle of free market capitalism is creative destruction. It is *not* to ensure that everyone has a 'living wage'.

And btw, not a *snide* response, simply one based on reality. And one based on 35 years in the workforce Lad. So cut with the implied ad-homs there, Lad, but that comment is not unfamiliar since most who adduce support or vocalize paeans to the concept of a living wage typically find that real-world set of vignettes 'snide' (or worse).

The solution, imo 'snide' opinion, rests not with social engineering like so many prog and liberal solutions seemingly gravitate to. The issue is a ****** up education system. My solution, but to be given salt as it is probably 'snide', is to pay more attention to education and emphasize that within a construct not unlike the Germans apply to both education *and* employment.

(04-09-2018 12:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

Lad -- hate to tell you but the vast majority of MW jobs are designed to be entry level; i.e. designed to provide a training ground into the workforce. a teaching of basic job performance skill, and *not* to be a long term solution for anybody. Ask any HR professional....

But interestingly the MW (and living wage) is in the process of destroying those 'trainer jobs' en masse. Funny that...

Tanq, I really wish you didn't always respond with such a d*ckish tone, it's really unfortunate.

In a perfect world you are right about MW jobs and the role they should fill, but for numerous reasons, that is not the case. Reasons ranging from the mental capacity of individuals to ascend up the corporate ladder (some people will never have the mental capacity to do anything more than be a janitor, does that mean that they should be stuck in abject poverty?), to the number of jobs available above entry level in an industry (those are inherently somewhat-finite, unless we have a mandatory retirement age at wish we forcibly push an aging work force out of employment), to the sheer number of non-MW jobs available (even at nearly full employment there are not enough non-MW jobs available for all who would like them).

But regardless of the reality of the number of non-MW jobs available, why should the fact that a position is meant to be a training-level position dictate that someone should be paid at a rate that puts them below the poverty line? Shouldn't we value labor and effort and make sure that those who are willing to work, regardless of the job, can be paid in a way where they aren't stuck in poverty? Employers, when they hire people for these MW jobs, do not guarantee that they will promote the employees to higher positions, should they learn the skills necessary to do the work. And with MWs that keep someone in poverty, they may not have the time and resources to search out a job with better prospects for promotion.

I really just value someone's willingness to work and put forth some effort, and I think we must make sure that it is compensated. And since costs of living have increased while wages haven't, something needs to change.

Trust me Lad, I got it. You are an ardent supporter of a living wage and MW. Trust me I completely understand that.

I just think it stupid to have a government tell anyone what the nominal 'value' they have to any venture; the value of compensation should be tied to the fungibility of the position and the 'value' of that position to the enterprise.

But I would hazard a guess that is a huge difference between myself and many progressives/liberals.

As for being a "dick", sorry that you find the real world that way. I fail to see where me describing MW jobs are 'entry level' is being a 'dick'. But since you labled my first real-world observation as 'snide', I guess I shouldnt be surprised.

If you want to discuss facts, and policies, feel free to do so. I am not the one labeling another individual as you are, even though there could be plenty of ammo. I take it you dont like the observation that the MW is speeding up wealth transfer -- sorry that seems to get your hackles up. But it is a real side effect -- you labeling me a 'dick' or 'snide' doesnt change that in the slightest, I hope you recognize.

And actually you and I agree that people should be 'compensated' for their work. I dont think I am arguing for servitude here. The issue at the forefront is 'how much do we value and compensate', and, more importantly, '*who* makes that decision'. You ostensibly think that *anyone* should have a living wage, not considering in the slightest the value being provided. Got it. And you think the *best* process to make that determination is the wonderfully beneficent largess of the government action through MW and living wage. Again, got it.

And if you dont believe that the freshmen level discourse on economic inefficiencies and their costs *doesnt* apply to the labor market, please feel free to cite the sources that run counter to that. I'll be glad to consider them, and if convinced, then I wont bring it up anymore. Fair? I seem to remember us having this conversation once before, or so. But if you want to take up a paean to living wage with nothing more to back it up than 'it makes you feel good', then expect some pushback. Or, will you label that pushback as 'snide' or 'dickish' as you are seemingly wont to do with me today?

I have tossed out the German education and employment protocols as one I would like to see. It provides for a minimization of the items you cite and *that* leaves the market as the arbiter of the issues, to a great degree. I very much look forward to your proffer. or is that previous proffer of mine fall into the snide and dickish category as well?

(Edited to remove a truly snide and dickish comment out.)

(04-09-2018 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW.

This hits on my point - which situation is better? Speeding up the inevitable so that we are actually forced to tackle the automation issue head on. Or slowing that down and keeping jobs around that don't allow people who are willing to work the ability to earn a living wage?

You really didn't touch on that question, at all. Instead, you just provided a snide response describing one outcome of raising the MW, without any commentary on the question that I posed.

Do you not think the current system we have, which does not reward people who are willing to provide utility to society with a livable wage, is not broken in its current state? Why or why not?

Not just one outcome -- *the* outcome mind you. If you want to be a Luddite vis a vis job issues, so be it; I am not the one to change your mind.

The fundamental principle of free market capitalism is creative destruction. It is *not* to ensure that everyone has a 'living wage'.

And btw, not a *snide* response, simply one based on reality. And one based on 35 years in the workforce Lad. So cut with the implied ad-homs there, Lad, but that comment is not unfamiliar since most who adduce support or vocalize paeans to the concept of a living wage typically find that real-world set of vignettes 'snide' (or worse).

The solution, imo 'snide' opinion, rests not with social engineering like so many prog and liberal solutions seemingly gravitate to. The issue is a ****** up education system. My solution, but to be given salt as it is probably 'snide', is to pay more attention to education and emphasize that within a construct not unlike the Germans apply to both education *and* employment.

Perhaps you should reread your post with respect to the tone you used if you don't think you were being snide.i ..

At least by the last paragraph you started to discuss the issue at hand - which is how to address the problem's we're facing. As you stated above it, you're right that free market capitalism's job is not to ensure everyone has a living wage - when did I suggest it wasn't? I'm saying that SOCIETY'S responsibility is to do such - and laws can policy can help dictate that society takes care of that issue so that those who are willing to work are compensated as such.

Can you expand a bit more on how you see the use of the German system (with a very robust apprenticeship system) will address the issue of law-wage jobs providing a decent standard of living? Germany has a higher MW than the US, and they believe that the increase in the MW in 2015 has lead to a lot of benefits (https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/07/m.../533568/). I don't know about other benefits, but I imagine they have programs in place that help with housing as well (I'm basing that off my experience with the Dutch).

I agree that moving towards a German style of education would be good for the workforce overall (I believe Georgia is actively expanding a program like this), but I don't see how it addresses the MW issue.

(04-09-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Trust me Lad, I got it. You are an ardent supporter of a living wage and MW. Trust me I completely understand that.

I just think it stupid to have a government tell anyone what the nominal 'value' they have to any venture; the value of compensation should be tied to the fungibility of the position and the 'value' of that position to the enterprise.

But I would hazard a guess that is a huge difference between myself and many progressives/liberals.

As for being a "dick", sorry that you find the real world that way. I fail to see where me describing MW jobs are 'entry level' is being a 'dick'. But since you labled my first real-world observation as 'snide', I guess I shouldnt be surprised.

If you want to discuss facts, and policies, feel free to do so. I am not the one labeling another individual as you are, even though there could be plenty of ammo. I take it you dont like the observation that the MW is speeding up wealth transfer -- sorry that seems to get your hackles up. But it is a real side effect -- you labeling me a 'dick' or 'snide' doesnt change that in the slightest, I hope you recognize.

You're misunderstanding my comments about your tone with your opinions. I did not mean to imply your opinions made me think you were being a dick or snide - it was all about how you wrote your responses to me and the language and tone you chose to use.

(04-09-2018 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW.

This hits on my point - which situation is better? Speeding up the inevitable so that we are actually forced to tackle the automation issue head on. Or slowing that down and keeping jobs around that don't allow people who are willing to work the ability to earn a living wage?

You really didn't touch on that question, at all. Instead, you just provided a snide response describing one outcome of raising the MW, without any commentary on the question that I posed.

Do you not think the current system we have, which does not reward people who are willing to provide utility to society with a livable wage, is not broken in its current state? Why or why not?

Not just one outcome -- *the* outcome mind you. If you want to be a Luddite vis a vis job issues, so be it; I am not the one to change your mind.

The fundamental principle of free market capitalism is creative destruction. It is *not* to ensure that everyone has a 'living wage'.

And btw, not a *snide* response, simply one based on reality. And one based on 35 years in the workforce Lad. So cut with the implied ad-homs there, Lad, but that comment is not unfamiliar since most who adduce support or vocalize paeans to the concept of a living wage typically find that real-world set of vignettes 'snide' (or worse).

The solution, imo 'snide' opinion, rests not with social engineering like so many prog and liberal solutions seemingly gravitate to. The issue is a ****** up education system. My solution, but to be given salt as it is probably 'snide', is to pay more attention to education and emphasize that within a construct not unlike the Germans apply to both education *and* employment.

Perhaps you should reread your post with respect to the tone you used if you don't think you were being snide.i ..

At least by the last paragraph you started to discuss the issue at hand - which is how to address the problem's we're facing. As you stated above it, you're right that free market capitalism's job is not to ensure everyone has a living wage - when did I suggest it wasn't? I'm saying that SOCIETY'S responsibility is to do such - and laws can policy can help dictate that society takes care of that issue so that those who are willing to work are compensated as such.

Can you expand a bit more on how you see the use of the German system (with a very robust apprenticeship system) will address the issue of law-wage jobs providing a decent standard of living? Germany has a higher MW than the US, and they believe that the increase in the MW in 2015 has lead to a lot of benefits (https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/07/m.../533568/). I don't know about other benefits, but I imagine they have programs in place that help with housing as well (I'm basing that off my experience with the Dutch).

I agree that moving towards a German style of education would be good for the workforce overall (I believe Georgia is actively expanding a program like this), but I don't see how it addresses the MW issue.

Robust apprenticeship provides a massive skill base. You have the skills in place there is no (or very little) need for MW. The vast majority of the German populace is in no way, shape, or form impacted by MW laws. The German paradigm creates a system that is much more a self-correcting economic system; you are compensated for the skills you bring to the table.

The German education and jobs paradigm actually brings my view of the MW far more into focus since it elevates most Germans into the forum of dealing in the free marketplace and letting that marketplace be the arbiter of the their value. Less dickish and less snide enough for you?

Btw since you called my outcome post 'snide', perhaps you would engage us in what the otehr outcomes of increased MW and living wage laws are? Since my outcome was 'snide', please enlighten us on how you see the effects and results of increased MW and living wages? Or do you think that my comment on increased MW increases the rate of entry job destruction is incorrect (or perhaps 'snide' because of its incorrectness)?

And, tbh, I consider most MW regimes to be stupid. They are at best ineffectual economically. At worst they do precisely what we see happening en masse right now. At the *very* worst they do the previous sentence *and* invite the government to state what is 'fair'. But, to each their own, and I am sure there are a whole plethora of people who not only look on the last point without concern, but it is seemingly very inviting to their outlook.

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

Actually, that was was then. Now, he is working for a plumbing and looking to become one.

Lad, the reason not to make MW a "living wage" is that you do not want to encourage people to stay permanently on the bottom rung of the ladder - the entry level.

It's like raising the pay of PFCs to encourage them not to try for promotions to Cpl or Sgt.

I agree that we want to honor the effort of people to work and contribute honestly rather than sink into crime or welfare. How to do that without stifling their ambition to be something better is the question.

In the case of illegal immigrants, wit is always cited that they "just want a better life for their family". Well, the way for MW workers to do that is to get out there and find better work, or self-employment opportunities. or something, to get off the bottom rung.

My grandson might still be shoving burgers across a counter if the $15 MW had passed.

Entry level is not the same as survival level.