Bernie Sanders blasts Trump during Iowa speech: ‘I apologize. We left the helicopter

[TrueBlue]

Bernie Sanders blasts Trump during Iowa speech: ‘I apologize. We left the helicopter at home’
By Bethania Palma Markus

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-bashes-trump-during-iowa-speech-i-apologize-we-left-the-helicopter-at-home/

“We’ve got to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, $15 an hour,” he said."


"Sanders also said he supports a national health care plan by way of expanding Medicare to all."


"He also called the campaign system “corrupt” and vowed that, if elected, his Supreme Court nominee would have to promise to overturn Citizens United, a ruling that allowed unlimited amounts of money to be poured into elections."


====================================
Sanders is on the ball and in front of Trump's face on these issues. Wonder what Trump will reply? Sanders has some truly great proposals! Thanks to Raw Story for this report.

[Boris The Animal]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!

[texan]

Unlike you I actually saw him say this on a Sunday show and you are telling me he "blasted" Trump?

LOL!!!!!!!!

Stick to gay issues.

[TrueBlue]

Unlike you I actually saw him say this on a Sunday show and you are telling me he "blasted" Trump?

LOL!!!!!!!!

Stick to gay issues.
Seems like Bernie is sticking to Gay issues a lot more than I am these days.

From Raw Story:

"He attacked Republicans for their efforts to take reproductive options away from women and block LGBT rights."

KUDOS to Sanders on the LGBT issue!! :)

[Ethereal]

We’ve got to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, $15 an hour...

That's a great way to make everyone whose labor is worth less than $15 an hour unemployable.

[TrueBlue]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!
Rightist dummy, Keep On Kissing Conservative Butt and see how far that'll get you when you're down and out of money and luck! http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/yahoo/21.gif

[TrueBlue]

That's a great way to make everyone whose labor is worth less than $15 an hour unemployable.
Actually, just the opposite would occur. They would all be getting $15.00/hr. if Senator Sanders becomes president!

[Ethereal]

Actually, just the opposite would occur. They would all be getting $15.00/hr. if Senator Sanders becomes president!

In other words, you don't understand basic economics. Allow me to educate you about the effect of a government-mandated price floor like the minimum wage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg/400px-Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg.png

In the case of labor, that surplus is unemployed people. Again, this is not really up for debate. It's basic supply and demand. The only place where it doesn't apply is in the fantasy world where firms are willing to hire people at a financial loss.

[TrueBlue]

In other words, you don't understand basic economics. Allow me to educate you about the effect of a government-mandated price floor like the minimum wage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg/400px-Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg.png

In the case of labor, that surplus is unemployed people. Again, this is not really up for debate. It's basic supply and demand. The only place where it doesn't apply is in the fantasy world where firms are willing to hire people at a financial loss.
Actually, the Democratic Presidential Candidates, the hard-working American people, and I understand it quite well unlike you right-wingers. Your miserly stance will get you no votes in 2016 from working people now on minimum wage who want the higher wage like yesterday.

[Ethereal]

Actually, the Democratic Presidential Candidates, the hard-working American people, and I understand it quite well unlike you right-wingers. Your miserly stance will get you no votes in 2016 from working people now on minimum wage who want the higher wage like yesterday.

I'm not trying to get votes, and I'm not talking about "right-wing" anything. I'm simply conveying basic economics to someone who clearly doesn't understand how supply and demand works. All you're going to accomplish by raising the minimum wage is increasing unemployment among low-skilled workers and no amount of partisan rhetoric will change economic reality.

[Ethereal]

I'm just wondering when basic economics became "right-wing"...

[Ethereal]

If a low-skilled laborer is applying for a job at a firm, and his labor will produce added revenue of $10 an hour, but the minimum wage is $15 an hour, what firm will hire that laborer when they're losing $5 an hour simply by hiring him or her? I may be mistaken, but Democrats can still do basic arithmetic, can't they?

[TrueBlue]

I'm just wondering when basic economics became "right-wing"...
When they become misers and refuse to give to workers what they rightfully deserve to receive.

[Ethereal]

When they become misers and refuse to give to workers what they rightfully deserve to receive.

So someone is a "miser" because they don't want to hire someone who is going to lose them money?

[TrueBlue]

I'm not trying to get votes, and I'm not talking about "right-wing" anything. I'm simply conveying basic economics to someone who clearly doesn't understand how supply and demand works. All you're going to accomplish by raising the minimum wage is increasing unemployment among low-skilled workers and no amount of partisan rhetoric will change economic reality.
E, I sincerely invite you to confront Senator Sanders with your rhetoric and tell him that and see what kind of response you get.

[TrueBlue]

So someone is a "miser" because they don't want to hire someone who is going to lose them money?
If that's how they think they obviously do not deserve any hard-working people to go work for them. They need to wake-up and smell the coffee already in that minimum wage as it stands today is just not paying the bills anymore. They need to get with it and raise the minimum wage as Senator Sanders is proposing. Believe me, he's studied this issue well and knows exactly what he's talking about!

[Dr. Who]

This is admittedly anecdotal, but I have a friend who works for a holding company that links two disparate legal firms. One legal firm pays employees appropriately and the other does not. The one that does gets all of the work and then some from their support staff and the other has a hard time getting an honest day's work from any of their support staff.

[Ethereal]

E, I sincerely invite you to confront Senator Sanders with your rhetoric and tell him that and see what kind of response you get.

Well, I'm confronting you with it, and your response has been basically what I expected. Denial and deflection.

But if you can get Sanders to come to the forum and address the known problems of price floors, I'd be happy to discuss it with him.

[Ethereal]

If that's how they think they obviously do not deserve any hard-working people to go work for them. They need to wake-up and smell the coffee already in that minimum wage as it stands today is just not paying the bills anymore. They need to get with it and raise the minimum wage as Senator Sanders is proposing. Believe me, he's studied this issue well and knows exactly what he's talking about!

Why wouldn't they think like that? Who goes into business to lose money? Is that the Democrat business philosophy these days?

[TrueBlue]

This is admittedly anecdotal, but I have a friend who works for a holding company that links two disparate legal firms. One legal firm pays employees appropriately and the other does not. The one that does gets all of the work and then some from their support staff and the other has a hard time getting an honest day's work from any of their support staff.
Exactly! But try to instill that thought in a Conservative's hard miserly head and it would literally explode before they even thought it through as to how they could obtain great workers that would translate into a more successful business for the employer if employees got paid well for their work.

[Ethereal]

This is admittedly anecdotal, but I have a friend who works for a holding company that links two disparate legal firms. One legal firm pays employees appropriately and the other does not. The one that does gets all of the work and then some from their support staff and the other has a hard time getting an honest day's work from any of their support staff.

And...?

[TrueBlue]

Well, I'm confronting you with it, and your response has been basically what I expected. Denial and deflection.

But if you can get Sanders to come to the forum and address the known problems of price floors, I'd be happy to discuss it with him.
And if you read my responses, along with Dr. Who's you would understand, not that your capable of it though.

[Ethereal]

Exactly! But try to instill that thought in a Conservative's hard miserly head and it would literally explode before they even thought it through as to how they could obtain great workers that would translate into a more successful business for the employer if employees got paid well for their work.

You do realize that just because someone doesn't agree with Democrats on the minimum, it doesn't automatically make them a Republican or conservative right? Sometimes, they are just people who understand basic economics.

[Ethereal]

And if you read my responses, along with Dr. Who's you would understand, not that your capable of it though.

How do your responses change the fundamentals of supply and demand? I'm not seeing it.

[TrueBlue]

Why wouldn't they think like that? Who goes into business to lose money? Is that the Democrat business philosophy these days?
Listen, the more an employer pays their employees the more those employees are going to shoot that money right back into the economy. That's how it works. Think about it!

[TrueBlue]

How do your responses change the fundamentals of supply and demand? I'm not seeing it.
That's because there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!

[Ethereal]

Listen, the more an employer pays their employees the more those employees are going to shoot that money right back into the economy. That's how it works. Think about it!

So then we should make the minimum wage $100 an hour. After all, all that money will just go right back into the economy.

[Ethereal]

That's because there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!

Again, I'm just talking about basic economics. So unless you have some profound new revelation that disproves the fundamentals of supply and demand, I'm not sure how you justify your position.

[TrueBlue]

So then we should make the minimum wage $100 an hour. After all, all that money will just go right back into the economy.
No, I didn't say that. But Senator Sanders and many others, including myself, feel that $15.00 an hour is quite reasonable in order to meet the cost of living these days that is quite high by most standards.

[Ethereal]

I guess the Democrat philosophy of economics and business is that supply and demand are "right wing" plots and that people go into business in order to lose money. I wonder what kind of intellectual powerhouse that sort of campaign rhetoric would appeal to.

[Ethereal]

No, I didn't say that.

Why not? If a $15 an hour minimum wage is good, then a $100 an hour minimum wage is even better, right? The employees will work that much harder and all the money will just get fed right back into the economy.


But Senator Sanders and many others, including myself, feel that $15.00 an hour is quite reasonable in order to meet the cost of living these days.

Yes, and that is pretty much what your economic ideology is based on, feelings. That much is obvious.

[Dr. Who]

And...?
You get what you pay for. That's the bottom line. People who are underpaid are very likely to give as much of their labor as they think they are being paid for and spend the rest of the time making excuses for their inability to meet the threshold. Firm one that pays decently for their staff, has little staff turnover - firm two is constantly replacing staff and has constant problems with sick days off and staff sneaking out early and taking long lunch hours. Of course these are legal firms where there is rarely a position dedicated to staff oversight and lawyers are often out of the office.

[TrueBlue]

I guess the Democrat philosophy of economics and business is that supply and demand are "right wing" plots and that people go into business in order to lose money. I wonder what kind of intellectual powerhouse that sort of campaign rhetoric would appeal to.
Democrats think about the needs of the people and a fair wage for their hard work. They want the best for hard-working Americans unlike Republicans who could give a rat's ass about giving them a fair wage. Therein lies the difference. And if you consider that there has not been a cost of living increase for the American worker in years you should then also realize that it is high time they got one and $15.00/hr. is most fair and not unreasonable under the circumstances. You can't expect to continue to pay people the low wages of a charwoman who probably makes even more than minimum wage right now.

[Dr. Who]

Exactly! But try to instill that thought in a Conservative's hard miserly head and it would literally explode before they even thought it through as to how they could obtain great workers that would translate into a more successful business for the employer if employees got paid well for their work.
I don't know if it is a conservative point of view or a cheapskate's point of view, but at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. So this notion of underpaying people for their work does not add value if you factor in the work avoidance that occurs when people take jobs out of desperation that don't pay what they are worth.

[Ethereal]

You get what you pay for. That's the bottom line.

Then why not just make the minimum wage $25 an hour or $50 an hour or even $100 an hour? You get what you pay for, right? If the janitor is making $50 an hour, then not only will he clean the toilets superbly, but he will also debug your computer network at the end of each week.


People who are underpaid are very likely to give as much of their labor as they think they are being paid for and spend the rest of the time making excuses for their inability to meet the threshold. Firm one that pays decently for their staff, has little staff turnover - firm two is constantly replacing staff and has constant problems with sick days off and staff sneaking out early and taking long lunch hours. Of course these are legal firms where there is rarely a position dedicated to staff oversight and lawyers are often out of the office.

Of course, firms are free to raise or lower their wages based on considerations of efficiency, turnover, etc., but the minimum wage takes that discretion away from firms and imposes a price floor on them that makes certain people unemployable by economic definition. I guess you think you're doing businesses a favor by forcing them to pay people more than they would pay them otherwise? And if a business is truly underpaying their employees, then the market will eventually punish them for it, assuming the government allows the market to function properly. In other words, if a company is paying their star computer engineer $40,000 a year, but his labor produces $100,000 in additional revenue, other firms will want to pay him a better wage in order to acquire the additional revenues his labor would produce.

[Ethereal]

Democrats think about the needs of the people and a fair wage for their hard work. They want the best for hard-working Americans unlike Republicans who could give a rat's ass about giving them a fair wage. Therein lies the difference. And if you consider that there has not been a cost of living increase for the American worker in years you should then also realize that it is high time they got one and $15.00/hr. is most fair and not unreasonable under the circumstances. You can't expect to continue to pay people the low wages of a charwoman who probably makes even more than minimum wage right now.

So why not make the minimum wage $50 an hour? After all, you get what you pay for, and all the money will just go right back into the economy. It's a win-win. Why sell the American worker short at only $15 an hour?

[TrueBlue]

I don't know if it is a conservative point of view or a cheapskate's point of view, but at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. So this notion of underpaying people for their work does not add value if you factor in the work avoidance that occurs when people take jobs out of desperation that don't pay what they are worth.
I've seen exactly what you state transpire in the workforce. And employers were at wits end trying to figure out how they went wrong in hiring the folks they did. They try to turn it around to blame the employee for their lack of production never once realizing that THEY are the actual problem and that if they paid their folks more they would in essence produce more.

[Ethereal]

I don't know if it is a conservative point of view or a cheapskate's point of view, but at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. So this notion of underpaying people for their work does not add value if you factor in the work avoidance that occurs when people take jobs out of desperation that don't pay what they are worth.

Right, and you, and Trueblue, and politicians in Washington DC know better than the employer running the business what they should pay their employees, because you are in a better position to know, and if they aren't paying them enough according to your subjective standards, then they must be a "cheapskate". It has nothing to do with supply and demand or anything like that. It's just because they are greedy and ignorant.

[TrueBlue]

So why not make the minimum wage $50 an hour? After all, you get what you pay for, and all the money will just go right back into the economy. It's a win-win. Why sell the American worker short at only $15 an hour?
I tell you what, Ethereal, you go sell your proposal of $50.00 an hour raise and we'll stick to the more reasonable and pragmatic $15.00/hr.

[Ethereal]

I've seen exactly what you state transpire in the workforce. And employers were at wits end trying to figure out how they went wrong in hiring the folks they did. They try to turn it around to blame the employee for their lack of production never once realizing that THEY are the actual problem and that if they paid their folks more they would in essence produce more.

So you think forcing employers to pay someone a minimum wage is actually doing them a favor. Somehow, I don't think they will see it that way.

[Ethereal]

I tell you what, Ethereal, you go sell your proposal of $50.00 an hour raise and we'll stick to the more reasonable and pragmatic $15.00/hr.

Can you explain why $50 an hour is not a good idea? Why are you being such a cheapskate?

[Ethereal]

Fine. Forget $50 an hour. Make it $25 an hour. Is that more "reasonable and pragmatic" according to your feelings?

[TrueBlue]

Right, and you, and Trueblue, and politicians in Washington DC know better than the employer running the business what they should pay their employees, because you are in a better position to know, and if they aren't paying them enough according to your subjective standards, then they must be a "cheapskate". It has nothing to do with supply and demand or anything like that. It's just because they are greedy and ignorant.
More reasonable minds would agree that greed and ignorance do play a big role in this matter.

[Dr. Who]

Then why not just make the minimum wage $25 an hour or $50 an hour or even $100 an hour? You get what you pay for, right? If the janitor is making $50 an hour, then not only will he clean the toilets superbly, but he will also debug your computer network at the end of each week.



Of course, firms are free to raise or lower their wages based on considerations of efficiency, turnover, etc., but the minimum wage takes that discretion away from firms and imposes a price floor on them that makes certain people unemployable by economic definition. I guess you think you're doing businesses a favor by forcing them to pay people more than they would pay them otherwise? And if a business is truly underpaying their employees, then the market will eventually punish them for it, assuming the government allows the market to function properly. In other words, if a company is paying their star computer engineer $40,000 a year, but his labor produces $100,000 in additional revenue, other firms will want to pay him a better wage in order to acquire the additional revenues his labor would produce.
While I don't disagree in general, a minimum wage that is incapable of allowing a person to even get accommodations in addition to their food and clothing needs is unlikely to attract or provide the sort of worker that will advance a business. A person who must continue to live with their parents because their stipend from labor is insufficient to allow them to be independent is liable to have a different view of life than someone who is capable of being self-supporting, despite sacrifices.

[TrueBlue]

Fine. Forget $50 an hour. Make it $25 an hour. Is that more "reasonable and pragmatic" according to your feelings?
Nope. Still too high. Let's stick with Fifteen as has been proposed. But if you think you could get $25.00 then knock yourself out and go for it. I'm sure many would appreciate that. :)

[Ethereal]

More reasonable minds would agree that greed and ignorance do play a big role in this matter.

By "more reasonable minds", you just mean, "people who agree with me".

[Ethereal]

While I don't disagree in general...

So you do agree that a minimum wage is not cost-free and that it can even have a negative effect on employment and economic growth.


...a minimum wage that is incapable of allowing a person to even get accommodations in addition to their food and clothing needs is unlikely to attract or provide the sort of worker that will advance a business. A person who must continue to live with their parents because their stipend from labor is insufficient to allow them to be independent is liable to have a different view of life than someone who is capable of being self-supporting, despite sacrifices.

And what happens to someone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage? Is it better to make $5 an hour or to not have a job at all?

[Ethereal]

Nope. Still too high. Let's stick with Fifteen as has been proposed. But if you think you could get $25.00 then knock yourself out and go for it. I'm sure many would appreciate that. :)

You seem incapable of explaining why $15 an hour is "reasonable" but $25 or $50 an hour is not. It doesn't seem like your position has any logic or evidence to support. It's just based on your feelings. Not sure that basing economic policy on feelings is a very good approach to a complex issue like labor markets.

[Dr. Who]

Right, and you, and Trueblue, and politicians in Washington DC know better than the employer running the business what they should pay their employees, because you are in a better position to know, and if they aren't paying them enough according to your subjective standards, then they must be a "cheapskate". It has nothing to do with supply and demand or anything like that. It's just because they are greedy and ignorant.
I explained that this was anecdotal involving two legal firms of similar size. The cheapskate firm has had nothing but staffing problems for at least 16 years. The other firm has employees who have been with the firm for 16 years or more. The latter have not had to spend money repeatedly to train new workers. The cheapskate firm is retraining on a yearly basis. Penny wise, pound foolish.

[TrueBlue]

By "more reasonable minds", you just mean, "people who agree with me".
People who truly see things for what they really are and how things stand. And if that includes those who agree with me then great!

[Ethereal]

I explained that this was anecdotal involving two legal firms of similar size. The cheapskate firm has had nothing but staffing problems for at least 16 years. The other firm has employees who have been with the firm for 16 years or more. The latter have not had to spend money repeatedly to train new workers. The cheapskate firm is retraining on a yearly basis. Penny wise, pound foolish.

So the market is rewarding the firm that pays a better wage while it punishes the firm who doesn't. But a minimum wage would take that discretion away from employers and transfer it to a corrupt, ignorant, arrogant political class who wants more and more control over virtually every facet of human existence. Have you read about the history of minimum wage laws and racism? They were designed specifically to exclude blacks and other minorities from the labor market (http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf). It stopped them from undercutting their white competition. Now "progressives" are touting minimum wage as if it will actually help minorities. It's simply amazing.

[Dr. Who]

So you do agree that a minimum wage is not cost-free and that it can even have a negative effect on employment and economic growth.



And what happens to someone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage? Is it better to make $5 an hour or to not have a job at all?
For one thing minimum wage in NYC has to be far different than in anywhere in Tennessee. So it has to be related to cost of living. Is there anywhere in America that $5/hour is anything more than pin money to a kid? There is nowhere in America that you can really live on $40 per day unless you are sharing accommodations with several others.

[Ethereal]

People who truly see things for what they really are and how things stand. And if that includes those who agree with me then great!

How convenient for you that those people are always one-in-the-same...

By the way, do you think you're the only person in history who thought they saw things "for what they really are" and was actually totally wrong?

[TrueBlue]

You seem incapable of explaining why $15 an hour is "reasonable" but $25 or $50 an hour is not. It doesn't seem like your position has any logic or evidence to support. It's just based on your feelings. Not sure that basing economic policy on feelings is a very good approach to a complex issue like labor markets.
You can't go haywire on labor markets you know. $50.00 an hour would logically not be supported by anyone more than likely I can say with great confidence. On the other hand, labor surely realizes that $15.00 is not unreasonable and I think they'll go for that amount without having to sacrifice a lot and they can certainly outweigh any sacrifices they might have to make when they come to see and realize that they would then be getting a harder working workforce that would be more stable and even more productive as they would see that they are being appreciated and being finally paid fairly for their labor.

[Ethereal]

For one thing minimum wage in NYC has to be far different than in anywhere in Tennessee. So it has to be related to cost of living. Is there anywhere in America that $5/hour is anything more than pin money to a kid? There is nowhere in America that you can really live on $40 per day unless you are sharing accommodations with several others.

Have you considered the possibility that minimum wage laws contribute to the cost of living increases you're attempting to ameliorate?

And not all jobs are meant to support a fully independent lifestyle or to support a family. There are indeed "kids" and other people who could just use some supplemental income or job experience and minimum wage laws essentially preclude these people from working at all, which is very economically detrimental.

[Ethereal]

You can't go haywire on labor markets you know. $50.00 an hour would logically not be supported by anyone more than likely I can say with great confidence. On the other hand, labor surely realizes that $15.00 is not unreasonable and I think they'll go for that amount without having to sacrifice a lot and they can certainly outweigh any sacrifices they might have to make when they come to see and realize that they would then be getting a harder working workforce that would be more stable and even more productive as they would see that they are being appreciated and being finally paid fairly for their labor.

You said that increasing the minimum wage to $15 is good because it will improve the productivity of the labor force and all the money will go right back into the economy. Does that logic stop applying when the minimum wage is $25 or $50 an hour? If so, why?

[TrueBlue]

How convenient for you that those people are always one-in-the-same...

By the way, do you think you're the only person in history who thought they saw things "for what they really are" and was actually totally wrong?
It's not just my view, Ethereal, it is the same view of MILLIONS of other working Americans.

[Ethereal]

It's not just my view, Ethereal, it is the same view of MILLIONS of other working Americans.

It wouldn't be the first time in history that millions of people shared an erroneous viewpoint.

[TrueBlue]

You said that increasing the minimum wage to $15 is good because it will improve the productivity of the labor force and all the money will go right back into the economy. Does that logic stop applying when the minimum wage is $25 or $50 an hour? If so, why?
Let's wait and see what the demographics of the economy would be if and when wages proposed would get to be that high and then let's talk about it again. But for now the proposal on the table is right and most reasonable given where we are right now.

[Bob]

Unlike you I actually saw him say this on a Sunday show and you are telling me he "blasted" Trump?

LOL!!!!!!!!

Stick to gay issues.

I also heard him whine that he did not have a helicopter. LMAO

[Ethereal]

Let's wait and see what the demographics of the economy would be if and when wages proposed would get to be that high and then let's talk about it again. But for now the proposal on the table is right and most reasonable given where we are right now.

You didn't really answer the question!

If $15 an hour is good, then $25 or even $50 an hour must be even better, right? Why stop at $15?

[TrueBlue]

It wouldn't be the first time in history that millions of people shared an erroneous viewpoint.
It all boils down to what's a reasonable wage for a hard day's work at this point in time. If workers were to get more money as what's being proposed, workers, while still at their job, could then turn around and even become capitalists and invest back into the economy. That's something to seriously think about.

[Ethereal]

I actually like Bernie Sanders and would much prefer him as President to Clinton or Trump. I really mean that. He is a far superior candidate to both of them. But I still think he is misguided in certain respects, even if his heart is in the right place. I understand that his intentions in regards to the minimum wage are good, but I cannot ignore classical economics because his intentions are good. Good intentions do not change the economic effects of a price floor. It may sound nice, but it is economically detrimental in many ways, and was actually designed to be economically detrimental in its first American iteration.

[TrueBlue]

You didn't really answer the question!

If $15 an hour is good, then $25 or even $50 an hour must be even better, right? Why stop at $15?
And you haven't answered mine! Have you already gone to sell your higher proposal? If so, what did employers say?

[Peter1469]

E is correct about economics.

Additionally a price floor for minimum wage would led to inflation and the price of goods would go up. So the $15 and hr would purchase less stuff and we would be in the same place we are today.

[TrueBlue]

E is correct about economics.

Additionally a price floor for minimum wage would led to inflation and the price of goods would go up. So the $15 and hr would purchase less stuff and we would be in the same place we are today.
And yet he wants $50.00 an hour and is pushing for that. How would that be justified under your scenario?

[Ethereal]

It all boils down to what's a reasonable wage for a hard day's work at this point in time.

The "reasonableness" of a given wage is determined by the market through supply and demand, not through a one-size-fits all political dictate that originates from Washington DC.


If workers were to get more money as what's being proposed, workers, while still at their job, could then turn around and even become capitalists and invest back into the economy. That's something to seriously think about.

Except they probably won't have a job if the market value of their labor falls below the government-mandated price floor.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg/400px-Surplus_from_Price_Floor.svg.png

[Ethereal]

And you haven't answered mine! Have you already gone to sell your higher proposal? If so, what did employers say?

I haven't answered your question because it's an attempt to distract from the issue, which is your inability to explain why if $15 an hour is good, $25 or $50 an hour is not even better?

And if we're basing the minimum wage on what employers have to say, then they are generally against having a minimum wage at all, so I'm not sure why you would even bring employers up, especially when you are pretending like they don't have any rights or valid interests in setting wages at THEIR OWN COMPANY.

[Ethereal]

And yet he wants $50.00 an hour and is pushing for that. How would that be justified under your scenario?

I don't want $50 an hour. I don't want a minimum wage at all because it causes unemployment and increases prices. I'm asking you, if $15 an hour is good, then why is $50 an hour is not even better? In other words, why do you stop at only $15 an hour? Is it because you think $50 is not just politically achievable at this time or because you tacitly acknowledge there is an economic cost associated with increasing the minimum wage? Or both? I'm just trying to understand your position.

[Peter1469]

And yet he wants $50.00 an hour and is pushing for that. How would that be justified under your scenario?


He doesn't want a $50 hr minimum wage. He does not believe a minimum wage is economically rational.

He is asking you to justify your $15 hr minimum wage by attempting to get you to realize your choice for a $15 hr minimum wage is arbitrary. Also to see if you can say why a certain figure is too much. It is a common debate technique.

[Peter1469]

As someone pointed out, I think True, a national minimum wage runs into the problem that the standard of living is different across the nation. $15 an hr is likely not a "living wage" in NYC and it is a lot of money in say Tennessee.

[Boris The Animal]

Problem with brain dead Liberals is they think private sector businesses ought not to make a profit.

[Dr. Who]

Have you considered the possibility that minimum wage laws contribute to the cost of living increases you're attempting to ameliorate?

And not all jobs are meant to support a fully independent lifestyle or to support a family. There are indeed "kids" and other people who could just use some supplemental income or job experience and minimum wage laws essentially preclude these people from working at all, which is very economically detrimental.
Not really:
Since 1984, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has decreased. Measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation) using 1984 dollars, the real minimum wage was $3.35 in 1984, $2.90 in 1995, $2.74 in 2005, and $3.23 in 2013. If the minimum wage had been raised to $10.00 in 2013, that would have equated to $4.46 in 1984 dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

On that basis, the minimum wage has steadily declined in real terms, however prices have still escalated.

[del]

Not really:
Since 1984, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has decreased. Measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation) using 1984 dollars, the real minimum wage was $3.35 in 1984, $2.90 in 1995, $2.74 in 2005, and $3.23 in 2013. If the minimum wage had been raised to $10.00 in 2013, that would have equated to $4.46 in 1984 dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

On that basis, the minimum wage has steadily declined in real terms, however prices have still escalated.

if the minimum wage was raised to $10.30, it would have the same purchasing power as it did when i last earned the minimum wage...in 1968, when it was $1.65.

the economy seemed to hum right along at the time

[Darmosiel]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!

Do you even know the difference between a Communist and a Democratic Socialist?

The Dictionary is your friend.

[Darmosiel]

Problem with brain dead Liberals is they think private sector businesses ought not to make a profit.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit as long as it doesn't destroy everything in it's path.

[Dr. Who]

Right, and you, and Trueblue, and politicians in Washington DC know better than the employer running the business what they should pay their employees, because you are in a better position to know, and if they aren't paying them enough according to your subjective standards, then they must be a "cheapskate". It has nothing to do with supply and demand or anything like that. It's just because they are greedy and ignorant.
When companies underpay, they tend to get the least qualified candidates or those who have fewer options. After doing whatever they have to do to pass the probation period, people start to deliver exactly as much work as the employer is remunerating - nothing more. Such employers are stingy with raises and also stingy with benefits and never want to pay for overtime. If they are new to the workforce, these employees get a little experience under their belt and leave. Those that stay do the minimum required, offer excuses why they can't do more and the stingy employer ends up having to hire more people to do the work. At the end of the day, they probably end up with higher payroll costs, plus the cost of constant retraining. You are better off with one employee who is smart and works efficiently that costs you $50K, than two shiftless unmotivated workers at $25K apiece.

[Darmosiel]

You didn't really answer the question!

If $15 an hour is good, then $25 or even $50 an hour must be even better, right? Why stop at $15?

How's that for a stupid argument...

Seriously ...does it hurt when you thinK?

MANY people already make more than $15 an hour.
The problem is the cost of living has exceeded the raise in pay to meet everyday living expenses.

When people have a job and they are still living in poverty something is wrong.

[Darmosiel]

Can you explain why $50 an hour is not a good idea? Why are you being such a cheapskate?

There is a justifiable argument for the minimal wage to be adjusted to the cost of living per area...
but that's impossible to carry out effectively.

Many companies and government employees do adjust for cost of living because some cities and states do cost more to live in while other states the cost of living is lower.

It was decided that $15 was a fair average nationally to adjust for the cost of living.

[kilgram]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!
Who did let open the doors of the caverns?

[Boris The Animal]

Do you even know the difference between a Communist and a Democratic Socialist?

The Dictionary is your friend.They're one in the same as far as I am concerned. Both want to severely restrict freedom in favor of big daddy government, both want to eliminate the private sector, and both want MORE, not less people dependent on big daddy government.

[Boris The Animal]

There is a justifiable argument for the minimal wage to be adjusted to the cost of living per area...
but that's impossible to carry out effectively.

Many companies and government employees do adjust for cost of living because some cities and states do cost more to live in while other states the cost of living is lower.

It was decided that $15 was a fair average nationally to adjust for the cost of living.So the rest of us poor schlubs who already work our asses off for that get screwed over, right?

[Darmosiel]

They're one in the same as far as I am concerned. Both want to severely restrict freedom in favor of big daddy government, both want to eliminate the private sector, and both want MORE, not less people dependent on big daddy government.

So the answer is NO
You don't know the difference between a Communist and a Democratic Socialist.

http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
Let me help you out...

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.


Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.





++

I just love it when people don't really look into the actual meaning of things but make up their own. It's so amusing.

[Boris The Animal]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit as long as it doesn't destroy everything in it's path.But that's the natural order. survival of the fittest. When a Wal-Mart opens up, it is not responsible for the closing of overpriced mom and pop shops. People want the lower prices, for example.

[Boris The Animal]

so the answer is no...you don;t know the difference between a Communist and a Democratic Socialist.

That was kinda obvious anyway.
Like I said, they are one in the same. I don't want this country to lurch any further to the Left as it already has. We need a hard right push now!!

[maineman]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!

if "communist" were anything but a meaningless epithet to you, I would be astounded.

[Darmosiel]

http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A


Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.






Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything? (http://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything)
Hasn't socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe? (http://www.dsausa.org/hasn_t_socialism_been_discredited_by_the_collapse_ of_communism_in_the_ussr_and_eastern_europe)
Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism? (http://www.dsausa.org/private_corporations_seem_to_be_a_permanent_fixtur e_in_the_us_so_why_work_towards_socialism)
Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work? (http://www.dsausa.org/won_t_socialism_be_impractical_because_people_will _lose_their_incentive_to_work)
Why are there no models of democratic socialism? (http://www.dsausa.org/why_are_there_no_models_of_democratic_socialism)
But hasn't the European Social Democratic experiment failed? (http://www.dsausa.org/but_hasn_t_the_european_social_democratic_experime nt_failed)
Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support? (http://www.dsausa.org/aren_t_you_a_party_that_s_in_competition_with_the_ democratic_party_for_votes_and_support)
If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn't I focus on something more immediate? (http://www.dsausa.org/if_i_am_going_to_devote_time_to_politics_why_shoul dn_t_i_focus_on_something_more_immediate)
What can young people do to move the US towards socialism? (http://www.dsausa.org/what_can_young_people_do_to_move_the_us_towards_so cialism)
If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word? (http://www.dsausa.org/if_so_many_people_misunderstand_socialism_why_cont inue_to_use_the_word)

Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything? (http://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything)

A:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.


Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

++

Communism on the other hand is where the Government runs everything. Not the same at all.

IMO Capitalism has a place...but it needs to be regulated and balanced with economic Socialism.
Right now the system we have benefits the wealthy.
There are some advantages to it..economic competition is good but Corporate Monopolies are not good.

Our country went through a period fighting Corporate Monopolies before and now we are again.
Monopolies can establish rate hikes, added fees, and no one can do a thing about it.

[Darmosiel]

But that's the natural order. survival of the fittest. When a Wal-Mart opens up, it is not responsible for the closing of overpriced mom and pop shops. People want the lower prices, for example.

That's Social Darwinism... an ideology Hitler and the Nazis loved

Darwin himself intended it to be used to biologically...genetically...
If you've ever taken any classes on biology or genetics you'd know why and how it was meant to be used.

Biologically all living creatures adapt to environments...
we have light or dark skin pigments because of where our ancestors originated and what the suns rays were in those regions.

But that has NOTHING to do with society and political influences.

[Darmosiel]

Like I said, they are one in the same. I don't want this country to lurch any further to the Left as it already has. We need a hard right push now!!

As the saying goes...

You can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink.

[Boris The Animal]

As the saying goes...

You can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink.Listen, Brezhnev. We need to get this country back to the Founders' original plan. Weak Federal/strong state governments. But you, as a Leftist, think the more government, the better.

[Safety]

But that's the natural order. survival of the fittest. When a Wal-Mart opens up, it is not responsible for the closing of overpriced mom and pop shops. People want the lower prices, for example.

That is exactly why we are in the jobless situation we are in now. Regardless of left, right, or Bob, we have done this to ourselves.

[Dr. Who]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!
You are at liberty to disagree with a post, but you are not at liberty to name call on the forum. It is bad faith.

[Dr. Who]

Rightist dummy, Keep On Kissing Conservative Butt and see how far that'll get you when you're down and out of money and luck! http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/yahoo/21.gif
True, tit for tat is not acceptable on the forum. Please don't retaliate with the same bad faith.

[Common Sense]

Just his vow to try to get rid of Citizens United is enough of a reason to elect the man.

I honestly don't know how anyone with half a brain cell can support it.

[Dr. Who]

That is exactly why we are in the jobless situation we are in now. Regardless of left, right, or Bob, we have done this to ourselves.
Society has become so materialistic and entitled that we think that we should have the pick of the world's goods at rock bottom prices and yet still expect that people will all still have jobs and pay taxes, just as long as we don't pay too many taxes or have to take care of the people displaced by off-shore production. Furthermore, we don't seem to bat an eyelash when these cheap goods are not worth repairing after five years. We have universal attention deficit disorder.

[Boris The Animal]

That is exactly why we are in the jobless situation we are in now. Regardless of left, right, or Bob, we have done this to ourselves.
And what is so wrong with getting more bang for your buck rather than going to a filthy M&P shop with over inflated prices and shitty selection?

[Dr. Who]

And what is so wrong with getting more bang for your buck rather than going to a filthy M&P shop with over inflated prices and shitty selection?
There isn't much difference other than profit margins and advertising TBH. High end clothing is produced in the same factories as low end clothing. There is a bit of a difference in things like appliances because they carry warranties, however the bottom line is that most goods are designed to be ephemeral. Appliances and equipment how have a majority of plastic parts which wear out much sooner than metal parts. They are cheaper to produce, but that refrigerator or dishwasher or even car, will start to fail far sooner than they did in the past and in the case of appliances and small equipment, it's cheaper to buy a new model than to undertake repairs. So that cheaper price is just an illusion when you are replacing it more often. At the end of the day it's more expensive.

[decedent]

You support Sanders because like you, he is a card carrying Communist. Sorry, but this country is still more Conservative than you think, Leftist dummy!
He's also a poo poo face.

[TrueBlue]

Right, and you, and Trueblue, and politicians in Washington DC know better than the employer running the business what they should pay their employees, because you are in a better position to know, and if they aren't paying them enough according to your subjective standards, then they must be a "cheapskate". It has nothing to do with supply and demand or anything like that. It's just because they are greedy and ignorant.
Show me any worker who is currently making $7.25 an hour who when informed that the company will be paying them $15.00 an hour immediately would refuse that and say they are satisfied with $7.25.

But Wait! The only ones who would be quite satisfied with continuing to work for $7.25 an hour would be a Poor Conservative Right-Winger. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/59.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/62.gif

[Mac-7]

But Wait! The only ones who would be quite satisfied with continuing to work for $7.25 an hour would be a Poor Conservative Right-Winger. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/59.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/62.gif

A welfare bum might ask for the extra pay under the table because she doesn't want to lose her food stamps and unEarned Income Tax Credit.

[The Sage of Main Street]

if "communist" were anything but a meaningless epithet to you, I would be astounded. A Communist is "Capitalist, Jr." He hates his father and wants to get even, but at the same time he has inherited his Daddy's born-to-rule attitude and contempt for the working class as inanimate objects that he can switch about or erase on a piece of paper. That paper becomes absolute law.

[TrueBlue]

A welfare bum might ask for the extra pay under the table because she doesn't want to lose her food stamps and unEarned Income Tax Credit.
You have a very vivid imagination that cannot withstand scrutiny.

[Mac-7]

You have a very vivid imagination that cannot withstand scrutiny.

And you have a very dim understanding of what goes on in the real world of welfare bumism.

[kilgram]

And you have a very dim understanding of what goes on in the real world of welfare bumism.
Why do the conservative repeat the same everywhere from the XIX century. Become a little original. 200 years listening the same is a little boring.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[jimmyz]

Rightist dummy, Keep On Kissing Conservative Butt and see how far that'll get you when you're down and out of money and luck! http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/yahoo/21.gif

Conservatives don't put their faith in "luck" when we're "down and out". We rely on ourselves. Big difference between our ideologies in times of despair I guess.

[Mac-7]

Why do the conservative repeat the same everywhere from the XIX century. Become a little original. 200 years listening the same is a little boring.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

Trying to decipher your butchered English is even more boring.

[TrueBlue]

And you have a very dim understanding of what goes on in the real world of welfare bumism.
I see you understand "welfare burnism." Good self-experience for you in that can sure make you an expert!

[TrueBlue]

Trying to decipher your butchered English is even more boring.
His English is far better than the crud you put out, that's for sure!

[jimmyz]

If that's how they think they obviously do not deserve any hard-working people to go work for them. They need to wake-up and smell the coffee already in that minimum wage as it stands today is just not paying the bills anymore. They need to get with it and raise the minimum wage as Senator Sanders is proposing. Believe me, he's studied this issue well and knows exactly what he's talking about!

Teenagers and low IQ people deserve what they are offered as a wage not what the government says they deserve. I want automated burger making machines ASAP to thwart this BS $15 an hour stuff.

[Mac-7]

I see you understand "welfare burnism." Good self-experience for you in that can sure make you an expert!


Because I'm not a comatose liberal I know of the game that professional welfare bums play.

but I will never know all their tricks.

[TrueBlue]

Teenagers and low IQ people deserve what they are offered as a wage not what the government says they deserve. I want automated burger making machines ASAP to thwart this BS $15 an hour stuff.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich offers SEVEN (7) Good Reasons for raising the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. What he is saying makes prudent sense!

WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD REALLY BE RAISED TO $15 AN HOUR
By Robert Reich

http://robertreich.org/post/82134788482

[Mac-7]

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich offers SEVEN (7) Good Reasons for raising the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. What he is saying makes prudent sense!

WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD REALLY BE RAISED TO $15 AN HOUR
By Robert Reich

http://robertreich.org/post/82134788482



5. A $15/hour minimum is unlikely to result in higher prices because most businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices.

How can an educated man - even a college professor who are often disconnected from reality - be this stupid?

He says businesses are in intense competition for consumers where price is important.

But Reich does not realize that they have already pushed the price down as far as they can?

Raising the cost of labor HAS to cause higher prices.

[TrueBlue]

How can an educated man - even a college professor who are often disconnected from reality - be this stupid.

He says businesses are in intense competition for consumers where price is important.

But Reich does not realize that they have already pushed the price down as far as they can?

Raising the cost of labor HAS to cause higher prices.
No it doesn't. What he is saying there makes great sense. And you have to realize that as Labor Secretary he well understood the workforce, consumers, and business economy. Therefore, in his position as professor he has thought this out well and there should be no problem with what he is saying.

[Mac-7]

No it doesn't. What he is saying there makes great sense. And you have to realize that as Labor Secretary he well understood the workforce, consumers, and business economy. Therefore, in his position as professor he has thought this out well and there should be no problem with what he is saying.

He's talking bullshit.

first he says that there is intense price competition but then says that higher wages will somehow not affect the price.

Thats ignorant.

any first year economics student would get a failing grade based on an answer like that.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Trying to decipher your butchered English is even more boring.
Spaniards must need to immigrate a few more Arab sleeper cells to blow up their trains before they get the message about feralphile multiculturalism.