DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on August 27, 2008, 03:21:19 PM
-
Where is their nonwhite high office holders, judges & leaders.
Is their highest paid citizens black women - nope
Do they have any blacks running for high office and if they did do they stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning - nope
Canada is filled with racists going back to the early days when they killed native Indians.
-
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=27028 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=27028)
http://newsdaily.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5213 (http://newsdaily.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5213)
http://www.world-spectator.com/archives.25.html (http://www.world-spectator.com/archives.25.html)
UN Calls Canada Racist
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802 (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802)
-
Canada is filled with racists going back to the early days when they killed native Indians.
uhm
you mean 15 years ago
note I never said any country is racist before
but I`ll say this ALL Countries are racists
it`s not an issue.
the real issue is how people in general get treated.
I`m betting money nowadays the use of the race card will backfire in the near future
this issue is a major annoyance to me due to the fact i hear from other ethnic group talk about the hard ship they go through and i have to bite my lip in telling them compared to me they live a luxurious life.
goog lord some of these folks has 2 houses and 3 cars
my family has one house and no cars.
several goto private school
I never went to school til I was 18(self taught)
there was no school in my area.
racism is bad but their are worst things
not because of racism ,but simply for who they are
-
He got it right - - Canada IS a racist nation. Just nowhere near as racist as the US. We had no slaves, no legal Jim Crow, no lynching. The Underground Railroad ran from the U.S. to Canada, not from Canada to the U.S. But nice try, Kramer. Uncle Sam can wash his hands for a thousand years, they'll still be covered with the blood of blacks and Indians.
-
We had no slaves
Yes you did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada)
-
Where is their nonwhite high office holders, judges & leaders.
Is their highest paid citizens black women - nope
(http://www.gg.ca/media/pho/galleryPics/3206.jpg)
The lady on the left is Her Excellency the Right Honorable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.
-
If Canada passed a law requiring racial quotas, like for example Singapore did, then Kramer would be spouting that THAT was racist.
It is really a stupid thing to be debating. The ideal goal is to have some sort of meritocracy, where everyone is assigned jobs based on their aptitude and qualifications alone. In the US, probably the Post Office and the military come closest to this.
And that would be "elitist", wouldn't it?
So that's why it is a stupid thing to be debating.
Of course, it is always par for the course for Kramer to run out and bash some institution or country for no real reason, just to get attention. It is sort of like streaking of crowds or flashing women in the park, and has about the same level of usefulness.
-
i'm a racist against my own race!
-
i'm a racist against my own race!
That is weird. But perhaps possible.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YZ6OFJZKBo[/youtube]
-
anybody ever watch the cartoon boondocks?
uncle ruckus hates his own race
it`s quite funny
my porn block is not letting see what your posting CU4LG
-
Where is their nonwhite high office holders, judges & leaders.
Is their highest paid citizens black women - nope
(http://www.gg.ca/media/pho/galleryPics/3206.jpg)
The lady on the left is Her Excellency the Right Honorable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.
looks token to me got any more.
How about an equal to rice, thomas, powell, oh that's right the Democrat Part doesn't even qualify for those positions within their ranks. sad real sad.
-
<<looks token to me got any more.>>
LOL. You can't win. We don't have any blacks in high office. Any we DO have are tokens.
<<How about an equal to rice, thomas, powell, oh that's right the Democrat Part doesn't even qualify for those positions within their ranks. sad real sad.>>
Sorry, Uncle Toms need not apply to the Democrats, not since the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the Democrats don't need them any more.
Hey what about race riots, lynchings, Jim Crow, slavery, wanna compare the REAL faces of racism? Your history shows pretty clearly which country is the more racist. It's no contest. Except in the never-never-land of far right fantasy ravings, where the U.S. is NOT racist, but Canada is.
-
<<looks token to me got any more.>>
LOL. You can't win. We don't have any blacks in high office. Any we DO have are tokens.
Ummm.....isn't that how it works with Republicans??
-
<<Ummm.....isn't that how it works with Republicans??>>
You gotta look to the POLICIES and the Republican policies hurt the blacks while the Democratic policies help the blacks, or at least try to.
Also the recruitment: the Southern Strategy was aimed at roping in disaffected Democratic racists into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The Democrats after the passage of those acts no longer were attractive to white racists. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, LBJ said "We've lost the South for a whole generation."
-
<<Ummm.....isn't that how it works with Republicans??>>
You gotta look to the POLICIES and the Republican policies hurt the blacks while the Democratic policies help the blacks, or at least try to.
Also the recruitment: the Southern Strategy was aimed at roping in disaffected Democratic racists into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The Democrats after the passage of those acts no longer were attractive to white racists. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, LBJ said "We've lost the South for a whole generation."
I wish you would!
When the Dixiecrats counted up the votes availible to a White supremeisist , it turned out that they were not enough to carry any weight and no one wanted them anymore, Nixon did no policy to cause the gratitude of racists , nor any since.
LBJ was wrong about that wasn't he? if a generation is twenty years , then the South was Democrat territory for the whole rest of that generation.
-
<<Ummm.....isn't that how it works with Republicans??>>
You gotta look to the POLICIES and the Republican policies hurt the blacks while the Democratic policies help the blacks, or at least try to.
Hysterical. Policies that treat everyone equally, fairly & colorless "hurt Blacks", put policies that advocate reverse discrimination, and setting races, not to mention classes, against each other, now THAT's helpful. Larger majority of Republicans passing the Civil Rights Act than Dems is "hurtful", Democrats actually trying to filibuster the Act, now that's helpful
Bizarro world, indeed ::)
-
<<LBJ was wrong about that wasn't he? if a generation is twenty years , then the South was Democrat territory for the whole rest of that generation.>>
A generation, in my book, is thirty years. What used to be a solidly Democratic South is now up for grabs and so of course the Democrats have lost something there.
If you sleep with a woman every night for thirty years and then you find that some nights some other guy is in bed with her and some nights you're in bed with her, I think you lost something too. According to your theory, unless the other guy is in bed with her seven nights a week, you haven't really lost anything.
LBJ was right, the Democrats lost the South, a formerly solid Democratic region, for at least a generation and in reality for much longer. And they lost it because the leadership of the Democratic Party introduced and passed the two major civil rights acts of the last century.
-
And they lost it because the leadership of the Democratic Party introduced and passed the two major civil rights acts of the last century.
You don't think the McGovern branch of the Democrat Party had anything to do with it?
Observe that the south voted for a more centrist democrat the very next election in 76.
-
Yeah, obviously there were other factors, race wasn't the only one. McGovern pissed them off because he was for peace, but again it's no coincidence that the most militaristic and war-loving part of the nation is also the most racially prejudiced part - - war today is usually made by the U.S.A. against non-whites, so the South would seem to be the region most indifferent to the suffering of the victims of U.S. aggression. They don't give a shit how many of them suffer and die because they're "inferior breeds," or whatever term polite Southerners use today to describe the untermenschen.
So were they pissed off at McGovern because he threatened their love of war or because he threatened their chance to violently dominate non-whites? Six of one and half-a-dozen of another, IMHO.
-
<<LBJ was wrong about that wasn't he? if a generation is twenty years , then the South was Democrat territory for the whole rest of that generation.>>
A generation, in my book, is thirty years. What used to be a solidly Democratic South is now up for grabs and so of course the Democrats have lost something there.
If you sleep with a woman every night for thirty years and then you find that some nights some other guy is in bed with her and some nights you're in bed with her, I think you lost something too. According to your theory, unless the other guy is in bed with her seven nights a week, you haven't really lost anything.
LBJ was right, the Democrats lost the South, a formerly solid Democratic region, for at least a generation and in reality for much longer. And they lost it because the leadership of the Democratic Party introduced and passed the two major civil rights acts of the last century.
LBJ did not say that this would hurt us somewhat about twenty years from now, he was very simply entirely wrong.
-
LBJ did not say that this would hurt us somewhat about twenty years from now, he was very simply entirely wrong.
==========================================================================
So your argument is that passing the Civil Rights Acts that allowed Blacks to vote was wrong, because it caused the Whites to run off and joint the Republicans?
I suggest that it was the right thing to do, even though it was not the politically wise thing to do. In a democracy, all should have the right to vote, or you do not have a democracy.
-
I doubt that was what Plane meant.
He meant that the Voting Rights Act was not what opened up the two party system in the South.
Observe that when the GOP had majority control neither the civil rights nor the voting rights acts were repealed.
-
<<He meant that the Voting Rights Act was not what opened up the two party system in the South.>>
No, I thought he meant that LBJ was wrong in predicting the loss of the South for a generation. But plane himself could easily clear up what he meant.
<<Observe that when the GOP had majority control neither the civil rights nor the voting rights acts were repealed.>>
Yes, and why didn't the white Southern racists who fled the Democratic Party in reaction to the Civil Rights legislation and were then captured by the Southern Strategy, walk out on the Republicans?
Some of them did, into fringe Third Party movements. But why did racists like Thad Cochran, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott stay with the GOP? Probably because they were realists who knew they had no place to go. Under the old system of Jim Crow, the country was becoming ungovernable, with riots in the streets, Freedom Riders being killed and crippled at the hands of white racist Southerners, people demanding freedom and equality being attacked with dogs and firehoses in the streets of American cities for the whole world to see, student strikes and a huge international black eye that the country could no longer afford. So the Republican Party, if it meant to remain a national party, could no longer associate itself with the old brand of Southern racism, at least not publicly. A whole new language of codes had to be developed if the GOP could maintain even a subliminal connection to the White South. For realists like Cochran, Helms and Lott, it was a no-brainer: how many times can a man switch parties and retain credibility? Where else was there to go? And, finally, better to stick with a party that still works under the table for white racist ideals than return to one which has fully embraced the concept of black-white equality.
-
And, finally, better to stick with a party that still works under the table for white racist ideals than return to one which has fully embraced the concept of black-white equality.
Please provide an example of GOP legislation that covertly panders to white racist ideals.
-
That's the beauty of it Bt. It's done so well, you can't find any. In other words, lack of proof is proof yet again. Taaadaaaaa
-
<<Please provide an example of GOP legislation that covertly panders to white racist ideals.>>
Sure. Failure to raise minimum wage for almost a decade. Budget cuts on services. Failure to raise welfare entitlements. Policies that sap the efficacy of public education by promoting "magnet schools" or "charter schools" at the expense of broad, across-the-board funding for all public schools. War in Iraq. War in Afghanistan. Failure to ensure health care for dozens of millions of Americans. Support for Confederate flags and memorials on public institutions.
Your question was a little loaded, because often it's not what they do, it's what they leave undone.
You also assume that the Republican Party is maybe a little more honest than it actually is - - it promises, but doesn't necessarily deliver on its promises. It says things that attract racists like flies to shit, but does not always give them what they want. Still that in itself is encouraging, it gives racists hope and purpose, they feel, here is a party that takes them seriously, courts them. If it doesn't deliver, they understand. That's a problem they can work on. But in the meantime they have a home.
-
It is partly just the culture the party leaders acquired. In Mississippi, for example, they attend Ole Miss. They go to the right fraternities. The fly their rebel flags. They marry an Ole Miss sorority girl from the right family. They attend a CCC meeting. It is the same network that ran the state when the Dixiecrats were there. It is the Southern aristocracy and the Republicans did a good job of coming in and taking it over when the Democrats "sold out" in the mid 60's to early 70's.
But it isn't so much about Democrat or Republican as conservatism. The Democrats in the South are sometimes as or more conservative than the Republicans. This was especially true of the Dixiecrats. So while we hear about: "Policies that treat everyone equally, fairly & colorless" - I've yet to see them in reality and I've lived in some very conservative dominated regions.
-
Where is their nonwhite high office holders, judges & leaders.
Is their highest paid citizens black women - nope
(http://www.gg.ca/media/pho/galleryPics/3206.jpg)
The lady on the left is Her Excellency the Right Honorable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.
looks token to me got any more.
How about an equal to rice, thomas, powell, oh that's right the Democrat Part doesn't even qualify for those positions within their ranks. sad real sad.
Regardless of your personal opinion, your statement was false.
You'll find that the history of most of Britain's "white dominion" colonies are replete with racism and still battle these issues today. Yet, few reached the institutional level and longevity of the United States and South Africa.
-
Failure to raise minimum wage for almost a decade.
How does that not target white workers?
-
They gotta sacrifice a few white workers to nail a whole buncha blacks. The whites they sacrificed are non-persons, untermenschen, so-called "white trash." At least, in their eyes. They really don't give a shit about poor whites, but they just HATE blacks.
-
They gotta sacrifice a few white workers to nail a whole buncha blacks. The whites they sacrificed are non-persons, untermenschen, so-called "white trash." At least, in their eyes. They really don't give a shit about poor whites, but they just HATE blacks.
I don't know that I agree with that. I think it has a lot more to do with class than race.
-
to a point it`s kinda true
but come to think about it I take back any claim on hatred in racism.
distain(spelling) maybe
I think the wrong words are used in this matter and it hasn`t help make things better.
the thing is no one has a monopoly of being downtrodden.
and it undermines peoples spotlight.
I think I stated how hard it is for me to feel sorry of other people`s hardship,when they seem to be more privilege than me.
and the ironic part is I thought I did very well.
-
<<I don't know that I agree with that. I think it has a lot more to do with class than race.>>
You have a point. Racism got a lot of blacks into the underclass, but once they're in it, they're the victims of class warfare to a bigger extent than race warfare. The ruling class may not be as racist as the white underclass, but I somehow can't see them being overjoyed if a black man were to be about to marry into their family.
-
I don't know that I agree with that. I think it has a lot more to do with class than race.
I don't think the minimum wage issue is racist or classist. It affects all races and all classes.
So once again mikey shoots from the hip, and misses.
-
<<I don't think the minimum wage issue is racist or classist. It affects all races and all classes. >>
Yeah? It affects Bill and Melissa too? And Oprah? And Denise Rich? And Michael Dell? And Trump? Geeze, no wonder Congress finally caved in on it. Couldn't stand up to the combined clout of all those billionaires, eh?
-
It affects Bill and Melissa too
Sure it would, if they applied for a minimum wage job.
Oprah is black, by default it affects her. Is that not your position?
-
<<Sure it would, if they applied for a minimum wage job.
<<Oprah is black, by default it affects her. Is that not your position?>>
My position is that there has to be something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks that a minimum wage affects all classes and races equally.
-
<<He meant that the Voting Rights Act was not what opened up the two party system in the South.>>
No, I thought he meant that LBJ was wrong in predicting the loss of the South for a generation. But plane himself could easily clear up what he meant.
<<Observe that when the GOP had majority control neither the civil rights nor the voting rights acts were repealed.>>
Yes, and why didn't the white Southern racists who fled the Democratic Party in reaction to the Civil Rights legislation and were then captured by the Southern Strategy, walk out on the Republicans?
Some of them did, into fringe Third Party movements. But why did racists like Thad Cochran, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott stay with the GOP? Probably because they were realists who knew they had no place to go. Under the old system of Jim Crow, the country was becoming ungovernable, with riots in the streets, Freedom Riders being killed and crippled at the hands of white racist Southerners, people demanding freedom and equality being attacked with dogs and firehoses in the streets of American cities for the whole world to see, student strikes and a huge international black eye that the country could no longer afford. So the Republican Party, if it meant to remain a national party, could no longer associate itself with the old brand of Southern racism, at least not publicly. A whole new language of codes had to be developed if the GOP could maintain even a subliminal connection to the White South. For realists like Cochran, Helms and Lott, it was a no-brainer: how many times can a man switch parties and retain credibility? Where else was there to go? And, finally, better to stick with a party that still works under the table for white racist ideals than return to one which has fully embraced the concept of black-white equality.
Fantastic!
I wish you could see your post through my eyes, it is a wonderfully convoluted conspiricy that is supposed to have been cobbled up by the same people that composed the Civil rights bill and at the same time.
Some people with a history of racism did cross partys , but as you shout "Ah HA!" be aware that more such people did not .
Republi9cans had exactly the same reason to dump on racists as the Democrats did , they were not only odius they were shrinking , it isn't necessacery to ask where did they all go , most of them stayed in place untill they retired or died , see Senator Byrd whose Konnections to racism are certainly clear , he simply quit being an outward racist , then quit being a racist altogether , why not ? there is no future in it .
-
My position is that there has to be something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks that a minimum wage affects all classes and races equally.
Then perhaps you can explain to me how it doesn't.
Instead of just calling me a dumbass because i don't agree with you.
They don't have separate minimum wage rates based on race. If they do, show me the friggin law.
-
<<Then perhaps you can explain to me how it doesn't.
<<Instead of just calling me a dumbass because i don't agree with you.>>
Sorry. That was dumb.
<<They don't have separate minimum wage rates based on race. If they do, show me the friggin law.>>
My comment referred to your contention that minimum wage affects all classes equally. Of course it doesn't. A migrant worker family is not in the same class as the Kennedys. One is likely to be working for minimum wage, the other not. Raising the minimum wage would directly affect the migrant worker family, not the famous Kennedy family.
Because of systemic racism in America, a black man is a lot more likely than a white man to be employed on the lowest rungs of the payscale ladder, therefore minimum wage amendments are much more likely to affect blacks than whites.
-
Minimum wage is minimum wage.
White guy gets paid the same minimum wage as the black guy.
Rich guy gets paid the same minimum wage as the poor guy, if that is what the job pays. .
Your contention was the GOP passed laws pandering to the racist crowd.
When called on it you say the minimum wage laws are an example.
But you can't prove to me that the wage or the law itself is discriminatory.
That's like saying medicaid is racist and classist because it caters to those without means.
Actually medicaid is classist, because those with means don't qualify. But it isn't racist.
-
ouch
-
<<White guy gets paid the same minimum wage as the black guy. >>
Gee, that's some insight there, BT. Now if you could just please take your head out of your ass for thirty seconds and look around at the REAL WORLD (I know this sounds crazy, but trust me, BT, there IS such a thing as the real world) you can tell me how many rich guys you find working for minimum wage.
The vast majority of people working for minimum wage are members of the underclass, very few if any are members of the ruling class. So a failure to raise minimum wage impacts the underclass. This isn't rocket science, BT. I really should not be having this conversation with you. It wastes my time, and I don't believe you're stupid enough to post the stuff you do. I know sirs believes that every word of it is a home run, but I'm pretty sure you know better. I get the feeling it's more to irritate me and force me to explain basic stuff like shit runs downhill and insulation keeps out the cold and no politician trades in his wife for an older model and a big downtown hotel dining room will charge more for the same basic meal than a corner diner. In a nutshell, you're jerking me around.
That's all I'm prepared to invest in this thread. Have a good night.
-
Perhaps you should just quit making spurious statements that you can't back up.
Your statement was that the minimum wage rate was a result of racist pandering.
Then when asked what the minimum wage rate was for a white guy and what the rate was for a black guy you drew a blank.
Well, what is the minimum wage rate for a rich guy and what is the minimum wage rate for a poor guy?
Rich guys might not apply for a minimum wage job, but they are free to do so and if they did would their rate be different?
The same aren't they? So the wage law is neither racist nor classist, contrary to your real world statement and beliefs.
-
The minimum wage exports jobs .
How could it not?
Until most of the world works for just as much dime for time we chase all of the unskilled jobs overseas by makeing ourselves pricey.
So the first effedt of the minimum wage is unemployment on the bottom rung.
The next thing to happen is inflation , it happens pretty fast, the value a person can produce in an hour does rise as skill defvelops , but it does not rise by government fiat , a person that can work to produce five dollars worth of product when the minimum wage is five produces no more value when the minimum wage is six , so the devaluation of the currency is absolutely garrunteed and automatic.
Then Donald Trump , Plane Talker and everyone elese prone to take large mortgagues benefits , we borrowed money when an hour was five dollars and we pay it back when an hour is worth six ,, happy happy ....
Unhappyly banks take the bite , they lent on the most narrow margin they could and for a lot of loans these margins disapear , if fees do not make up the diffrence FICA has to.
In the Third world new jobs show up as work that produces little vlue per hour become impossible to accomplish in the US , the process of inflation will bring Americans back into compeditiveness eventually but this has a lot of lag and there may be another rise in the minimum wage law at the time that Americans become affordable again.
In the developed World outside America there is a temporary benefit as their money becomes more effective at buying compared with ours , but they pass simular laws so they do not benefit as much as the third world.
The people who do not benefit , are the people who would have found a job at five dollars and do not find a job at six , untill inflation catches up to them and the six has the buying power of five again , then they might find a job , supposeing that the guy overseas isn't doing it better.
-
Perhaps you should just quit making spurious statements that you can't back up.
I would really miss that.
-
The hour that was $6.00 was worth considerably LESS than the hour that was $5.00 when the $5.00 was enacted.
There is a race to the bottom for lower wages, until al the workers possible are working under a tree in Cambodia for 15 cents a day.
-
The hour that was $6.00 was worth considerably LESS than the hour that was $5.00 when the $5.00 was enacted.
There is a race to the bottom for lower wages, until al the workers possible are working under a tree in Cambodia for 15 cents a day.
And in what respect does the minimum wage slow this "race for the bottom"? If anything it puts it into Cambodia sooner than natural.
In what respect could you deny one of my statements?
I listed nine effects of the minimum wage , pick one and show me how it isn't so.
-
Jeez.
Many, if not most minimum wage jobs in the US cannot be exported. The manufacturing jobs have already left. But there is no way that the burgerflipper at the local Burgerboy can be exported.
Anyway, if $5.00 was fair in 1990, then how is $6.00 after inflation not fair now? It is LESS MONEY.
Up there in Congress, there are many people working very, very hard to see that YOUR job is not busted doiwn a pay grade, and that the parts you repair are not exported to Zamboanga to be fixed for $2.00 a day. I doubt if many of these are actually the Republicans you so deeply worship, either.
To you, the Goverment is the problem. But you fail to recognize that to those of us who have not been paid by Uncle Sugar, YOU are the government, wasting vast ampounts of moola repairing obsolete aircraft that will never defend any of us from anything whatever, Preparing the Blue Angels for massive recreational wastes of Jato to wow the rubes and hicks. Sure, it's not your call to decide that some of the aircraft are useless, but we have to pay, don't we?
The mere fact that all the excess supply of weapons exist pretty much assure that there will be wars, wars, and more wars. If some dickhead had not stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, there woud hae been no 9-11. Hell, they allowed them to pass out Arabic Jesus books on the streets of Dahrein.
-
Jeez.
Many, if not most minimum wage jobs in the US cannot be exported. The manufacturing jobs have already left. But there is no way that the burgerflipper at the local Burgerboy can be exported.
Anyway, if $5.00 was fair in 1990, then how is $6.00 after inflation notg fair now? It is LESS MONEY.
Many of these jobs have already been exported by the mini wage law.
It isn't possible to find a radio or Television assembled in the US because we charge twice as much for our labor , or even more.
I do think I am worth more than a Chineese person in China , but ten time as much? Probly not really.
Many of the jobs that really cannot be lost to foreighners , like watressing and farm work are exceptions to the minimum wage law, Why exceptions?
Evenwith these some loss occurs to export with workers who get payed the sub mini wage here and spend it in less expensive homelands so that evenburger flipping can in fact be exported .
One of the reasons that five dollars now is less money than it was then is INFLATION , which minimum wage does accellerate.
Now do you agree tha tI am worth ten times as much as a Chineese citizen?
-
Debating with you resembles conversations I have had with parrots.
I appreciate some of the posts you come up with, but economics is not your forte. I am sure you are better at something else, say, origami, perhaps even levitation.
Being as I have not observed you do anything in a professional capacity, nor have I seen your theoretical "Chineeese" adversary do anything either, I shall not speculate on the comparative value of either.
There are no economists of the left, right, or center that do not believe that there is a need for a modest rate of inflation in any economy to keep things going. 2% to 4% is the usual range.
In the USSR pre-Groby, there was little inflation for decades, but this also resulted in people havig to stand in line for hours just to horde toilet paper and toothbrushes when they were finally released to the public.
You can't blame inflation on the minimum wage without blaming it on companies having arbitrary rate hikes and executives, even hideously incompetent ones, like Roger Smith at GM, that got huge increases each and every year.
-
Debating with you resembles conversations I have had with parrots.
I appreciate some of the posts you come up with, but economics is not your forte. I am sure you are better at something else, say, origami, perhaps even levitation.
Being as I have not observed you do anything in a professional capacity, nor have I seen your theoretical "Chineeese" adversary do anything either, I shall not speculate on the comparative value of either.
There are no economists of the left, right, or center that do not believe that there is a need for a modest rate of inflation in any economy to keep things going. 2% to 4% is the usual range.
In the USSR pre-Groby, there was little inflation for decades, but this also resulted in people havig to stand in line for hours just to horde toilet paper and toothbrushes when they were finally released to the public.
You can't blame inflation on the minimum wage without blaming it on companies having arbitrary rate hikes and executives, even hideously incompetent ones, like Roger Smith at GM, that got huge increases each and every year.
I am doing my best to enlighten you , but you seem to lack the basic vocabulary to deal with an economic issue.
Yes there are Chineese fellows who do exactly my job, and these jobs used to be in Seattle where they paid more than I can get in Georgia.
It doesn't matter what the particular job is , it is just unreasonable to demand a minimum wage and expect it to not be a cause of unemployment in our country while there are people in countrys like China that can do the work and do not encumbe their people with minimum wage laws .
I would not do my job for much less , but inflation will cut my buying power and I can't stop it from happening.
There are several causes for inflation the rise of the minimum wage is one .
The people most benefited by the minimum wage are the millions outside our borders who get the jobs we slough off. The most benefited here are landlords who get to raise the rent and lower their mortgague cost.
Guys in McDonalds mostly get more than minimum already , but for those that do get the minimum they see the menu items rise at the same time so they arn't fooled long.
If I have to I will simplify even further , but I feel as if your ignorance isn't accidental , but is a result of refusal to accept some axioms of economics as true.
-
Yeah, whatever you say.
-
Yeah, whatever you say.
Good night , and thank you for the debate , I appreaciate you and your willingness to be generous with your thinking.
Yuo are fun to debate with ,almost, with no exceptions.
-
The minimum wage exports jobs .
How could it not?
Let me first say that I am not a big fan of minimum wage, but not for the same reasons as you and the right-wing talking points that get repeated over and over again.
The answer to your question is that in the real world there are far more variables at play than an Econ 101 graph shows. Quite simply, reality has shown that increases in the minimum wage (or simply setting a reasonable wage floor) has rarely ever caused a massive loss of jobs nor has it caused massive inflation (which is often the other major talking point). There are hundreds of economics studies on this issue - that actually study real life scenarios - and typically there are quite a few variables involved.
The UK had this debate not too long ago and business (as you may imagine) was firmly against a wage floor. Yet, the doomsday scenario as given by the anti-minimum wage groups never materialized. Explanations as to why vary.
But the answer to your question is quite simple.
"How could it not?" Because it doesn't.
-
hmm
what manufacturing jobs are minimum wage?
I not saying it doesn`t exist .
I just saying I`m drawing a blank right now
I just thought the bulk of outsourced jobs are fairly skilled jobs not something you`d want to give the lowest pay.
hell,even call center require talent.
-
The minimum wage exports jobs .
How could it not?
Let me first say that I am not a big fan of minimum wage, but not for the same reasons as you and the right-wing talking points that get repeated over and over again.
The answer to your question is that in the real world there are far more variables at play than an Econ 101 graph shows. Quite simply, reality has shown that increases in the minimum wage (or simply setting a reasonable wage floor) has rarely ever caused a massive loss of jobs nor has it caused massive inflation (which is often the other major talking point). There are hundreds of economics studies on this issue - that actually study real life scenarios - and typically there are quite a few variables involved.
The UK had this debate not too long ago and business (as you may imagine) was firmly against a wage floor. Yet, the doomsday scenario as given by the anti-minimum wage groups never materialized. Explanations as to why vary.
But the answer to your question is quite simple.
"How could it not?" Because it doesn't.
Yet it has already happened, there are very few assembly jobs left here because they all went there , and I don't see how your denial of this effect has any substance.
There is definately a lag , but thhere is no permanant benefit in having a wage floor.
Some young people who can't produce enough value with their work to equal minimum wage get hired in training programs where their talents are developed , the company takeing a loss for a while on the prospect of gaining a skilled worker, but increaseing this cost does no thing other than decrease the slots a given company can open on its lower rungs.
The increase in buying power is of very short duration because the minimum wage increase itself is an inflation driver , the loss in job oppurtunitys is more long lasting.
-
Yet it has already happened, there are very few assembly jobs left here because they all went there , and I don't see how your denial of this effect has any substance.
It did not coincide with an increase in the minimum wage nor were most "assembly jobs" minimum wage jobs. I'm not denying that we lost manufacturing jobs. I'm stating the fact that it in no way correlates to a wage floor.
There is definately a lag , but thhere is no permanant benefit in having a wage floor.
There are pros and cons to a wage floor. It depends where it is set and how it is enforced.
Some young people who can't produce enough value with their work to equal minimum wage get hired in training programs where their talents are developed , the company takeing a loss for a while on the prospect of gaining a skilled worker, but increaseing this cost does no thing other than decrease the slots a given company can open on its lower rungs.
Try again with some clarity because I'm not seeing a point.
The increase in buying power is of very short duration because the minimum wage increase itself is an inflation driver , the loss in job oppurtunitys is more long lasting.
It depends upon many variables. The inflation risk has been very low in recent increases. The UK did not see it at all. Neither was it seen when President Clinton increased the minimum wage. This includes the infamous "lag." Nor were there correlating losses in job opportunities. Sorry Plane, I dislike the minimum wage as well, but your reasoning - though very basic Econ 101 - just does not jive with the real world. It makes for nice graphs on a High School notebook, but in real case-studies it just hasn't been true.
-
Yet it has already happened, there are very few assembly jobs left here because they all went there , and I don't see how your denial of this effect has any substance.
It did not coincide with an increase in the minimum wage nor were most "assembly jobs" minimum wage jobs. I'm not denying that we lost manufacturing jobs. I'm stating the fact that it in no way correlates to a wage floor.
Then what causes the disconnect ?
I don't see the complication , Worker in country A does the work for X worker in USA does the work for X+minimum wage , seems too simple to allow for much misundeerstanding.
Wages rise as a result of scarcity of labor even critical and difficult jobs pay little if the needed skill is common , raiseing the wage by fiat is just a means of devalueing the currency indirectly.
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
-
Yet it has already happened, there are very few assembly jobs left here because they all went there , and I don't see how your denial of this effect has any substance.
It did not coincide with an increase in the minimum wage nor were most "assembly jobs" minimum wage jobs. I'm not denying that we lost manufacturing jobs. I'm stating the fact that it in no way correlates to a wage floor.
Then what causes the disconnect ?
I don't see the complication , Worker in country A does the work for X worker in USA does the work for X+minimum wage , seems too simple to allow for much misundeerstanding.
Wages rise as a result of scarcity of labor even critical and difficult jobs pay little if the needed skill is common , raiseing the wage by fiat is just a means of devalueing the currency indirectly.
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
What disconnect?
You mean what causes Econ 101 to not prove true in the real world? The same thing that causes basic physics equations not to work perfectly. That simple caveat everything else being equal. That's how one accounts for every other variable without getting into complex modeling, calculus, and other methodology that is far too difficult for the basics.
This is why so many people are armchair economists but have never bothered taking the 400 and graduate level classes at university.
Look at your question:
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
You see no complexity. On the other hand, I see a great deal of complexity.
-
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
You see no complexity. On the other hand, I see a great deal of complexity.
[/quote]
Ok , go.
-
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
You see no complexity. On the other hand, I see a great deal of complexity.
Ok , go.
[/quote]
First, all of McDonald's competitors are forced to do the same thing. Second, what are all of the other sectors that McDonald's deals with? Fuel, energy, health insurance, public, agriculture, financial, currency, etc...what is taking place in those sectors? How is it affecting their business? Is the business expanding? Contracting? Are the competitors capturing business? Is that a trend?
That's just for starters.
-
If McDonalds is forced to pay its workers more it is also forced to either accept a reduced margin or raise its prices .
Where is the complexity that allows this to be escaped?
You see no complexity. On the other hand, I see a great deal of complexity.
Ok , go.
First, all of McDonald's competitors are forced to do the same thing. Second, what are all of the other sectors that McDonald's deals with? Fuel, energy, health insurance, public, agriculture, financial, currency, etc...what is taking place in those sectors? How is it affecting their business? Is the business expanding? Contracting? Are the competitors capturing business? Is that a trend?
That's just for starters.
[/quote]
And it is simple too.
There is nothing mentioned here that would mitigate the negative effect of the minimum wage riseing. If one of your expenses rises ,this does not make another of your expenses fall.
The first effect is on the margins where some employees are no longer justifiable , jobs like that just evaporate .
This is why Waitstaff and Farmhands are exceptions to the minimum wage law.