|
Post by Turk on May 25, 2016 9:24:08 GMT -5
This could be a preview of one scenario I've contemplated: Trump becomes President, and single-handedly revives a New Left that's been comatose for 40 years! Or not. Trump might wake a sleeping giant. If so and it is not a peaceful giant then put it to sleep for another 40 years. I admire protesters, I despise violence. It is their right to flag the Mexican flag and it is my right to dislike it. The riots in NM only hurts the honest, hard working Hispanics. MLK would have marched them peacefully down the streets, "We shall overcome."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 2, 2016 16:38:17 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/article/437398/arena-good-citizens-great-republic-and-how-one-speech-can-reinvigorate-america-review"The answer lies in the arena — in the fight. Yet no fight is without risk. Hegseth could have lost his life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stepping into the arena at home can carry its own consequences, but it’s imperative that we pause and reflect on our personal course. Are we bitterly choosing the path of least resistance, feeling helpless in the face of larger cultural or political forces? Do we blame others for our dashed hopes? Hegseth writes that every night he examines himself, asking whether he’s doing all he can. We should want our faces to be marred by (sometimes literal) dust and sweat and blood. Hegseth closes with an admonition he received when he was only 19. A Vietnam vet looked him in the eyes and said, “Pete, whatever you do, don’t miss your war.” Those words apply to military conflict, certainly, but also to the cultural and political challenge of our time. America’s great tragedy is not that its citizens are fighting for virtue and losing. The great tragedy is that so few fight at all." Here's a columnist praising a book in which the message seems to be anti-apathy. Sounds like an exercise in futility to me. Personally, I'm glad I "missed my war", if he's talking about Vietnam. As for the bigger "war", I might have gotten in the "arena" if I had ever been able to find it. The best I can do is rant in here.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 9, 2016 20:01:27 GMT -5
So what are you saying? That there should be no minimum wage? So an employer could pay ten cents an hour if someone was dumb enough to take it? That can't be allowed, it's exploitation. There are pro and cons on min wage, But a huge increase off the bat that will cause problems, when the economy is crappy! even if economy is good still it will cause problems! But it is not "a huge increase off the bat." 50cents a year for the next 2 years, then $1 per year for the next 4 years. Additionally, if economic conditions drop below certain performance standards the governor may suspend hikes at any time until growth benchmarks are met. So, no, it will not cause problems to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2022. Also, since it is not "a huge increase off the bat" then economic growth and inflation should roughly keep pace with the increases. If you look at a chart of minimum wages the past 80 years, you will see that if you adjust for 2015 dollars in the value of wages in 1930, 1950, 1970 etc to now, the minimum wage in real value has hardly changed AT ALL since about 1960. In other words, minimum wage dollars in 1963 (about $1.25/hr) had an economic value roughly equivalent the current minimum wage ($10/hr), and the $15/hr wage projected for 2022 with not be much higher in economic value than either. It will be higher, but it will regress to the mean over the subsequent decade. In any case it will not be higher in a sky-is-falling disaster scenario b is envisioning. This isn't "liberal" being stupid, it's just basic economics and setting a base of support for the lowest wage earners in our economy (California's) One thing a lot of people overlook is the economic benefit of roughly 40% of the lowest earners in the state getting a raise. When people at the lowest rungs get more money, their economic situation is such that they put that money immediately into necessary spending. They pay bills, fix the car (or get a car), food and medicine for the kids, new shoes they've been holding off on, etc. But it is immediate. Meaning, those dollars go directly into the economy. They immediately translate to more revenue for all business, meaning more money to pay employees, increase inventory, etc. Economic advisor Mike Patton, who is against minimum wage increases, did an analysis which said basically, in increase to $15/hr would only increase the economy by .24 of a percentage point over one year, if the additional money was all spent. He says this is insignificant. Here's my question: Since when is a quarter of a percent in economic growth insignificant? ?? Annual economic growth is generally measured in the 1.2% to 3.5% range. In a recession it is around 0% and sometimes there is retraction. So how in the world is .24% growth simply based on raising minimum wage not significant in any scenario you can paint? Furthermore, his example is based on that money being spent once. In basic economic models, there are multiples applied to dollars spent based on the kind of spending, because some kind of spending leads to multiple instances of the same dollars being spent within one year. As an illustration, a person living week to week receives an extra $50 per week. That $50 gets spent. Again, it's shoes one week, it's a badly needed oil change another, it's movies or a night out at a food joint on another. All that base level spending, at the shoe store, the grocery store, the jiffy lube and the italian restaurant, is revenue in a business which then must use that money to pay employees, pay vendors, buy more inventory. The money gets re-spent quite quickly. Economists have a chart of multiples which have proven fairly consistent over time. So for instance, increases in unemployment checks actually get a multiple of nearly 4x when creating economic models of economic effects. Meaning, if the government sends out $15million in unemployment checks that month, the estimate is that this will translate to $60million in economic growth in the economy. So back to Mike Patton's example: He said the extra couple dollars per earner per hour, times the number of minimum wage earners, would amount to (if all spent) about .24% economic growth. But he applied no multiple. So applying a multiple, on a range from pretty consrevative (2x) to pretty bold (4x) would then translate to a minimum of .5% increase in the economy to possibly 1% increase in the economy. No matter how you slice it, those numbers ARE significant. Now, finally, sorry for getting all academic on your butts. Let's go back to the original idea b was espousing, that a minimum wage increase would HURT the economy. This is simply not true. It doesn't matter if you believe it will only grow the economy .24% in a year as conservative economic advisor Mike Patton says, or a whole 1% growth as a bold multiple being applied might suggest. Doesn't matter because in neither scenario does the economy hurt. It grows. So when deciding whether or not slight increases over 6 years may or may not be a good idea, understand that not only are a whole ton of people going to be that much more above abject poverty or starvation, the economy will enjoy a benefit not turbulence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 9:40:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 16, 2016 12:12:20 GMT -5
Yeah, that ugly fop is way past his expiration date.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jul 16, 2016 20:23:48 GMT -5
I guess he just needs someone to start him up. I would think he would be satisfied with the children he already has maybe he just can't get no.....
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 19, 2016 16:01:02 GMT -5
There are pro and cons on min wage, But a huge increase off the bat that will cause problems, when the economy is crappy! even if economy is good still it will cause problems! But it is not "a huge increase off the bat." 50cents a year for the next 2 years, then $1 per year for the next 4 years. Additionally, if economic conditions drop below certain performance standards the governor may suspend hikes at any time until growth benchmarks are met. So, no, it will not cause problems to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2022. Also, since it is not "a huge increase off the bat" then economic growth and inflation should roughly keep pace with the increases. If you look at a chart of minimum wages the past 80 years, you will see that if you adjust for 2015 dollars in the value of wages in 1930, 1950, 1970 etc to now, the minimum wage in real value has hardly changed AT ALL since about 1960. In other words, minimum wage dollars in 1963 (about $1.25/hr) had an economic value roughly equivalent the current minimum wage ($10/hr), and the $15/hr wage projected for 2022 with not be much higher in economic value than either. It will be higher, but it will regress to the mean over the subsequent decade. In any case it will not be higher in a sky-is-falling disaster scenario b is envisioning. This isn't "liberal" being stupid, it's just basic economics and setting a base of support for the lowest wage earners in our economy (California's) One thing a lot of people overlook is the economic benefit of roughly 40% of the lowest earners in the state getting a raise. When people at the lowest rungs get more money, their economic situation is such that they put that money immediately into necessary spending. They pay bills, fix the car (or get a car), food and medicine for the kids, new shoes they've been holding off on, etc. But it is immediate. Meaning, those dollars go directly into the economy. They immediately translate to more revenue for all business, meaning more money to pay employees, increase inventory, etc. Economic advisor Mike Patton, who is against minimum wage increases, did an analysis which said basically, in increase to $15/hr would only increase the economy by .24 of a percentage point over one year, if the additional money was all spent. He says this is insignificant. Here's my question: Since when is a quarter of a percent in economic growth insignificant? ?? Annual economic growth is generally measured in the 1.2% to 3.5% range. In a recession it is around 0% and sometimes there is retraction. So how in the world is .24% growth simply based on raising minimum wage not significant in any scenario you can paint? Furthermore, his example is based on that money being spent once. In basic economic models, there are multiples applied to dollars spent based on the kind of spending, because some kind of spending leads to multiple instances of the same dollars being spent within one year. As an illustration, a person living week to week receives an extra $50 per week. That $50 gets spent. Again, it's shoes one week, it's a badly needed oil change another, it's movies or a night out at a food joint on another. All that base level spending, at the shoe store, the grocery store, the jiffy lube and the italian restaurant, is revenue in a business which then must use that money to pay employees, pay vendors, buy more inventory. The money gets re-spent quite quickly. Economists have a chart of multiples which have proven fairly consistent over time. So for instance, increases in unemployment checks actually get a multiple of nearly 4x when creating economic models of economic effects. Meaning, if the government sends out $15million in unemployment checks that month, the estimate is that this will translate to $60million in economic growth in the economy. So back to Mike Patton's example: He said the extra couple dollars per earner per hour, times the number of minimum wage earners, would amount to (if all spent) about .24% economic growth. But he applied no multiple. So applying a multiple, on a range from pretty consrevative (2x) to pretty bold (4x) would then translate to a minimum of .5% increase in the economy to possibly 1% increase in the economy. No matter how you slice it, those numbers ARE significant. Now, finally, sorry for getting all academic on your butts. Let's go back to the original idea b was espousing, that a minimum wage increase would HURT the economy. This is simply not true. It doesn't matter if you believe it will only grow the economy .24% in a year as conservative economic advisor Mike Patton says, or a whole 1% growth as a bold multiple being applied might suggest. Doesn't matter because in neither scenario does the economy hurt. It grows. So when deciding whether or not slight increases over 6 years may or may not be a good idea, understand that not only are a whole ton of people going to be that much more above abject poverty or starvation, the economy will enjoy a benefit not turbulence. DJ I didn't read your entire posts, my bad, but I think I got the drift. "a huge increase off the bat." well yes and no. The "yes" is planning. There will not be immediate layoffs but workers won't be immediately replaced either. Additionally business expansion will slow and automate. We're seeing this already in the fast food industry. Perhaps automation would happen anyway since it is a long term business strategy. My wife has 1,100 employees, they are not replacing workers that leave. By default the economy is going to grow, raising the minimum wage won't slow growth it will simple put more people unemployed but that might not be a bad thing either, workers should be reskilled. I don't really have an objection to the increase after all it is spread over a long time, which goes back to my planning remark. I do have an objection to the logic everyone should be paid a livable wage. I'm old school, if you want a livable wage, get an education and work your ass off or win the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 19, 2016 16:09:59 GMT -5
I guess he just needs someone to start him up. I would think he would be satisfied with the children he already has maybe he just can't get no..... Ha, the ring tone on my cell
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jul 19, 2016 19:14:28 GMT -5
But it is not "a huge increase off the bat." 50cents a year for the next 2 years, then $1 per year for the next 4 years. Additionally, if economic conditions drop below certain performance standards the governor may suspend hikes at any time until growth benchmarks are met. So, no, it will not cause problems to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2022. Also, since it is not "a huge increase off the bat" then economic growth and inflation should roughly keep pace with the increases. If you look at a chart of minimum wages the past 80 years, you will see that if you adjust for 2015 dollars in the value of wages in 1930, 1950, 1970 etc to now, the minimum wage in real value has hardly changed AT ALL since about 1960. In other words, minimum wage dollars in 1963 (about $1.25/hr) had an economic value roughly equivalent the current minimum wage ($10/hr), and the $15/hr wage projected for 2022 with not be much higher in economic value than either. It will be higher, but it will regress to the mean over the subsequent decade. In any case it will not be higher in a sky-is-falling disaster scenario b is envisioning. This isn't "liberal" being stupid, it's just basic economics and setting a base of support for the lowest wage earners in our economy (California's) One thing a lot of people overlook is the economic benefit of roughly 40% of the lowest earners in the state getting a raise. When people at the lowest rungs get more money, their economic situation is such that they put that money immediately into necessary spending. They pay bills, fix the car (or get a car), food and medicine for the kids, new shoes they've been holding off on, etc. But it is immediate. Meaning, those dollars go directly into the economy. They immediately translate to more revenue for all business, meaning more money to pay employees, increase inventory, etc. Economic advisor Mike Patton, who is against minimum wage increases, did an analysis which said basically, in increase to $15/hr would only increase the economy by .24 of a percentage point over one year, if the additional money was all spent. He says this is insignificant. Here's my question: Since when is a quarter of a percent in economic growth insignificant? ?? Annual economic growth is generally measured in the 1.2% to 3.5% range. In a recession it is around 0% and sometimes there is retraction. So how in the world is .24% growth simply based on raising minimum wage not significant in any scenario you can paint? Furthermore, his example is based on that money being spent once. In basic economic models, there are multiples applied to dollars spent based on the kind of spending, because some kind of spending leads to multiple instances of the same dollars being spent within one year. As an illustration, a person living week to week receives an extra $50 per week. That $50 gets spent. Again, it's shoes one week, it's a badly needed oil change another, it's movies or a night out at a food joint on another. All that base level spending, at the shoe store, the grocery store, the jiffy lube and the italian restaurant, is revenue in a business which then must use that money to pay employees, pay vendors, buy more inventory. The money gets re-spent quite quickly. Economists have a chart of multiples which have proven fairly consistent over time. So for instance, increases in unemployment checks actually get a multiple of nearly 4x when creating economic models of economic effects. Meaning, if the government sends out $15million in unemployment checks that month, the estimate is that this will translate to $60million in economic growth in the economy. So back to Mike Patton's example: He said the extra couple dollars per earner per hour, times the number of minimum wage earners, would amount to (if all spent) about .24% economic growth. But he applied no multiple. So applying a multiple, on a range from pretty consrevative (2x) to pretty bold (4x) would then translate to a minimum of .5% increase in the economy to possibly 1% increase in the economy. No matter how you slice it, those numbers ARE significant. Now, finally, sorry for getting all academic on your butts. Let's go back to the original idea b was espousing, that a minimum wage increase would HURT the economy. This is simply not true. It doesn't matter if you believe it will only grow the economy .24% in a year as conservative economic advisor Mike Patton says, or a whole 1% growth as a bold multiple being applied might suggest. Doesn't matter because in neither scenario does the economy hurt. It grows. So when deciding whether or not slight increases over 6 years may or may not be a good idea, understand that not only are a whole ton of people going to be that much more above abject poverty or starvation, the economy will enjoy a benefit not turbulence. DJ I didn't read your entire posts, my bad, but I think I got the drift. "a huge increase off the bat." well yes and no. The "yes" is planning. There will not be immediate layoffs but workers won't be immediately replaced either. Additionally business expansion will slow and automate. We're seeing this already in the fast food industry. Perhaps automation would happen anyway since it is a long term business strategy. My wife has 1,100 employees, they are not replacing workers that leave. By default the economy is going to grow, raising the minimum wage won't slow growth it will simple put more people unemployed but that might not be a bad thing either, workers should be reskilled. I don't really have an objection to the increase after all it is spread over a long time, which goes back to my planning remark. I do have an objection to the logic everyone should be paid a livable wage. I'm old school, if you want a livable wage, get an education and work your ass off or win the lottery. It seems to be a trade-off or balancing act between what seems like a promoting a value (hard work, delaying present gratification for future rewards-education-apprenticeship/training) versus mathematics. It reminds me of extending unemployment benefits. My generational work ethic found it to be distasteful that you could draw unemployment for that long of a time, yet the economics of it suggested that all the money paid to the unemployed would be put back into the economy which would keep others employed. The math says that people at the bottom of the income ladder spend a greater portion of their income on things they consume. That money gets back into the economy faster than money that goes to the top of the income ladder. The math also suggests that increasing their wages would probably reduce the amount of assistance they need from government. I am not sure what the tipping point is that encourages people to seek employment rather than welfare, or if raising wages would make employees care more about keeping those jobs. The math suggests that worker productivity would increase as there would now be greater competition for getting and keeping minimum wage jobs. The educator in me makes me think I might lose the get an education argument because a college degree on average is worth a million dollars more than a high school diploma (over the course of a lifetime in general). Not sure what it will take to motivate millennials who are not already motivated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 22:05:15 GMT -5
Mick should be a spokesperson for Viagra and Hefner should be co sponsor for Viagra
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 21, 2016 17:09:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 21, 2016 17:28:49 GMT -5
Two points: 1. It was a Republican primary, so who cares? 2. It was not people not qualified to vote voting, it was monkey business by the vote counters. Voter ID would not have made a difference. I believe there was just a decision nullifying the Texas ID law, by the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 10:08:28 GMT -5
NOOOOOO! This is the Saddest day America lost its Iconic Star of B5 and his Talk Radio show I always like to Listen to! Jerry Doyle has passed away! Savage and Doyle I always listen to, To get the Truth! Im glad I got all Season sets of B5 DVDS 3 weeks ago at a killer deal! I met Jerry at San Diego Comic Con Few years Back somewhere 04 05? Cant remember, I got his Autograph pic with other B5 cast! Jerry is a nice person I never knew he had his talk radio back then! Thank You! for the Best memories on B5 and your Talk Radio show!
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 31, 2016 17:12:21 GMT -5
Did not fact check this but who cares, many know how corrupt the DNC (Demonic Narcissist Convention) is anyway. The ship in the foreground has a MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar that's uniquely mounted on the Kerch which is a Russian Kara-class cruiser. The third ship has a MR-310 "Head Net" air search radar which is most likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy which is a Kashin-class destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 1, 2016 1:03:44 GMT -5
Did not fact check this but who cares, many know how corrupt the DNC (Demonic Narcissist Convention) is anyway. The ship in the foreground has a MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar that's uniquely mounted on the Kerch which is a Russian Kara-class cruiser. The third ship has a MR-310 "Head Net" air search radar which is most likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy which is a Kashin-class destroyer. [img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/85/43/e8/8543e8ba96ac69ad8251e93ce45482f2.jpg" Now THAT is funny. But it's not so much corrupt as STUNNINGLY IGNORANT. Then again, I bet Donald Trump could not tell the USS Ronald Reagan from the Titanic.
|
|