canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Loss of jobs for low skilled individuals and the yutes
Your Tax Dollars Are Subsidizing Low Wages?!!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Loss of jobs for low skilled individuals and the yutes
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yes the majority of Americans who voted for Obama are stupid. Witness JPP liberals
And he cheated. He used the IRS to stifle conservative groups from organizing and raising money hampering GOTV efforts and stifling turnout.
Lorca
Don't fence me in
That was a lot of effort for stuff I already evaluated prior to 2 elections.
Showing what you consider as weaknesses on one side by no means indicates a poor choice on my part. Or good candidates fielded by the Republicans.
I think you might be worth some effort; but you may prove me to be wrong about that.
So you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections?
Lorca
Don't fence me in
Um....what examples were you using in your post? And the conversation was specifically about Obama, as you originally stated. Has he run 6 times where I could vote for him?
If you voted for him 3 times both times he ran...
Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
I think you might be worth some effort; but you may prove me to be wrong about that.
So you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections?
Two videos. DUH.
Either you are being purposefully obtuse, or an incredible dimwit.
What part of "so you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections" do you NOT comprehend and how does this question equate specifically to Obama.
Let's try again: So you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections?
Or another way; did you vote Democrat in the last six Presidential elections and if not, who did you vote for?
I think you might be worth some effort; but you may prove me to be wrong about that.
So you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections?
Two videos. DUH.
Either you are being purposefully obtuse, or an incredible dimwit.
What part of "so you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections" do you NOT comprehend and how does this question equate specifically to Obama.
Let's try again: So you did not vote Democrat in the last six elections?
Or another way; did you vote Democrat in the last six Presidential elections and if not, who did you vote for?
Lorca
Don't fence me in
I'm not discussing my voting record. I was responding to this:
So how can you vote for dimwits like Obama?
I don't blame you; most who voted for this inept dimwit of a President don't like to admit it.
Worse yet, you could be someone who voted for a complete moron like Al Gore. It’s really amazing how many really stupid voters are out there; a testament to our founders fears about Democracy.
And then there is that inept prolific liar and womanizing philanderer Billy Bob Clinton who couldn't keep his dick in his pants for eight paltry years. What do you think of a woman like Hillary who stands by a man who is a prolific liar and screws interns?
Lorca
Don't fence me in
???? I think you might want to be careful throwing around 'dimwit,'.....are you looking in the mirror? Then it would make sense. You posted a couple of books worth of crap about me voting for Obama.
So, are you confused now, or were you confused then?
This is really amusing!
Hey, let's do a thought experiment.
Let's say you have $100, and you want to improve the nation's GDP as much as you can with that $100.
GDP, as you know, is the total amount of dollars that move through transactions in the course of one year. If you want to increase the GDP by X, you have move (X/Y) dollars through Y different transactions. You can move X dollars through 1 transaction, X/2 dollars through 2 transactions, and so on. If you have a fixed amount of money ($100), then, the way to get the biggest bump to the GDP is to move it through as many transactions as possible.
So, then, you want to give it to the people who are going to spend it as quickly as possible, and encourage them to give it to people who will spend it as quickly as possible, and so on.
There are only a limited number of reasons why people hold on to money for extended periods of time. Either they're saving up for a big bill, or they're investing it (which isn't really 'holding on to it' despite appearances), or they're just plain sitting on it in the form of cash (because any purchases of actual objects would constitute another transaction.)
Who sits on large amounts of cash without spending it? Well, there are two groups: excessively wealthy individuals who are paranoid and thus insist on keeping their cash in actual cash form (quite rare), and large financial corporations who need to keep reserves of cash handy in case their creditors suddenly come calling. In other words, banks.
On the opposite end of the social spectrum, poor people basically never ever sit on cash -- they spend it basically the moment they get any, because they have to. They move money around at a much larger transaction-per-day speed than wealthy people, and much much faster than banks. (To be clear: banks certainly have more transactions per day, but they have significantly fewer transactions per dollar per day, which is pretty easy math when you measure dollars in trillions on one side and hundreds on the other.)
So, then, if you can maximize your transactions per day by giving money to poor people, and maximizing your transactions per day is the best way to improve GDP with any given fixed amount of money, then by transitivity, the best way to improve GDP with any fixed amount of money is to give it to poor people.
You can decide what this has to do with minimum wages on your own, if you can be bothered to think it through.
Let's say you have $100, and you want to improve the nation's GDP as much as you can with that $100.
GDP, as you know, is the total amount of dollars that move through transactions in the course of one year. If you want to increase the GDP by X, you have move (X/Y) dollars through Y different transactions. You can move X dollars through 1 transaction, X/2 dollars through 2 transactions, and so on. If you have a fixed amount of money ($100), then, the way to get the biggest bump to the GDP is to move it through as many transactions as possible.
So, then, you want to give it to the people who are going to spend it as quickly as possible, and encourage them to give it to people who will spend it as quickly as possible, and so on.
There are only a limited number of reasons why people hold on to money for extended periods of time. Either they're saving up for a big bill, or they're investing it (which isn't really 'holding on to it' despite appearances), or they're just plain sitting on it in the form of cash (because any purchases of actual objects would constitute another transaction.)
Who sits on large amounts of cash without spending it? Well, there are two groups: excessively wealthy individuals who are paranoid and thus insist on keeping their cash in actual cash form (quite rare), and large financial corporations who need to keep reserves of cash handy in case their creditors suddenly come calling. In other words, banks.
On the opposite end of the social spectrum, poor people basically never ever sit on cash -- they spend it basically the moment they get any, because they have to. They move money around at a much larger transaction-per-day speed than wealthy people, and much much faster than banks. (To be clear: banks certainly have more transactions per day, but they have significantly fewer transactions per dollar per day, which is pretty easy math when you measure dollars in trillions on one side and hundreds on the other.)
So, then, if you can maximize your transactions per day by giving money to poor people, and maximizing your transactions per day is the best way to improve GDP with any given fixed amount of money, then by transitivity, the best way to improve GDP with any fixed amount of money is to give it to poor people.
You can decide what this has to do with minimum wages on your own, if you can be bothered to think it through.
Maybe Lorca voted for Obama twice in the same day?
It’s apparent from the efforts I have made to communicate with the dullard that she really is a Democrat; she really is that dumb.
I am pretty done with her; it is obvious she is clueless and merely wants to engage in a circle of stupidity.
This is so incredibly dumb that there are few words for it.
Let me summarize your incredibly stupid premise; if Government gives other people's money to the poor, it will boost the economy faster than the people who actually earned and saved the money.
This is basically what you are saying; so it is official, you are definitely that stupid and that ignorant.
I am laughing at "transitivity." That is very amusing. The bolded part is your most dimwitted comment. Financial concerns do not have reserve requirements dullard; that would be banks and the current reserve amount is a paltry 10%. Secondly, the rich are not stupid enough to sit on large piles of cash so that it can be eaten away by inflation; they actually invest it into real estate, investments, bonds, stocks and businesses.
Where do you get such dullard ideas about how the REAL world works anyway? Yale?
Dumb...real dumb.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Sometimes they do. It's not black and white. Check out this article from today's paper. This woman didn't have a fast-food job. Nice way for the company to put her between a rock and a hard place. If she decides to move on, who's to say the next employer won't do what this one did?
If no raise, is it still promotion?
October 25, 2013 10:07 PM
Rosie Hernandez found herself standing in her manager's office in disbelief. He was offering her supervision of a larger team and a title that reflected her new role. What he wasn't giving her was a raise. "That will come when we all reach our goals," he told her.
Ms. Hernandez hesitated. She was a mother of two young children and a marketing representative at a Miami medical sales firm. The added responsibility would require more hours devoted to work and wreak havoc with her work/life balance. Turning down the offer, though, might be viewed as a lack of career ambition.
Such dilemmas are becoming more commonplace at workplaces as employers continue to cautiously guard their salary budgets. New research from CareerBuilder found that nearly two-thirds of employers said that a promotion at their firms doesn't always entail a pay raise. And, according to an OfficeTeam survey of 433 office workers, 55 percent polled said they would be willing to accept a promotion that doesn't include a raise.
(Continued)
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/employment/2013/10/27/If-no-raise-is-it-still-promotion.html
Auster
New member
Nope. That's not my premise. My premise is readily available to anyone who reads my post. My post doesn't talk about the Government at all, and you continue to insist that I have a specific agenda that you have already decided I have, without paying any attention whatsoever to anything I've actually said. It's kind of like the old rhetorical Strawman fallacy, except you're doing it to an entire person, not just a single point made. I've never seen anything like it before.
Thank you for backing up exactly what I said. I love it when people who think they're arguing with me do that.
Did you see the words "quite rare"? Do you understand what that means? Or are you really trying to tell me that there are zero wealthy people who keep cash around? If so, I'd really like you to tell me how you know this, because it means you have access to a near-omniscient level of information gathering that I'd really like to see put to better use than arguing on an Internet message board.
By actually sitting down and thinking -- but you clearly wouldn't know the first thing about that. To do that, you have to start by putting your assumptions away, and your entire life seems to be nothing but an endless series of assumptions.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Put yourself in her shoes.
She chose to stay in her current job rather than take on more work without getting compensated for it.
Auster
New member
Sorry, I meant to say they would be a fool not to demand a raise. At least if the job's low paying.