Show Posts
2731
Off Topic / Re: Which 2016 presidential candidate would you vote for? (RUBIO DROPS OUT)
« on: March 19, 2016, 03:52:56 PM »It does answer his question, and the answer is "Don't kill innocent people"I saw no such statement or implication, just two questions and a prompt, but whatever
And what you're pointing out is completely different from what I pointed out. What I pointed out was that he was using the same logic as terrorists. What you're pointing out is not similarities in logic. What you're trying to point out is actual consequences of actions, consequences which you have not proven will actually happen in any of the things you pointed out.My point was that he doesn't have to admit to agreeing with what you assume the terrorists are thinking, when you don't have to admit that you agree with some of the things I knew you wouldn't. You gave him an unfair ultimatum - "If you think this, then you literally have to admit to being no better than these evil people" - so I gave you unfair ultimatums.
Raising the minimum wage has not in the past raised inflation, in fact the minimum wage has been lagging behind inflation.
How would Wal-Mart pay for this? Fire less qualified workers to make room for fewer more qualified ones, sure, but that's not enough. Prices would have to go up. Even if for some reason that doesn't raise the prices, supply/demand would. Implying the employment rate stays the same, there are now a lot more people out there with a lot more cash in their pockets willing to buy higher quality or a higher quantity of products. Either price or production rises, but one is far more convenient than the other-- especially under a Sanders presidency. Rinse & repeat for other large companies, and next thing you know the overall cost of living has risen.
Making education free does not lower the quality of education.Hypothetical situation:
A college has 1000 students, each class has 40 students. Now, let's subsidize this college with tax dollars and make it free to attend. You now have 2000 students with even more trying to get in, but that is all they will accept. 80 students per class. The workload on the professors is doubled and the amount of time they could spend helping an individual student is replaced with time spent grading papers and such. Answering every student's questions is no longer a wise decision as it would take up time to the point where professor may not finish the lesson, so they either don't answer or give a quick half-assed answer, leaving the students still confused. Now, to deal with all the students trying to get in, they college can allocate funds towards expanding. If they do, that's less money for supplies, labs, etc, and they end up needing to hire more faculty. To save money(remember they're running off of the government, have to save money wherever possible), they hire less experienced staff. Less experienced educators = lower quality education.
I could keep going but by now you should have a good grasp of cause-and-effect. I experienced such a scenario firsthand with my public(runs off of tax dollars) high school. People hear how great our school and community is, attendance rises drastically and abnormally in a short amount of time, we build a huge new building to handle the freshman and sophomores, hire a bunch of cheap young staff who the students all complain about, "unnecessary" expenditures are cut(supplies for labs, art classes, band/orchestra, etc), more ridiculous rules are set in place to more easily deal with the wider gap in the student:staff ratio and the overall high school experience is less enjoyable. The quality of education for me my senior year was lower when compared to the quality I had experienced my freshman year.