Poll

Is it.

yes. killed by colonel mustard.
20 (22.7%)
no. killed by miss scarlett
3 (3.4%)
killed by mrs. white
5 (5.7%)
killed by reverend green
3 (3.4%)
Professor Plum.
7 (8%)
killed by mrs pearooster
11 (12.5%)
with a lead pipe
3 (3.4%)
with a revolver
6 (6.8%)
with a wrench
4 (4.5%)
with a rope
13 (14.8%)
with a dagger
3 (3.4%)
with a candlestick
10 (11.4%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Author Topic: Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®  (Read 421232 times)

there really is no poverty in the real sense in the US. just citizens with less luxury then other citizens.
the "poorest" american still lives better then most of the world. and NO one EVER starves to death here. its impossible with all the free stuff.

what we are all really talking about it handing out more luxuries to those who lack some.

Thats not even related to what we were discussing.

I already agreed that it shouldn't raised though.
Why not if it's no harm like you claim?

my biggest problem with it is that I don't think that our economy can really handle that - at least close the wage gap between genders
Are you loving handicapped?

there really is no poverty in the real sense in the US. just citizens with less luxury then other citizens.
the "poorest" american still lives better then most of the world. and NO one EVER starves to death here. its impossible with all the free stuff.

what we are all really talking about it handing out more luxuries to those who lack some.
there's very little absolute poverty, you're right, but there is a significant amount of relative poverty. which i guess is what you were saying, though the definition is quite a gross oversimplification


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html
tell me the pay gap between a male and a female in the same job working the same hours with the same education, please.

a large amount of the problem isn't directly someone being paid more or less than someone of a diff gender, it's more so diff genders being less-considered for higher-paying jobs (aka ""the glass ceiling"")

which is something that's obv difficult to prove on an individual basis, and so also something that can mostly only be changed through legitimate culture shifts that change the underlying viewpoints fuelling the inequality

Why not if it's no harm like you claim?
I didn't say there was no harm, I was just saying you were wrong about price increases directly correlating to the increase in minimum wage.

There are multiple problems that do come with raising minimum wage though, such as unskilled teenagers having to compete with over-qualified adults for jobs, employers being less willing to hire extra workers, resulting in a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and employees being less motivated to move on in their career.

if i was working some job for 4 years. started at 10 bucks, got a supervisor job and am now making a sweet 15 bucks an hour.
then the next day, some handicap kid just out of highschool got my old job as his first job ever. hes making 15 bucks.

why all the effort. i had more experience and skills and worked to have more.
now i am just the same as him. at the bottom, but i have more responsibilities.

there is that cycle again of the poorest who dont try. its not because they are all just lazy forgets. its because the economy is broken, and hard work means nothing anymore.

you are only as rich or poor as the next person. when they raise min wage, they actually widen the wealth gap. pushing middle class downward, while the poor actually didnt move at all.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 07:40:04 PM by Bisjac »

Have either of you ever taken an economics class? This is one of the most common assumptions people make about minimum wage and why it shouldn't be raised. Raising minimum wage in no way relates to raise in prices, inflation, what ever the forget you want to call it.
Not that i disagree with your point about the weak causality, but i dont think it's a terrible assumption to think that a raise in the price of inputs may lead to some increase in the final price that consumers see.

Not that i disagree with your point about the weak causality, but i dont think it's a terrible assumption to think that a raise in the price of inputs may lead to some increase in the final price that consumers see.
It's not a terrible assumption, it's just a common misconception.


I dont know. It kinda pisses me off that if you work at McDonald's, youre gonna earn 15/hour for doing little work. There are people that are constantly exhausted from doing manual labor for 12/hour.

15$ did not help the economy, it destroyed small businesses and raised prices on everything

Edit: forget this city

15$ did not help the economy, it destroyed small businesses and raised prices on everything

Edit: forget this city

There are places that its in order already? Also, it was pretty clear that the mom and pop stores would go down, but I dont think its a big deal.

It's not a terrible assumption, it's just a common misconception.
I could see it possibly applied to small businesses that don't see lots of traffic normally, but in the grand scheme of things a raise of minimum wage should do nearly next to nothing. If there is any inflation of money because of it, wouldn't it be negligible compared to the "natural" inflation money goes through anyways?

Hell, it makes more sense to me at least that an increase of wages would result in lower inflation, because that would result in more people trying to spend it, which is great. If people spend money instead of hoarding it, shouldn't its value increase?