Conservative radio and tv personalities being hypocritical?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62
  1. #1
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Conservative radio and tv personalities being hypocritical?







  2. #2
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    I love the Factor, nobody beats Bill in the no spin zone "FUCK IT,DO IT LIVE"


  3. #3
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Conservative talking heads on TV hypocrites no fuking way!

    Gary Richardson: Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    The Truth about Redistribution: Republicans Receive, Democrats Disburse
    http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~garyr/C_o...ists_voice.pdf
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  4. #4
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    I love the Factor, nobody beats Bill in the no spin zone "FUCK IT,DO IT LIVE"

    This thread was started for a discussion on a certain issue...not for knob nibbling

  5. #5
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    I apologize

    Now regarding your post

    The union bashing is for Public unions not private unions.

    There is a huge difference between unions in the private sector and unions in the public sector.

    Public sector unions screw the states. They take there members dues and slush fund it to democratic campains in return for cadilac plans for there members with no consideration of the cost to the state and the tax payers.

    Yes the union members benifit, but at what cost? This is why my state of CA is bankrupt. The tax payers are now on the hook for lavish pensions and the Gov. chooses these sweet heart deals because the unions elected him.

    This is why the good people of Wisconsin elected Gov. Walker. To clean up the mess his Democratic predesessors have made with their States budget.

    O'reilly is praising his private sector union. private sector unions due serve a good purpose as they provide a good balance between employee and employer. Since the company has to pay for the benifits they will actually review the terms and make sure it is feesable for the buisness.

    This is not the case when it comes to public unions. Both the Elected official,Gov. and the unions are representing the same interest and the tax payers eat the cost.

    This is just some left wing smear article. I hope I contributed enough to your thread now can I just once "Fuck it do it live"

  6. #6
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    I apologize

    Now regarding your post

    The union bashing is for Public unions not private unions.

    There is a huge difference between unions in the private sector and unions in the public sector.

    Public sector unions screw the states. They take there members dues and slush fund it to democratic campains in return for cadilac plans for there members with no consideration of the cost to the state and the tax payers.

    Yes the union members benifit, but at what cost? This is why my state of CA is bankrupt. The tax payers are now on the hook for lavish pensions and the Gov. chooses these sweet heart deals because the unions elected him.

    This is why the good people of Wisconsin elected Gov. Walker. To clean up the mess his Democratic predesessors have made with their States budget.

    O'reilly is praising his private sector union. private sector unions due serve a good purpose as they provide a good balance between employee and employer. Since the company has to pay for the benifits they will actually review the terms and make sure it is feesable for the buisness.

    This is not the case when it comes to public unions. Both the Elected official,Gov. and the unions are representing the same interest and the tax payers eat the cost.

    This is just some left wing smear article. I hope I contributed enough to your thread now can I just once "Fuck it do it live"
    well that's a start. Now, some proof? studies that show the negative vs. positive when it comes to public unions. LAM has posted several in favor of the unions but i've yet to see any that back your point up.

    I think anything that takes power away from the working people and increases power for the government and employers, is not positive.

    What happened to blue collar people being able to buy and pay for homes and have some financial freedom. Wasn't that the case in the "good'ol days" that some people keep ranting about?

  7. #7
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    Watch this video. It explains what i am talking about.

    Why collective bargaining for public unions is a corrupt deal « Public Secrets

  8. #8
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    I apologize

    Now regarding your post

    The union bashing is for Public unions not private unions.

    There is a huge difference between unions in the private sector and unions in the public sector.

    Public sector unions screw the states. They take there members dues and slush fund it to democratic campains in return for cadilac plans for there members with no consideration of the cost to the state and the tax payers.

    Yes the union members benifit, but at what cost? This is why my state of CA is bankrupt. The tax payers are now on the hook for lavish pensions and the Gov. chooses these sweet heart deals because the unions elected him.

    This is why the good people of Wisconsin elected Gov. Walker. To clean up the mess his Democratic predesessors have made with their States budget.

    O'reilly is praising his private sector union. private sector unions due serve a good purpose as they provide a good balance between employee and employer. Since the company has to pay for the benifits they will actually review the terms and make sure it is feesable for the buisness.

    This is not the case when it comes to public unions. Both the Elected official,Gov. and the unions are representing the same interest and the tax payers eat the cost.

    This is just some left wing smear article. I hope I contributed enough to your thread now can I just once "Fuck it do it live"
    you are wrong on all counts.

    and Scott Walker hasn't done jack diddly. when he first got into office he gave all the states monies away for tax giveaways to corporations. supply-side tax cuts have never created jobs in US economic history and there is no data anywhere that supports claims of this. he made a bad situation worst as tax as receipts always decrease substantially during recessions, making various budget deficits worst. he did that then came up with a "fix"...and people still fall for this bs, seriously?

    * - Unions Help Bring Up Wages for All Persons

    Economic Policy Institute
    HOW UNIONS HELP ALL WORKERS
    http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefi...43.pdf?nocdn=1

    * 2010 ILO Global Wage Report

    Page. 42 - 4.2 The macroeconomic effects of wages

    " In fact, a number of observers have established links between the long-term decline in the wage share, the increase in wage inequality and the global economic crisis. While there are, of course, many factors which have triggered the crisis, a group of 30 distinguished experts led by Jean-Paul Fitoussi and Joseph Stiglitz considered that the crisis had its structural roots in the decline in aggregate demand that preceded
    the crisis and which was due to changes in income distribution. They argue that the increase in inequality in the years before the crisis depressed aggregate demand by transferring money from low-income households – which have a high propensity to spend – to households with higher incomes, which tend to spend less and save more. 56 In the United States, this fall in aggregate demand was compensated for by increased borrowing, so that growth was maintained at the cost of increased indebtedness. A similar argument is made by others, 57 who contend that the decline in the wage share before the crisis underlies the development of the United States’ “debt-led consumption model”, which ultimately proved to be unsustainable."


    Page. 59

    "We estimate that in countries with a union density of less than 15 per cent, the incidence of low pay is, on average, close to 25 per cent. This low-pay incidence is reduced by 3 percentage points for the countries with a medium level of union density (between 15 and 50 per cent) and is almost halved to 12.3 per cent in countries with high coverage (higher than 50 per cent). It is striking that the effects of union membership become particularly strong
    when the majority of workers are affiliated with trade unions, in comparison to the relatively small difference between the countries with low and medium levels."

    - The US has the highest level of low paid workers out of all OECD countries at 25% of the labor force. The rate of unionization in the US is 13%. The US also has the 3rd highest rate of poverty behind Mexico and Turkey.

    Page. 80 - Regarding the Banking Collapse in 2007

    "Another emerging concern is the fact that wage stagnation before the crisis may actually have contributed to the crisis and also weakened the ability of economies to recovery quickly. Although there are many other factors involved in triggering the global financial and economic crisis, one view is that the crisis had its structural roots in the decline in aggregate demand that preceded the crisis. Redistribution from wages to profits and from median-wage earners to high wage earners reduced aggregate demand by transferring income from individuals with a high propensity to spend to people who save more. Before the crisis, some countries were able to maintain household consumption through increased indebtedness, while other countries based their economic growth mainly on exports. This model, however, has proved to be unsustainable. In the future, countries may find it in their interests to base their economic growth on stronger household consumption, and on household consumption that is anchored in earned income rather than based on increasing debt."

    * State Pensions ARE NOT BANKRUPTING STATES

    The National Association of State Retirement Administrators
    http://www.nasra.org/resources/Publi...heet110125.pdf

    * State Pensions were MISMANAGED

    http://downloads.pewcenteronthestate...eets_final.pdf

    * Regarding Unions vs Right to Work States

    Does ‘Right-to-Work’ Create Jobs? Answers from Oklahoma
    http://epi.3cdn.net/71b6af16eb5e2f26cc_atm6iihec.pdf
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    Here we go again...

    I am only bashing PUBLIC UNIONS. Your entire copy paste post included private unions. I have no problem with private unions and like I said before Yes they serve there purpose.

    You want facts, CA my state has a severe budget defecit. We are broke. WHY? The amount of money the state has to pay for state employees pensions is more than the state brings in and can no longer afford them. Only %12 of people living in CA will benifit from these pensions and the other %88 are screwed and will see major budget cuts like fire fighters,cops,school teachers losing there jobs so a few retired state employees can get there pensions. Now does that make sence?

    If collective bargaining so great why don't federal employees have it?

    Why was FDR one of the most liberal wealth redistributor even against PUBLIC unions?

    Because it leads to the mess we have in CA. And how could you say Walker has done nothing in Wisconsin.

    Governor Scott K. Walker put pen to paper and signed his first two-year budget. It erases a defict of more than $3 billion dollars, ushers in significant education reforms and freezes local property taxes…all without raising taxes. When you add in the chaotic atmosphere in Madison and the tumultuous nature of politics in the Badger State, what Walker has accomplished in such a short time is quite remarkable.
    From the MacIver News Service:


    …Walker’s plan received high praise from Wisconsin’s business community.
    “Governor Walker and legislative Republicans deserve tremendous credit for making tough decisions to balance the state budget without raising taxes,” said Kurt R. Bauer, President/CEO of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. “The budget provides greater certainty for business executives and that should encourage job growth.”
    The budget eliminates the state’s $3.6 billion deficit. Only seven states in the nation faced larger per capita deficits than Wisconsin.

    If you call eliminating a states $3.6 billion deficit nothing, then I would love to hear you describe what Obama has done so far.

  10. #10
    .45 ACP rules!


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,552
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    Here we go again...

    I am only bashing PUBLIC UNIONS. Your entire copy paste post included private unions. I have no problem with private unions and like I said before Yes they serve there purpose.

    You want facts, CA my state has a severe budget defecit. We are broke. WHY? The amount of money the state has to pay for state employees pensions is more than the state brings in and can no longer afford them. Only %12 of people living in CA will benifit from these pensions and the other %88 are screwed and will see major budget cuts like fire fighters,cops,school teachers losing there jobs so a few retired state employees can get there pensions. Now does that make sence?

    If collective bargaining so great why don't federal employees have it?

    Why was FDR one of the most liberal wealth redistributor even against PUBLIC unions?

    Because it leads to the mess we have in CA. And how could you say Walker has done nothing in Wisconsin.

    Governor Scott K. Walker put pen to paper and signed his first two-year budget. It erases a defict of more than $3 billion dollars, ushers in significant education reforms and freezes local property taxes…all without raising taxes. When you add in the chaotic atmosphere in Madison and the tumultuous nature of politics in the Badger State, what Walker has accomplished in such a short time is quite remarkable.
    From the MacIver News Service:


    …Walker’s plan received high praise from Wisconsin’s business community.
    “Governor Walker and legislative Republicans deserve tremendous credit for making tough decisions to balance the state budget without raising taxes,” said Kurt R. Bauer, President/CEO of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. “The budget provides greater certainty for business executives and that should encourage job growth.”
    The budget eliminates the state’s $3.6 billion deficit. Only seven states in the nation faced larger per capita deficits than Wisconsin.

    If you call eliminating a states $3.6 billion deficit nothing, then I would love to hear you describe what Obama has done so far.
    LAM was talking about public unions. Including private unions is a non-issue.

  11. #11
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    Here we go again...

    I am only bashing PUBLIC UNIONS. Your entire copy paste post included private unions. I have no problem with private unions and like I said before Yes they serve there purpose.

    You want facts, CA my state has a severe budget defecit. We are broke. WHY? The amount of money the state has to pay for state employees pensions is more than the state brings in and can no longer afford them. Only %12 of people living in CA will benifit from these pensions and the other %88 are screwed and will see major budget cuts like fire fighters,cops,school teachers losing there jobs so a few retired state employees can get there pensions. Now does that make sence?

    If collective bargaining so great why don't federal employees have it?

    Why was FDR one of the most liberal wealth redistributor even against PUBLIC unions?

    Because it leads to the mess we have in CA. And how could you say Walker has done nothing in Wisconsin.

    Governor Scott K. Walker put pen to paper and signed his first two-year budget. It erases a defict of more than $3 billion dollars, ushers in significant education reforms and freezes local property taxes…all without raising taxes. When you add in the chaotic atmosphere in Madison and the tumultuous nature of politics in the Badger State, what Walker has accomplished in such a short time is quite remarkable.
    From the MacIver News Service:


    …Walker’s plan received high praise from Wisconsin’s business community.
    “Governor Walker and legislative Republicans deserve tremendous credit for making tough decisions to balance the state budget without raising taxes,” said Kurt R. Bauer, President/CEO of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. “The budget provides greater certainty for business executives and that should encourage job growth.”
    The budget eliminates the state’s $3.6 billion deficit. Only seven states in the nation faced larger per capita deficits than Wisconsin.

    If you call eliminating a states $3.6 billion deficit nothing, then I would love to hear you describe what Obama has done so far.
    Zaphod is correct..only public unions

    this stuff isn't rocket science...if pension plan managers and unions negotiated higher contribution rates during economic downturns it would be a non-issue. this was one of the problems addressed by the Pew Center. unfortunately the majority of the financial talent in the US goes to work for Wall street or in finance as it is the only sector of the economy where annual pay raises are a lock. so things like pension plans are managed by people who just don't have the proper skills. many of the pension plans took losses by buying into high risk stocks, or toxic investments so they lost monies.

    one of the primary focuses of the public owned business is maximum employment, it's why it's so hard for fed employees to get fired. this is why their pay generally lags slightly behind the private sector it is not the top priority.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    The last 3 links posted are about Public unions, but the post is talking unions in general.

    I think we have gotten away from what the original thread was about. The thread and links were saying Bill O'reilly was a hypocrit for praising his union and at the same time bashing unions. As I stated his criticism has been toward public unions that have bankrupted certain states, not private sector unions. This should be the end of the discussion.

    Bill O'reilly is a patriot and he looks out for the folks. He is always fair and gives both sides their say. He is number 1 in the ratings so he is always getting attacked by some smear.

  13. #13
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    TAs I stated his criticism has been toward public unions that have bankrupted certain states, not private sector unions.
    but they haven't it's bullshit..there is no data to support that statement. various states had deficit problems that are compounded by pension funding issues, they were not the initial cause. most problems have multiple causes this is simply another case of that.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    FACT CHECK: Approximately 85% of California's 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. And there are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. Furthermore, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000% while state revenues increased only 24% over the same period. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…

    That being said.............Does it seem reasonable to ANY OF YOU that California (and many states like them) have multi-billion dollar budget deficits and double digit unemployment, while hundreds of thousands of unionized state employees use their collective bargaining to demand scheduled pay increases and pension benefits that cost hundreds of billions? And all at the expense of you, me, and the rest of the taxpayers???

    We can debate about public unions all day and post columns that support our opinions. It wont change our opinions we have.

    Start a new thread about unions if you like, but this thread was trying to bash O'reilly calling him a hypocrit. Do you belive he is a hypocrit about the unions or do you see the difference in his critisism for public and praise for his private U.?

    Bill O'reilly looks out for the folks, he is a simple man.

  15. #15
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    simply having a job means nothing if the employer has the power to pay you way less then you need to even come close to surviving. This is what is so ass backwards, IMO, you work to pay for costs of living and hopefully put some money in savings. If the corporation has all the power, they will of course chose to pay their lower level and easily replaceable workforce, the lowest pay possible.

    Lets put all the statistics to the side for a second and answer this, what good does it do for the economy if the common people do not have enough money to actually put it back into the economy?

    Another thing is the taking away of min. wage. Somehow, somebody came up with the brilliant idea that if there was no min. wage, companies could hire more people. That logic only makes sense if the companies pay the workers less money, thus using the money saved on payroll to hire more people. Problem is, people already get paid to little to live so what is the sense in having more people getting paid even less?

    Extreme capitalists have lied to the people for a long time. The notion that the interest of the corporation and the people is the same. They say that if they make more money they can create more jobs. The actual interest of the corporation is to spend as little as possible while making as much as possible. Paying people fairly does not fall under their interests since it would raise their payroll costs.

  16. #16
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Posts
    5,600
    Rep Points
    235125658

    Political radio is sadly, about entertainment first and foremost. Ratings are critical.

    How do you get ratings? Shock? Anger? Fire listeners up. Be controversial.

    Very little substantive information is derived from political radio.

    (Same with television.)

    This information has to be read.
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    Bro you know what happens when they raise the minimum wage. The cost just gets passed on the consumer. Just look at the fast food value meals. They use to be $3 now they are $6. If you keep raising minimum wage employers will be stricter in their qualifications for highering employees. Less people will qualify. "Less Jobs". They arn't going to pay $12 an hour to a teenager with no experience.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718


  19. #19
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    Bro you know what happens when they raise the minimum wage. The cost just gets passed on the consumer. Just look at the fast food value meals. They use to be $3 now they are $6. If you keep raising minimum wage employers will be stricter in their qualifications for highering employees. Less people will qualify. "Less Jobs". They arn't going to pay $12 an hour to a teenager with no experience.
    so we just keep the wages where they are while cost of living goes up?(which it will do even though min wage stays the same) How the freak does that make sense?

    ok so explain this, how can the companies afford to double their executives' salaries every so often (and give them bonuses that are outrageous) if they can't afford to pay the grunts more? doesn't the same principles apply for everybody on payroll? Higher salary to the top (which are employes too)= Costs of goods go up????

    What? how in the world do you figure that less people will qualify ? qualification is a measurement of ones ability to perform a task. stocking groceries will be exactly the same task weather you pay 7 or 12 dollars an hour.

    I don't know what world you are living in buddy, but "teenagers with no experience" are not the only people working minimum jobs...by far.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage

    X
    Justin Higgins
    Justin Higgins has traveled throughout South America. He writes articles that appear on various websites with a focus on travel and science-related topics. Higgins is a graduate from Ithaca College with a Bachelor of Arts in cultural anthropology.

    By Justin Higgins, eHow Contributor



      • Raising Minimum Wages: Good intention, Bad idea help wanted image by Tom Oliveira from Fotolia.com Those who are opposed to minimum wage hikes are not working against the poor; as private employment service owner, Roger Koopman puts it, the idea of raising minimum wages is ¨a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea." Although higher wages give some low-income families the short-term opportunity to rise above the poverty line, raising the minimum wage produces several long-term effects that are not only harmful to the low-come individual, but also to the economy as a whole.

      Rise in Unemployment

      • Raising minimum wage creates a higher labor cost for employers, thus limiting their power to purchase employees and resulting in less overall employment opportunities. This is especially true for the unskilled worker, who is ironically the intended beneficiary of these heightened wages. As for the economy as a whole, government welfare spending is increased drastically in order to financially aid the unemployed as well as to create training programs and unemployment services. In order to provide funding for such welfare expenses, the general public is taxed. With more taxes to pay and less money to spend on consumer goods and services, the U.S. economy is deprived of yet more money.

      Reduced School Enrollment

      • Raising the minimum wage may draw high school students away from studying and into the work force prematurely, leading to a reduction in high school graduates and college enrollment, as well as a lower long term index of skilled and professional workers. David Neumark and William Wascher, a University of Michigan professor of economics and a federal reserve researcher, respectively, concluded through statistical research that 2% of high school students drop out of school when provided with a 10% raise in minimum wage. Additional university researchers found that high school students´ tendency to continue to the next grade level declines as minimum wage rises.

      Additional Long Term Effects

      • According to economist, James Sherk, raising minimum wages causes several additional long-term problems for those who are employed as minimum wage workers. The ability to hold a job as well as to benefit from their current income will reduce significantly over a decade. This is due to a lack of knowledge and training from dropping out of school and cutting entry level jobs that provide opportunities for advancement. More and more jobs are requiring that workers have a high school diploma and/or the completion of some highereducation. With respect to advancement, companies may use lower minimum wages to provide training and experience to a body of workers and interns who wish to eventually gain a higher position in the sector. High minimum wages cut such opportunities and keep unskilled workers in their position of lower income



    Read more: The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage | eHow.com The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage | eHow.com

  21. #21
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    There are many many factors that influence the costs of things, for an example supply and demand (which by the way is regulated to hell).

    A company with millions/billions in profit can easily pay their workers more and still make billions, the difference is making 10 billion or 8 billion.

    And has nobody thought about the simple fact that happier employees have been proven to be way more productive? how is that not a part of the debate. Raise wages 10 % and get a 5% increase in productivity (hypothetical numbers) and your loss is actually only 5%.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    When the government changes the law, individuals respond to those changes. Because of this, the true effects of a law often differ radically from its authors' intentions. For example, Congress created welfare to help the poor in times of need, but instead it created a cycle of dependence trapping low-income Americans in poverty.
    Similarly, raising the minimum wage brings with it unintended consequences that run counter to lawmakers' aim of helping the working poor. Like anything else, when the price of labor rises, businesses buy less of it. The role of the minimum wage in raising unemployment is well known and well documented.[1] But even worse, recent research has shown that higher minimum wages reduce teenage education levels and decrease workers' long-term earnings. Studies also show that the minimum wage does not reduce poverty. As always, Members of Congress should look beyond their good intentions and consider the full effects of proposed policies. If they do, they will reject raising the minimum wage.
    Minimum Wages Reduce School Enrollment
    Contrary to the rhetoric of those who favor raising the minimum wage, most people affected by the minimum wage are actually young workers. Individuals between the ages of 16 and 24 accounted for 53 percent of all minimum wage-earners in 2005.[2] When the minimum wage rises, it increases the incomes of teenagers with minimum-wage jobs, making entering the workforce more attractive. This, in turn, can be expected to cause some students to spend less time in school and more time working. While the overall number of minimum-wage jobs might decrease, if employers prefer to hire teenagers to low-skilled adults, the number of teenagers enrolled in school would drop.
    Recent research has confirmed exactly this effect. David Neumark, professor of economics at Michigan State University, and William Wascher, a researcher with the Federal Reserve, found that minimum wage hikes decrease the proportion of teenagers enrolled in school.[3] In states which allow students to drop out of school before they are 18, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop by two percent. In states which require students to stay in school until they are 18, raising the minimum wage had no effect. In sum, when students have the option, higher minimum wages motivate some to leave school and start working.
    Another recent paper confirms this conclusion. Duncan Chaplin of the Urban Institute, Mark Turner of John Hopkins University, and Andreas Pape of Michigan State University examined teenagers' continuation ratios-the proportion of a school's students in any year who either graduate or progress to the next grade level.[4] They found that higher minimum wages decreased continuation ratios and led teenagers to drop out of school. Again, this result was present only in states where teenagers could drop out of school at younger ages.
    Workers need skills and education to get ahead in the economy, and workers without a high school diploma face difficult career prospects. Raising the minimum wage actually motivates teenagers to make choices that may push them into poverty later in life.
    Long-Term Effects of Minimum Wages
    The fact that minimum wages reduce educational attainment suggests examining their long-term effects. In a recent study, Neumark and Olena Nizalova, of Michigan State University, examined the incomes of adults who had been teenagers when minimum wages rose in their states.[5] They found that minimum wage hikes reduced both the probability of holding a job and the incomes of workers exposed to them over a decade later. They also found that this negative effect is larger for African-Americans than for whites, perhaps because more African-Americans hold jobs that pay near the minimum wage.
    Raising the minimum wage has these negative long-term effects because it alters the choices that people make today in ways that have long-term consequences. It induces some students to drop out of school, reducing their long-term employability. By raising unemployment and eliminating entry-level jobs, minimum wage hikes also eliminate opportunities for workers to gain valuable experience and skills that prepare them for future jobs. These unintended consequences severely hamper low-income workers' future job and earning prospects.
    Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce poverty
    For all the negative unintended effects of the minimum wage, it is perhaps not surprising that the minimum wage does not reduce poverty.[6] Neumark and Wascher found that minimum wage hikes increased the probability that poor families escaped poverty but also increased the probability that previously non-poor families fell below the poverty line. Overall, poverty rates did not change. Neumark and Wascher conclude that raising minimum wages does not reduce poverty:
    On balance, we find no compelling evidence supporting the view that minimum wages help in the fight against poverty. Rather, because not only the wage gains but also the disemployment effects of minimum wage increases are concentrated among low-income families, the various tradeoffs created by minimum wage increases more closely resemble income redistribution among low-income families than income redistribution from high- to low-income families.[7]
    On balance, then, the minimum wage leaves low-income Americans no better off in the short term and far worse off in the long term.
    Conclusion
    Due to unintended effects, a law can achieve the opposite of its supporters' intentions. The minimum wage is such a law. It is intended to reduce poverty, but it does not. Instead it encourages teenagers to drop out of school and reduces low-income workers' future job prospects and earnings. Good intentions are not enough. Congress should not pass a destructive minimum wage hike that will harm the most vulnerable American workers.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    BOARD REP
    irish_2003's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    on the boards
    Posts
    5,204
    Rep Points
    328823776

    LAM just out of curiosity can you find out the voting preference or political affiliation for the top 50 or 100 corporations in the US?....i'm pretty sure it's equal or close to equal
    www.euroking-gear.net
    please know and follow the laws of your country regarding aas

  24. #24
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    By Justin Higgins, eHow Contributor
    who in the fuck is Justin Higgins? anybody can write an article and post it on a web page. what are his credentials? what peer reviewed papers has he written? were did he get his PhD from? who has he worked for? where is his noble prize in economics?
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  25. #25
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Madoff Whistleblower: Big Banks Are Ripping Off Pension Funds

    Madoff Whistleblower: Big Banks Are Ripping Off Pension Funds | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  26. #26
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage

    X
    Justin Higgins
    Justin Higgins has traveled throughout South America. He writes articles that appear on various websites with a focus on travel and science-related topics. Higgins is a graduate from Ithaca College with a Bachelor of Arts in cultural anthropology.

    By Justin Higgins, eHow Contributor





      • Raising Minimum Wages: Good intention, Bad idea help wanted image by Tom Oliveira from Fotolia.com Those who are opposed to minimum wage hikes are not working against the poor; as private employment service owner, Roger Koopman puts it, the idea of raising minimum wages is ¨a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea." Although higher wages give some low-income families the short-term opportunity to rise above the poverty line, raising the minimum wage produces several long-term effects that are not only harmful to the low-come individual, but also to the economy as a whole.

      Rise in Unemployment

      • Raising minimum wage creates a higher labor cost for employers, thus limiting their power to purchase employees and resulting in less overall employment opportunities. This is especially true for the unskilled worker, who is ironically the intended beneficiary of these heightened wages. As for the economy as a whole, government welfare spending is increased drastically in order to financially aid the unemployed as well as to create training programs and unemployment services. In order to provide funding for such welfare expenses, the general public is taxed. With more taxes to pay and less money to spend on consumer goods and services, the U.S. economy is deprived of yet more money.

      Reduced School Enrollment

      • Raising the minimum wage may draw high school students away from studying and into the work force prematurely, leading to a reduction in high school graduates and college enrollment, as well as a lower long term index of skilled and professional workers. David Neumark and William Wascher, a University of Michigan professor of economics and a federal reserve researcher, respectively, concluded through statistical research that 2% of high school students drop out of school when provided with a 10% raise in minimum wage. Additional university researchers found that high school students´ tendency to continue to the next grade level declines as minimum wage rises.

      Additional Long Term Effects

      • According to economist, James Sherk, raising minimum wages causes several additional long-term problems for those who are employed as minimum wage workers. The ability to hold a job as well as to benefit from their current income will reduce significantly over a decade. This is due to a lack of knowledge and training from dropping out of school and cutting entry level jobs that provide opportunities for advancement. More and more jobs are requiring that workers have a high school diploma and/or the completion of some highereducation. With respect to advancement, companies may use lower minimum wages to provide training and experience to a body of workers and interns who wish to eventually gain a higher position in the sector. High minimum wages cut such opportunities and keep unskilled workers in their position of lower income



    Read more: The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage | eHow.com The Negative Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage | eHow.com
    #1 if the pay is to low to survive of, the "power to purchase employees" only benefits the company.

    #2 What about the ones that drop out because they live in a poor home, bad neighborhood, and go to a bad school because their household is systematically kept in poverty through wage inequality? Bet that's a little higher than 2%

    #3Hahahahahahahaha, if that isn't the biggest load of bull i have ever heard. Might have been true in the "good ol days" but buddy, it's truly about profit these days. Companies do not promote through experience at nearly the same rate they used to. A large number of higher level employees at companies are degree holders and many of them never even held a bottom level position at the company they lead.

    this article looks like it was written by a CEO of a retail chain, sooo outdated man.

  27. #27
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718

    Look your ideas are well intentioned but produce unintended consiquences.

    I use to have simlilar views to yours untill I actually took the time to research why my state was in such a mess. I took the time to research how economies and budgets work. After looking at it from both sides I completely changed my views. I don't plan on changing yours, but do the research.

    Just leave Bill O'reilly out of it. He is a good patriot who looks out for the folks.

  28. #28
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    I'm out. This cat is delusional. I guess his neighborhood is full of teenagers that dropped out of high school to go get that 7.25 job and get rich. What a fucking joke.

  29. #29
    Regular user
    Gissurjon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in
    Posts
    1,308
    Rep Points
    159982929

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLe View Post
    Look your ideas are well intentioned but produce unintended consiquences.

    I use to have simlilar views to yours untill I actually took the time to research why my state was in such a mess. I took the time to research how economies and budgets work. After looking at it from both sides I completely changed my views. I don't plan on changing yours, but do the research.

    Just leave Bill O'reilly out of it. He is a good patriot who looks out for the folks.
    who are these "folks" they keep talking about.. Bill o'reilly couldn't give a shit less about me.

  30. #30
    Registered User
    ExLe's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,691
    Rep Points
    226861718






    Ya real delusional. I guess you havn't heard the U.S is over 14 Trillion on debt. S & P just downgraded our credit rating, States are going broke,over %9.1 unemployment, 3 wars. And what is Obama doing about it? He is on vacation having a good old time blaming everybody else for his horrible presidency. I bet you voted for him and will vote for him again. Lets just borrow more money from China, that will get us out of this mess. His health care plan is a joke and it's mandate is getting appealed in all the courts. Ya I am the delusional one.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 01:20 PM
  2. How Liberal/Conservative are you?
    By bio-chem in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:13 PM
  3. Another Conservative minority
    By tucker01 in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 03:43 AM
  4. hypocritical stuck-up reporters of CNN
    By MyK in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-27-2005, 01:00 PM
  5. Am I hypocritical about violence ?
    By Vieope in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 03:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->