Raising the minumum wage WORKS! End POVERTY WAGES!!!!!!!

[Busybody]

Sgt Spiderman is the worlds DUMBEST WHITE MAN

arguing with him is akin to arguing with a Mushroom

 

[Busybody]

sorry Mushrooms

 

[Que]

All that is super, but that's not what I asked.

Yes, we do know exactly what minimum wage was before. So we can use those numbers.

If there was 50 hours of work to be done, and she now only works 40 hours. That work isn't getting done, or never needed to be done.

You're arguing against established math.

you are an idiot.

1) Where did you read she was making minimum wage before? You have no idea what amount <$15/hour she WAS making in the high wage /high cost of living locale.

2) Where does it say whether she was working 40, 50 or 110 hours a week? I have worked as many as 64 hours in 4 days, 110 hours in a week. For 5 years I consistently made more than double my base wage with my overtime work. Lots of people do. In the Obama economy many people are working several part time jobs to make ends meet.

3) SHE didn't work those "10 hours" you claim doesn't mean that the work did not get done. Either they shifted the work to another existing employee who was well UNDER 40 hours a week, or they hired one or more part time employee so they could take all of those hours away from employees that had been working overtime.

4) You ARE suggesting she cannot tell the difference if the size of her check is more or less than it was before the "raise."

5) You ARE demeaning the value of her work because you say that if the employer cut her hours it was because he suddenly realized she was "standing around doing nothing."

You obviously have never worked somewhere where employees compete for hours.

BS is right you are dumber than fungi.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

Understand that he is a teacher as well.

explains it all

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

you are an idiot.

1) Where did you read she was making minimum wage before? You have no idea what amount <$15/hour she WAS making in the high wage /high cost of living locale.

2) Where does it say whether she was working 40, 50 or 110 hours a week? I have worked as many as 64 hours in 4 days, 110 hours in a week. For 5 years I consistently made more than double my base wage with my overtime work. Lots of people do. In the Obama economy many people are working several part time jobs to make ends meet.

3) SHE didn't work those "10 hours" you claim doesn't mean that the work did not get done. Either they shifted the work to another existing employee who was well UNDER 40 hours a week, or they hired one or more part time employee so they could take all of those hours away from employees that had been working overtime.

4) You ARE suggesting she cannot tell the difference if the size of her check is more or less than it was before the "raise."

5) You ARE demeaning the value of her work because you say that if the employer cut her hours it was because he suddenly realized she was "standing around doing nothing."

You obviously have never worked somewhere where employees compete for hours.

BS is right you are dumber than fungi.

1. Well gosh, without knowing what she made before, the article loses its credibility.

2. Well gosh again, the article certainly was vague.

3. OK, so you're saying that management was foolish. That was my point. No matter what the minimum wage is, the employer is likely paying a premium for overtime pay. If there was someone under 40 hours it would have been cheaper for management to give that person the hours.

4. No. I've never suggested that and you're intentionally ascribing me a position I've never adopted instead of discussing the position I did adopt.

5. You did it again. See #4.

 

[Que]

1. Well gosh, without knowing what she made before, the article loses its credibility.

2. Well gosh again, the article certainly was vague.

3. OK, so you're saying that management was foolish. That was my point. No matter what the minimum wage is, the employer is likely paying a premium for overtime pay. If there was someone under 40 hours it would have been cheaper for management to give that person the hours.

4. No. I've never suggested that and you're intentionally ascribing me a position I've never adopted instead of discussing the position I did adopt.

5. You did it again. See #4.

Yeah, it's the article written by a reporter, reviewed by an editor, understood by its readers that has lost credibility. Not your persistence in willful ignorance or an inability to comprehend what you read.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yeah, it's the article written by a reporter, reviewed by an editor, understood by its readers that has lost credibility. Not your persistence in willful ignorance or an inability to comprehend what you read.

So now you're flip flopping & saying the article gives specifics. Pick a side.

The article can be reviewed by all those people and still be intentionally vague.

 

[Que]

So now you're flip flopping & saying the article gives specifics. Pick a side.

The article can be reviewed by all those people and still be intentionally vague.

you cant even recognize sarcasm?!??

The specifics YOU are asking for are NOT NECESSARY to the story.

In a market where even the liberals think you can suddenly jump to $15hour minimum...employees were ALREADY NOT making just the FEDERAL minimum.

REGARDLESS.

HER FUCKING CHECK WAS SMALLER!

I EXPLAINED TO YOU in fucking MINUTE detail the WIDE fucking RANGE of possible scenarios where that could happen.

And you are dumber than slow drying paint. Are you unaware that math is not a strength of yours? DO people in your life tell you you are smart? Really?

You don't even get why it is sometimes WORTH it to a company to allow or even encourage some overtime.

You are aware that overtime exists?

Do you think that YOU could walk into that company and because of your great business acumen suddenly arranging scheduling, skills, and strengths in such a way that you both retain a happy productive workforce and insure that no one ever gets over 40 hours? While no one gets say under 39.5 hours?


Do you not get that when your entire labor cost is working for your company that suddenly increasing it means you have to make touch choices, not all of which the employees favor?

How many seats were there on your school bus?

You aren't even demonstrating an understandings of the basics and you seem to think you are cleverly "winning" the debate that we are not having because you cant even understand a couple of paragraph length article?

forget that article, read this one

Then read it again. Out loud in front of a mirror.

Then tomorrow find a neighbor or a friend and read it out loud for them. Reading out loud will help with ensuring that you are reading every word.

Repeat this for a week.

At the end of the week find someone to talk to (not me) about what you learned from the article and how it relates to you.

 

[Busybody]

I am talking to a mushroom, Im not sure why!.

and he isn't even a FUN GUY

 

[Que]

and he isn't even a FUN GUY

ha!

I was not actually talking to..more talking at.

I did say- as I rattled off the challenges of staffing a business and the way employees strive to maximize the size of their checks.... that the math he requested would be wasted on him. That proved correct.

 

[Que]

Forget that article, read this one

Then read it again. Out loud in front of a mirror.

Then tomorrow find a neighbor or a friend and read it out loud for them. Reading out loud will help with ensuring that you are reading every word.

Repeat this for a week.

At the end of the week find someone to talk to (not me) about what you learned from the article and how it relates to you.

Click the link... My thoughts on talking at him will be more clear.

 

[Busybody]

economics work!

DUMZ and LIBZ don't!

 

[Busybody]

when a presidential campaign devolves around HAIRCUTS and DOGS and BIG BIRD

then the AVG American is STEW PID

Sgt Spider Man is the DUMBEST WHITE MAN in the cuntry

 

[Que]

You forgot "binders" of women...never mind that Romney did a BETTER job than Obama at discriminating against qualified men to serve in his administration, and a better job of paying the favored women a wage higher than their qualifications and experience would ordinarily command.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Great, show me the math. If her wage was $7.25 an hour & goes up to $15 an hour, please show me how she makes less working a normal work week without OT under the new minimum wage.

Yes, her employer was paying her to stand around & do nothing. Unless her employer is now just renting out rooms without cleaning them.

The employer only has x dollars to spend on labor.

He is going to work it so that she makes what she did before and he is going to demand a productivity increase. If he decides to pay her more, since his costs are a local phenomenon, then he has to charge the customer more and the customer will travel to take advantage of the premium offered in savings outside of the high-wage zone.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

you cant even recognize sarcasm?!??

The specifics YOU are asking for are NOT NECESSARY to the story.

In a market where even the liberals think you can suddenly jump to $15hour minimum...employees were ALREADY NOT making just the FEDERAL minimum.

REGARDLESS.

HER FUCKING CHECK WAS SMALLER!

I EXPLAINED TO YOU in fucking MINUTE detail the WIDE fucking RANGE of possible scenarios where that could happen.

And you are dumber than slow drying paint. Are you unaware that math is not a strength of yours? DO people in your life tell you you are smart? Really?

You don't even get why it is sometimes WORTH it to a company to allow or even encourage some overtime.

You are aware that overtime exists?

Do you think that YOU could walk into that company and because of your great business acumen suddenly arranging scheduling, skills, and strengths in such a way that you both retain a happy productive workforce and insure that no one ever gets over 40 hours? While no one gets say under 39.5 hours?


Do you not get that when your entire labor cost is working for your company that suddenly increasing it means you have to make touch choices, not all of which the employees favor?

How many seats were there on your school bus?

You aren't even demonstrating an understandings of the basics and you seem to think you are cleverly "winning" the debate that we are not having because you cant even understand a couple of paragraph length article?

forget that article, read this one

Then read it again. Out loud in front of a mirror.

Then tomorrow find a neighbor or a friend and read it out loud for them. Reading out loud will help with ensuring that you are reading every word.

Repeat this for a week.

At the end of the week find someone to talk to (not me) about what you learned from the article and how it relates to you.

It's an article that's written intentionally vague.

It also never says anyone's checks were smaller.

Like you said, there's a wide range of possibilities here, because the article is so vague. She's not getting overtime, but that could be because it's a slower season, or because management was short staffed and is now fully staffed. They never speak to the operator of the hotel to find out if there are other issues.And of course there's always the possibility that Busybody just cut out key portions of the article. This was something that is intentionally vague, so people jump to conclusions.

Keeping in mind that your math still does not add up. The housekeeper is making twice what she was. The article states she was making $7 and is now making $15, but you don't want to use the #'s the article actually gives us.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's an article that's written intentionally vague.

It also never says anyone's checks were smaller.

Like you said, there's a wide range of possibilities here, because the article is so vague. She's not getting overtime, but that could be because it's a slower season, or because management was short staffed and is now fully staffed. They never speak to the operator of the hotel to find out if there are other issues.And of course there's always the possibility that Busybody just cut out key portions of the article. This was something that is intentionally vague, so people jump to conclusions.

Keeping in mind that your math still does not add up. The housekeeper is making twice what she was. The article states she was making $7 and is now making $15, but you don't want to use the #'s the article actually gives us.

The employer only has x dollars to spend on labor.

He is going to work it so that she makes what she did before and he is going to demand a productivity increase. If he decides to pay her more, since his costs are a local phenomenon, then he has to charge the customer more and the customer will travel to take advantage of the premium offered in savings outside of the high-wage zone.

 

[Que]

It's an article that's written intentionally vague.

It also never says anyone's checks were smaller.

Like you said, there's a wide range of possibilities here, because the article is so vague. She's not getting overtime, but that could be because it's a slower season, or because management was short staffed and is now fully staffed. They never speak to the operator of the hotel to find out if there are other issues.And of course there's always the possibility that Busybody just cut out key portions of the article. This was something that is intentionally vague, so people jump to conclusions.

Keeping in mind that your math still does not add up. The housekeeper is making twice what she was. The article states she was making $7 and is now making $15, but you don't want to use the #'s the article actually gives us.

Of course my math adds up...if there is an arithmetic computational error say so.

So, you infer from her unhappiness with the lack of overtime that her check was larger. Is that what made her unhappy...working less hours for a larger net check?

As I said...taxes also come into play. SOMETHING about her increase in pay and decrease in in hours worked has her unhappy. I think my inference is correct and yours is incorrect.

You saying she is better off is baseless.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is the same thing, if they can bog you down in minutia, then they can safely ignore the larger, established laws of Economics...

It prompted me to write this some years back:

AJ: I live in an oak forest...

fs: AJ, I'm standing in front of this tree and it's clearly a walnut, you don't live in an oak forest.

AJ: A forest will have more than one type of tree, but one usually predominates.

fs: All I see is this fucking Walnut tree! You're misusing the term Oak. It's just a forest.

AJ: 90% of the trees are oak.

fs: Now, you're just redefining the terms... We can't go any further with this conversation until you admit that this is a walnut tree...

AJ: Yes firespin, it's a walnut tree.

fs: Then you lied, you're stupid, you're inconsistent, and you make NO sense what-so-ever...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Of course my math adds up...if there is an arithmetic computational error say so.

So, you infer from her unhappiness with the lack of overtime that her check was larger. Is that what made her unhappy...working less hours for a larger net check?

As I said...taxes also come into play. SOMETHING about her increase in pay and decrease in in hours worked has her unhappy. I think my inference is correct and yours is incorrect.

You saying she is better off is baseless.

You pulled your own numbers out of thin air instead of using the numbers provided in the article.

I never said nor does the article say she's unhappy. Instead of discussing facts you're making things up.

I never said she's better off

 

[miles]

Spidey is going to give you guys a migraine. You'd do better banging your head against the wall.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Spidey is going to give you guys a migraine. You'd do better banging your head against the wall.

Okay, I shall do that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Spidey is going to give you guys a migraine. You'd do better banging your head against the wall.

I've been known to do that. People who don't normally think for themselves report migraines the first time they try.