Absolutely. To me, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a 1 per center, but I do okay. Any tax breaks I get go into investments.

Which only supports trickle down in the most abstract way - meaning almost not at all

How much more efficient that a person that is working a full time job can make enough to support themselves, and not live on the dole?

That is the canard of this whole process. A person cannot be against raising the minimum wage, without being very much appreciative and in favor of Their Tax dollars going to the people who cannot support themselves because they are making it. You can't without making weird gyrations athat come close enough to being lies ..... well they are lies.

Because, just like trickle down, and job creators theory. There is a basic truth

You don't survive on minmum wage without Government assistance. Artificially Low minimum wage means support of your tax dollars and mine being taken from us, and given to poor people.

Was that in reply to my asking for numbers?

I hope not, or else Slashdot is just turning into Yahoo comment boards. I ask for statistics, I get Neeneenr neener neener, Your wrong,I'm right.

Otherwise, got them stats?

This isn't rocket surgery folks. If higher wages kills jobs, then the numbers must exist somewhere, There are distinct differneces in minimum wage between states.

If it kills jobs, the states with higher minimum wage will have higher unemployment. Simple as that. Otherwise we're just blowing idealistic dogmatic smoke up people's asses. p.

Dude! The monetary redistribution already happened. We won, man, now get out there and enjoy.

I personally find the idea of getting a hundred dollars in quarters and throwing themn upon the ground.

Those stupid poor fuckers go apeshit, sometimes figting each other. One time one bit another, and then broke his arm. It was so enjoyable, I got another hundred dollars worth. We laughed about it at dinner.

It's really fun. In a few years we're going to need your money too, so be a good boy about it - You'll get your quarters.

Henry Ford thaought that the employees should be able to but th product.

Today, that is apprantly no longer true. The employee must be paid as absolutely little as possible, so that the sharholders are served.

But what happens when no one buys the product any more?

Here is the http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...

Although WalMart points to a 2005 report to invalidate those socialists at Forbes. I know WalMart employees who haven't had a raise since then.

McDonald's cost's us 1.2 billion dollars in Government support.

THere is even more data, but I figured you would just say that Huffpost and Daily Kos were tools of the liberal elite. You can Google it if you like

Now that we are here, I would like to talk about how my Tax dollars and yours are going to support the low wages that these companies say they have to pay their workers?

I thought that Government was inefficient, and spends the money poorly. So why should we subsidize McDonalds and WalMart so that they can pay their employees less? Would it not make sense to pay the employees directly? 6.2 Billion dollars is one fucking gobsmack of a tax break for WalMart. And it's semi hidden, allowing them to act like the free market superstars while they are secretly socialist redistribution of your money and mine to thos epoor people w e've been trained to know are the source of all their problems.

As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

Those fucking lazy poor people really frost my cupcakes too. Skiiled trades. Let us talk about them.

Because the person who is laid off at say 50, is going to spend 4 years leaning a new trade, to apply for a job they won't get hired for because they are "too old"? Because the person laid off from their factory job will just become an investment broker or open a machine shop?

I like Mike Rowe a lot, and agree with his idea that the blue collar workers don't get the respect they deserve.

But there is an elephant in this room.

You are not going to just plug in anyone anywhere. Isn't going to happen. Some people can make fundamental shifts in what they do, others cannot. I can and have. I've been a lifeguard, a cable TV technician, a linesman, a printed circuit manufacturer, a Digital programmer, a photographer, a videographer, and computer support to Suits. I'm the person who shifts careers as need be.

My better half, who is every bit as smart as I am, doesn't adapt as well - she's pretty much been stable in her work life.

I'd say 80 percent of people retrain only under great duress, and with very mixed success.

Thern there are the other people. Whether we want to admit it or not, a whole lot of people are just not cut out to do much that is complicated. They just aren't. But they need to support themselves.

Unless you want to support them through socialist programs, or remove them from the food chain, that is.

Trickle down economics concept is that it you give the wealthiest people large enough meals, that some food will fall of the edges of their plate, and poor people below will eat some of it.

I still await the evidence that a high minimum wage job equals a large illegal labor force.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Oh - You really showed me - Fail.

Why one could just believe that they are selfish pricks, who just find everything in life as an example of something that affirms their beliefs.

It's usually hypocritical though, and seen through the eye of a pig.

First off, in their "we will only be wealthy when you are as poor as possible" outlook, where a minimum wage doesn't exist, giving any employee any raise immediately causes the economy to fail, and causes employers to throuw up their hands in defeat, and close their food stand, and we all starve to death.

But then there's that little thing of places like McDonald's giving employees directions on how to apply for food stamps and other Government assistance. Or WalMart employees - 80 percent of them are on Government assistance to the tune of 2.66 billion dollars per year.

So right off the bat, insistence on the type of minimum wage we have now automatically means approval of massive Government handouts. Sounds kind of like business based socialism to me.

But now back to the thread. So this slackard, drain on the economy worker, after being laid off at the local WalMart, is going to pack up their family, and strike out for the other side of the country....... for what? Another minimum wage job at another WalMart? If they are hiring, maybe. If not, well, that will help curb the excess population.

Actually, why don't you show us? Give us the stats, man, or you're just one more trickle downer refusing to accept the idea that people who make some money, spend some money.

Hey now - That's just crazy talk!

Ask ,and ye shall recieve citizen

http://www.selfemployedweb.com...

Questions?

Don't read the news? The Internetz is a-coming to all cars, not just the evil spawn of Satan Teslas. Perhaps the Internal combustion cars will be immune?

You know, this was a way for Tesla to improve their vehicles. They have a slightly different paradigm. Find the problem, and fix it. Somewhat Different than GM's approach to their deadly ignition switch problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...

But hey - it was an internal combustion engine, so it's just fine - right?

This isn't aimed specifically at you, but to all the asshats who get a raging boner every time Tesla gets a scratch in a paint job or has a flat tire.

That's changing the argument. Anyhow, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

My response was to the AC posting:

As for accepting criminals getting away with their acts, I understand that. We cannot engineer a perfect criminal justice system. There are mistakes, there are some times criminal acts along the way. But I won't ever say to a person - well you weren't really guilty, but hey, that's the breaks dude.Society benefits by your improper incarceration.

The thing that is so odd about the "Acceptable level" of false positives crowd, that in a country that really really wants to make sure someone goes to jail, I always have three questions for the tough on crime crowd:

1. You like to be tough on crime - Why do you approve of allowing criminals to go free? Sounds like liberal claptrap to me....

2. How many guilty murderers do you find okay to let go free. 10 , 100, all of them?

3. are you accepting of being personally executed for a murder you didn't commit? Your wife? Your children?

And it doesn't have to be about capital crimes, just if a person is accepting of having say his or her life destroyed for something they didn't do. 40 years of 3 hots and a cot, and don't forget your own vaseline, sometimes Bubba gets sand in his.

You see, I'm not actually arguing with you - this was just a place to jump in.

I always am compelled to bring this up when people start talking about an "acceptable" level of execution of innocent people.

Which is to say that if you are accepting of a certain level of innocents losing their life for crimes they did not commit, it follows without any possible argument that you are also accepting of people who commit these crimes getting away with murder.

You cannot support one, without full acceptance of the other.

Oh my fucking God!

Do you mean to tell me that someone might be able to gain control of a car now!

Those Fuckers at Tesla will cause the downfall of civilization!

We have had cars for well over a hundred years now, and it looks like Tesla is the only company that has cars that can be stolen!. Shit! First fires, now stolen vehicles.This electrical car thing isn't going to work at all.

Umm, Thanks, Obama!