You really as in no farking dange really saw that on the media? I'm rolling over that one. Not because I am liberal. I hate all politicians...this one was just another good one.
Technically, you could skew the results by looking at it this way:
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
NOT (Very Likely), which could overlap with "Somewhat Likely" because it can be interpreted to be an option other than "Very Likely" and anything else. This doesn't fix the numbers to make them add up correctly, but I've been up late working on something very technical and my brain is just stuck in that mode.
And just why would they put those headings in that order (a little, a lot, even less)? Gee, almost like they're deliberately obfuscating. Ya think? Nah, couldn't be.
Sorta like this highly enlightening spot from FauxNewsite Gretchen Carlson:
Actually, there is an economic principle involved with the minimum wage debate. My economics teacher (several years ago) pointed out that if you raise the minimum wage, many of the employers who hire such workers won't be able to afford to pay as many employees, which ultimately results in loss of minimum wage jobs.
... if you raise the minimum wage, many of the employers who hire such workers won't be able to afford to pay as many employees, which ultimately results in loss of minimum wage jobs.
Well, logically speaking, the reverse should also be true. Ie., keep lowering the minimum wage (or abolish it altogether as some staunch conservatives _still_ want), and there would be an increase of (minimum wage) jobs, right? ... Why, keep up with that 'principle', and we'd revert back to the days o' slavery. I mean, they didn't get paid _at all_, and there were jobs o' plenty. ... In the South. ... Pickin' cotton!
_Or_, could be that there is something called the "Works great on paper, but doesn't work so well in _real life_" principle, and perhaps there is more to be considered here than what one economics professor teaches.
The minimum wage was first instituted in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890s in response to frequent, bitter strikes and was adopted by Massachusetts in 1912 to cover women and children. With voters seeking a bulwark against the Great Depression, wage-hour legislation was an issue in the 1936 Presidential race. On the campaign trail, a young girl handed a note to one of Franklin Roosevelt's aides asking for help: "I wish you could do something to help us girls," it read. "Up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week...Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week."
Roosevelt rode back into office in part on a promise to seek a constitutional way of protecting workers; in 1923, the Supreme Court had struck down a Washington, D.C., minimum-wage law, finding it impeded a worker's right to set his own price for his labor. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, with a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees. (It also banned child labor.) Outside of Social Security, said Roosevelt, the law was "the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted." Wages must ensure a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being," the act stipulated, "without substantially curtailing employment."
Or_, could be that there is something called the "Works great on paper, but doesn't work so well in _real life_" principle, and perhaps there is more to be considered here than what one economics professor teaches.
Bingo
I AM an employer and know very well that productivity, quality of work (and quantity) can be measured by how much you pay people...
I dont know if anyone has done a study--but someone should....Like it or not money genuinely motivates people..its not exactly rocket science
I have tried paying people everything from way too cheap, to $10, $15, $20, $30, or $40/hr, to more.
The more I pay, the higher my production and the more I $make-
You always get what you pay for.
If a company does have some policy that they pay minimum wage (boo! boo!) I would bet my house AND my left footcomplete with all my toes that they would make more profit paying a higher min wage than the lower with the same number of employees.
It seems quite clear! No one knows at fox news knows how to add, don't known pie charts and especially does not knows how to operate microsoft powerpoint, and last but not least how to report the news. How did they learn journalism from? cnn, msnbc abc cbs, nbc. They all must have gotton their degrees from the crackpot cracker jackbox university school of journalism.
Well, logically speaking, the reverse should also be true. Ie., keep lowering the minimum wage (or abolish it altogether as some staunch conservatives _still_ want), and there would be an increase of (minimum wage) jobs, right? ... Why, keep up with that 'principle', and we'd revert back to the days o' slavery. I mean, they didn't get paid _at all_, and there were jobs o' plenty. ... In the South. ... Pickin' cotton!
_Or_, could be that there is something called the "Works great on paper, but doesn't work so well in _real life_" principle, and perhaps there is more to be considered here than what one economics professor teaches.
Or maybe it's more like "Balance between two extremes." On one extreme you have no minimum wage and slave-like working conditions. On the other extreme you have too high a minimum wage that forces smaller companies to hire fewer minimum-wage employees. Somewhere in between there's a balance.
BTW, this isn't just the opinion of one economics professor. There are many economists who hold this view. There are also many who hold the opposite view. And it's not a matter of one side's right and the other side's stupid. There are many factors to consider when it comes to economics.
BTW, this isn't just the opinion of one economics professor. There are many economists who hold this view. There are also many who hold the opposite view. And it's not a matter of one side's right and the other side's stupid. There are many factors to consider when it comes to economics.
That's why we're still on the hunt for a one-armed economist (uh, to have less of the "on the other hand" type of philosophizing)
Using ex70sHouston's analogy of validating Faux--err, Fox News by means of the ratings 'principle', one could say that reality shows, which undoubtedly outrank Fau--I mean, Fox News (I have _got_ to stop doing that ;) ) in the ratings dept., are more plausible than even Fox News.
Am I right on this? :B)
P.S., also please keep in mind that Faux--((damn)) I mean, Fox News _also_ includes entertainers like Bill O'Riley, Glen Blechh (Glen's new avatar ;)), etc. ... Now, _please_ don't tell me that those clowns are a valid part of news professionals, ... please?!
Recommended Posts
kimberly
And all three have the same first name, Back!!! Now that is funny!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
You really as in no farking dange really saw that on the media? I'm rolling over that one. Not because I am liberal. I hate all politicians...this one was just another good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Um.. media?-- No
I saw it on FoxNews :)
I wouldnt want to confuse the two :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
Mstar are you sure you got it from Fox news. The math works out more like Acorn.
Maybe you should post it in politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Those Fox kids are at it again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Technically, you could skew the results by looking at it this way:
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
NOT (Very Likely), which could overlap with "Somewhat Likely" because it can be interpreted to be an option other than "Very Likely" and anything else. This doesn't fix the numbers to make them add up correctly, but I've been up late working on something very technical and my brain is just stuck in that mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And just why would they put those headings in that order (a little, a lot, even less)? Gee, almost like they're deliberately obfuscating. Ya think? Nah, couldn't be.
Sorta like this highly enlightening spot from FauxNewsite Gretchen Carlson:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down
Yeah, who'd a ever heard of such technical terms as "double-dip" recession? Garsh, it's all so complicated!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
That was pretty damn good!
Gotta love John Stewart. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Also: Cancer: Is it secretly good for you?
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And don't miss
Poverty----The poor man's panacea.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Buncha commie pinkos!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
This one is from CNN--
Apparently its just not time to celebrate until the traditional toppling of the Pope is completed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Actually, there is an economic principle involved with the minimum wage debate. My economics teacher (several years ago) pointed out that if you raise the minimum wage, many of the employers who hire such workers won't be able to afford to pay as many employees, which ultimately results in loss of minimum wage jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That seems logical but I don't know if statistics bare that out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, logically speaking, the reverse should also be true. Ie., keep lowering the minimum wage (or abolish it altogether as some staunch conservatives _still_ want), and there would be an increase of (minimum wage) jobs, right? ... Why, keep up with that 'principle', and we'd revert back to the days o' slavery. I mean, they didn't get paid _at all_, and there were jobs o' plenty. ... In the South. ... Pickin' cotton!
_Or_, could be that there is something called the "Works great on paper, but doesn't work so well in _real life_" principle, and perhaps there is more to be considered here than what one economics professor teaches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The minimum wage was first instituted in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890s in response to frequent, bitter strikes and was adopted by Massachusetts in 1912 to cover women and children. With voters seeking a bulwark against the Great Depression, wage-hour legislation was an issue in the 1936 Presidential race. On the campaign trail, a young girl handed a note to one of Franklin Roosevelt's aides asking for help: "I wish you could do something to help us girls," it read. "Up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week...Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week."
Roosevelt rode back into office in part on a promise to seek a constitutional way of protecting workers; in 1923, the Supreme Court had struck down a Washington, D.C., minimum-wage law, finding it impeded a worker's right to set his own price for his labor. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, with a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees. (It also banned child labor.) Outside of Social Security, said Roosevelt, the law was "the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted." Wages must ensure a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being," the act stipulated, "without substantially curtailing employment."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912435,00.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Bingo
I AM an employer and know very well that productivity, quality of work (and quantity) can be measured by how much you pay people...
I dont know if anyone has done a study--but someone should....Like it or not money genuinely motivates people..its not exactly rocket science
I have tried paying people everything from way too cheap, to $10, $15, $20, $30, or $40/hr, to more.
The more I pay, the higher my production and the more I $make-
You always get what you pay for.
If a company does have some policy that they pay minimum wage (boo! boo!) I would bet my house AND my left footcomplete with all my toes that they would make more profit paying a higher min wage than the lower with the same number of employees.
Its human nature
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm
You have to pay people a fair wage if you expect them to grow in responsibility and commitment to self-betterment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyunknown
It seems quite clear! No one knows at fox news knows how to add, don't known pie charts and especially does not knows how to operate microsoft powerpoint, and last but not least how to report the news. How did they learn journalism from? cnn, msnbc abc cbs, nbc. They all must have gotton their degrees from the crackpot cracker jackbox university school of journalism.
Edited by nyunknownLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Or maybe it's more like "Balance between two extremes." On one extreme you have no minimum wage and slave-like working conditions. On the other extreme you have too high a minimum wage that forces smaller companies to hire fewer minimum-wage employees. Somewhere in between there's a balance.
BTW, this isn't just the opinion of one economics professor. There are many economists who hold this view. There are also many who hold the opposite view. And it's not a matter of one side's right and the other side's stupid. There are many factors to consider when it comes to economics.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
Just in Fox News ratings are up while CNN and MSNBC are both down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
That's why we're still on the hunt for a one-armed economist (uh, to have less of the "on the other hand" type of philosophizing)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Using ex70sHouston's analogy of validating Faux--err, Fox News by means of the ratings 'principle', one could say that reality shows, which undoubtedly outrank Fau--I mean, Fox News (I have _got_ to stop doing that ;) ) in the ratings dept., are more plausible than even Fox News.
Am I right on this? :B)
P.S., also please keep in mind that Faux--((damn)) I mean, Fox News _also_ includes entertainers like Bill O'Riley, Glen Blechh
(Glen's new avatar ;)), etc. ... Now, _please_ don't tell me that those clowns are a valid part of news professionals, ... please?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Entertainment sells.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.