Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and...

[CBWx2]

Someone should explain the difference between a theory and an empirical study to Vinny Peanuts. Until he learns the difference, there's no point in allowing him to contribute to the discussion.

You didn't ask for an empirical study, you asked for empirical evidence.

Yes. Empirical evidence, as in evidence originating from observation or experience. Evidence resulting from a study or experiment that is done to prove or disprove a theory.

Progressives have been raising the price of tobacco products for years with the explicit intent of reducing demand. There is empirical evidence that they have been relatively successful. Less demand equals less product, which in turn makes less people to make, transport and sell it does it not?  The current Secretary of Energy Steven Choi stated the price of oil needed to rise to European levels to reduce demand and consumption.

You can't implement a strategy and say it works on things you don't like, then say it is irrelevant and won't work for things that you do. Which one is it?

First of all, your premise is incorrect. I never suggested that raising prices cannot decrease demand. I suggested that the level of increase in prices that resulted in past minimum wage increases wasn't significant enough to have affected demand. The level of price increase in both of your examples, especially in the case of European oil prices, are far more dramatic an increase than what would be the result of a raise in the minimum wage.

Secondly, price manipulation was only one factor in the decrease in demand in both scenarios, and it could be argued that it wasn't even the biggest factor. In the case of tobacco, the success of the anti-tobacco lobby in making the negative health factors associated with smoking known, and in the systematic banning of smoking in common areas, has lead to a cultural shift in attitudes about tobacco. In the case of European oil, the success of the environmental lobby, coupled with easily accessible, less-expensive forms of transportation in Europe have factored heavily in the decrease in demand.

FYI, I don't happen to think a raise in oil prices in the US would have a similar affect on demand as it did in Europe. The US is far behind Europe in alternative forms of transportation.

[spartan]

Bobbing and weaving a bit aren't we?

[CBWx2]

Bobbing and weaving a bit aren't we?

Doing nothing of the sort. You presented two poor examples, and I am merely explaining to you why they are poor. Aside from the obvious omission of other circumstances that have lead to decreased demand in both of your examples, you are also attempting to compare a modest price increase to a drastic one, and claiming that the results would be the same. For example, in some European countries, the price of a gallon of gas is twice as much as it is in the US. This means that instead of it costing me $60 to fill up my gas tank, it would cost me $120. That's a hell of a lot different from me having to pay an extra $1.00 for an extra value meal.

If you are seriously suggesting that the effects on demand are the same from a $0.50 to $1.00 increase in the price of an item and a $3.00 - $4.00 increase in the price of an item you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just plain stupid, and you certainly don't strike me as a stupid individual, spartan.

[Durango 95]

Someone should explain the difference between a theory and an empirical study to Vinny Peanuts. Until he learns the difference, there's no point in allowing him to contribute to the discussion.

predictable .......................................shift ..............................shift ..............................shift

Give it a break numb nuts.

"Spin....spin....spin.....shift....shift.....shift.....blah...blah...blah....Parse...parse.....parse...intellectual dishonesty...blah...blah...blah..."

You sound like you're on the verge of hysterical breakdown

I didn't think it was possible but you're even beginning to get on my nerves.

Face reality you can't hang w/ CBW so you suffer from an inferiority complex which you're trying to make up for by throwing as much bullspit against the wall as you possibly can.

You lost this game a loooooooooooooong time ago and the more you talk the deeper in the shiot you fall.

When everyone around you calls you an idiot, it's a safe bet.....You are an idiot.

[Dolorous Jason]

if the answer to stopping outsourcing is to make it less appealing by paying Americans the same wages that Chinese laborers get paid to do those jobs, I fail to see how that helps our economy in the least.

Because it's an entry level oppurtunity while you learn skills that can't help you advance to higher paying jobs, and/or further up that company ladder with hard work.  Minimum wage jobs are never permanent , they are entry level . They pay the minimum for a reason : because they require no skill . Only an complete useless idiot does a minimum wage job permantely, and usually not even them.  Even idiots acquire skill in thier trade over time. Managers at McDonald's don't need a minimum wage increase because they've already earned it themselves.

...and you don't see how eliminating an entire segment of an economy like manufacturing effects an economy ? Wow , you are clueless.  An economy that is built on only a few select markets  is less diverse , and therefore less stable and likely to face crashes. It also raises all our prices in many cases because you have to import everything.




Seriously...why do people even debate you ? You're a complete dumb ass. Here's a little reading material for you since you seem to think outsourcing has nothing at all to do with wages. This is from that conservative think-tank called the Huffington Post :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/walmart-outsourcing-depresses-wages_n_1573885.html

[CBWx2]

if the answer to stopping outsourcing is to make it less appealing by paying Americans the same wages that Chinese laborers get paid to do those jobs, I fail to see how that helps our economy in the least.

Because it's an entry level oppurtunity while you learn skills that can't help you advance to higher paying jobs, and/or further up that company ladder with hard work.  Minimum wage jobs are never permanent , they are entry level . They pay the minimum for a reason : because they require no skill . Only an complete useless idiot does a minimum wage job permantely, and usually not even them.  Even idiots acquire skill in thier trade over time. Managers at McDonald's don't need a minimum wage increase because they've already earned it themselves.

You don't seem to get it. The average monthly salary for a Chinese laborer is $300 a month, and the Chinese are on the higher end of the wage scale for outsourced labor. How is paying American workers $300 a month in order to prevent the appeal to outsource going to help the economy? Permanent or not, what the hell can anyone buy or how the hell can anyone live in the US making a wage that low? And how in the hell do you not see that directly leading to the lowering of wages across the board for US workers except for those at the very top?

Lowering American wages in order to compete with the wages of outsourced labor is an utterly idiotic solution and would decimate our economy. You are essentially proposing purposely turning the US into a 3rd world country. Only in an Ayn Rand fantasy world would anyone see this as a good idea.

...and you don't see how eliminating an entire segment of an economy like manufacturing effects an economy ?

Where the hell did you even get this from anything I said? Jeez. You and Vince really are two peas in an idiot pod.

Want to know something hilarious? The link you posted actually proves my point, jackass. When wages are lowered for American workers, it hurts our economy. Lowering wages to fight outsourcing is almost just as harmful as outsourcing to begin with.

[spartan]

Bobbing and weaving a bit aren't we?

Doing nothing of the sort. You presented two poor examples, and I am merely explaining to you why they are poor. Aside from the obvious omission of other circumstances that have lead to decreased demand in both of your examples, you are also attempting to compare a modest price increase to a drastic one, and claiming that the results would be the same. For example, in some European countries, the price of a gallon of gas is twice as much as it is in the US. This means that instead of it costing me $60 to fill up my gas tank, it would cost me $120. That's a hell of a lot different from me having to pay an extra $1.00 for an extra value meal.

If you are seriously suggesting that the effects on demand are the same from a $0.50 to $1.00 increase in the price of an item and a $3.00 - $4.00 increase in the price of an item you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just plain stupid, and you certainly don't strike me as a stupid individual, spartan.

OK, let us go back to the beginning. Can we agree that increasing the salaries of employees is going to increase production costs?

[BucNY]

Bobbing and weaving a bit aren't we?

Doing nothing of the sort. You presented two poor examples, and I am merely explaining to you why they are poor. Aside from the obvious omission of other circumstances that have lead to decreased demand in both of your examples, you are also attempting to compare a modest price increase to a drastic one, and claiming that the results would be the same. For example, in some European countries, the price of a gallon of gas is twice as much as it is in the US. This means that instead of it costing me $60 to fill up my gas tank, it would cost me $120. That's a hell of a lot different from me having to pay an extra $1.00 for an extra value meal.

If you are seriously suggesting that the effects on demand are the same from a $0.50 to $1.00 increase in the price of an item and a $3.00 - $4.00 increase in the price of an item you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just plain stupid, and you certainly don't strike me as a stupid individual, spartan.

OK, let us go back to the beginning. Can we agree that increasing the salaries of employees is going to increase production costs?

No agreement needed, it's fact not opinion.

[spartan]

OK, so increasing the cost of producing a product is going to do one of two things. What are they?

[CBWx2]

OK, let us go back to the beginning. Can we agree that increasing the salaries of employees is going to increase production costs?

We already agree on that. The debate wasn't that it would or wouldn't. The debate was by how much would that increase affect cost.

OK, so increasing the cost of producing a product is going to do one of two things. What are they?

In the general sense, raise the price of the product, or cause companies to scale back on production to maintain profit margins.

Now as to the former, it is likely an unavoidable consequence to raising the cost of production. The latter is unlikely to occur unless their is a decrease in demand.

I can already guess what the next question will be, but I wouldn't dream of denying you the pleasure of asking it.

[CBWx2]

It's good to know that McDonald's will be fine.  Maybe Joe Olivo and his 47 employees can get an $11.00/hour minimum wage job there.

Maybe they can. Might not be such a good thing for Joe Olivo, but it sure as hell works out better for the 47 employees that he's paying below-livable wages to. It will also help out all the places that sell things in the town that Joe Olivo lives in, because now those employees can actually afford to buy more things and will require less tax dollars to offset the living expenses that they can't afford to pay for now as the result of Joe Olivo not paying them enough money to not have to rely on the government.

My sympathies to Joe Olivo, but I am of the state of mind that unless Joe can figure out a way to operate a business that doesn't rely on paying workers slave wages to keep the doors open, then perhaps Joe's business doesn't need to succeed. We can keep Joe in business by letting him pay these wages just to say we have people working, but those type of jobs are more of a drain on the system than they are helpful to it, because these individuals pay negative taxes, and also get welfare to offset their lack of income. Joe gets to make his money, and the rest of us get to pick up the tab for Joe's lack of ability to pay people a decent salary.

[Chief Joseph]

So, they're working for Joe because...?

[CBWx2]

So, they're working for Joe because...?

Because right now I'm sure Joe's wages are on par with what everyone who pays lower than livable wages pays. Why leave Joe's company only to take a job elsewhere for the same crappy wage? But if the national pay scale increases, and other companies can adapt to it better than Joe can, then I fail to see the value in allowing Joe to continue to pay crappy wages simply because he cannot figure out a way to be as profitable as other businesses.

These scare tactics get trotted out every time anyone talks about minimum wage increases and how they will affect the overall wage scale, and yet every time the minimum wage has been increased in the past, it has not caused the economy to crash into the abyss.

[tripblood]

If you have in-depth political disuccions on a Buccaneers message board. More than likely you don't know what the **CENSORED** you are talking about.

Go find a real political board do you might actually be challenged with real thoughts.

The end.

[tripblood]

Btw Keva is an IGNORANT VAGINA. Come with the facts old man or stop spreading racist crap on MY forum