This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 251
331
« on: February 18, 2016, 04:25:51 PM »
Pope just spent the last 2 weeks in one of the most drug filled violent cities in Mexico. Hes lying.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Any normal person who just spent their time in a city filled with violence and drugs would WANT that wall. Pope is lying to save some face with the Mexicans.
To be honest, anyone who approves of ILLEGAL immigrants is a fucking moron.
Isn't the point of community outreach to bridge the divide and be more open and accepting, not to close people off and create an echo chamber of like-minded people? There's no point in the Pope visiting places that are on the up-and-up and filled with devout Catholics.
332
« on: February 18, 2016, 02:20:55 PM »
It pays $12.50 an hour, so that's $25,000 a year. It's for Charter Communications. Basically they're desperate for workers it seems. My question is, has anyone worked at one and are they really as bad as the media portrays them? Maybe I'll suck it up and do it even for a year, then I can finally afford to move out.
I didn't know you lived in India, Roman.
I live in about to be in debtsville if I do a graduate program. It doesn't matter anyways. I just want to be around other students my age again and have somewhat of a social life. But that's not worth all of my money, $26,000.
I was mostly joking, but if you don't live somewhere where call centers are outsourced to, your job is pretty much always in threat of being sent overseas. You're better off being a waiter or something.
333
« on: February 18, 2016, 02:13:04 PM »
It pays $12.50 an hour, so that's $25,000 a year. It's for Charter Communications. Basically they're desperate for workers it seems. My question is, has anyone worked at one and are they really as bad as the media portrays them? Maybe I'll suck it up and do it even for a year, then I can finally afford to move out.
I didn't know you lived in India, Roman.
334
« on: February 18, 2016, 01:47:35 PM »
That isn't even a complete sentence.
335
« on: February 18, 2016, 01:43:02 PM »
The Pope is just another person with opinions to me, nothing more.
And to others, the Pope is someone with massive fucking influence.
336
« on: February 18, 2016, 01:32:36 PM »
Also I just noticed, but why the hell did you say "cucked by the pope"? Unironically using the word cucked in the wrong situations is autistic as shit.
Related: "cuck" is a dumb fucking word.
337
« on: February 18, 2016, 12:51:56 PM »
yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
Cracking down on who? The banks?
So I guess we live in a world where Dodd-Frank didn't happen and breaking up the banks is a swell idea. Oh wait, we don't.
I mean, she keeps talking about 'cracking down on Wall Street' at the same time as getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Same for healthcare/pharma companies.
She has some good policies. I just don't trust her to implement them.
So are you going to provide any proof that the money will influence her, or are you just going to post some more talking points?
You don't think giving someone hundreds of thousands of dollars will influence them? Do you think these companies give her money just for funzies? They don't expect something in return?
LOL.
Clinton has received those donations for years - even as a Senator.
If the money impacted her vote, show me some evidence.
it's not like something like this will drown her campaign, but donors telling her campaign how to run the campaign is pretty influential, and it's exactly the kind of thing that make people like me unconvinced of her claim that she is not influenced by the big money donors. Donors also voiced some frustration with the lack of media scrutiny of Mr. Sanders, who they said was essentially getting a pass. They pressed Mr. Mook to demonstrate that the Vermont senator’s policy proposals were entirely implausible promises and that his responses to essentially all substantive questions drew on excerpts of his stump speech and rants about the “millionaires and billionaires.” http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-donors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/
338
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:19:29 AM »
There might be some special cases of 5-6.
"Special" as in you don't know how to read a compass and map...
339
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:15:11 AM »
I have literally no ties to Judaism or Israel... 
I'm not sure what you're getting at
I think he's saying you're an elusive Jew.
Wouldn't a Jew be supportive of Americans, not critical, since Jews run America?
340
« on: February 18, 2016, 12:29:06 AM »
BF4 is still an awesome game and I play it a couple hours a week still. PC servers are abundant
341
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:03:59 PM »
342
« on: February 17, 2016, 09:15:55 PM »
Is that even fun for people at that point?
343
« on: February 17, 2016, 07:11:49 PM »
I have literally no ties to Judaism or Israel...
I'm not sure what you're getting at
344
« on: February 17, 2016, 07:09:07 PM »
Fucking jew age liberals man
"AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB HEHAIAHEIWBSVAIABDHSHSVSVWISV"
Fuck off to Israel
I have literally no ties to Judaism or Israel...
345
« on: February 17, 2016, 06:13:57 PM »
I bought it when it was 10% of on Steam. I wouldn't advise paying any more than that for it, even though it's a good game.
I do wish that replaying the story with different answers to Delilah would result in different conclusions. Giving me the illusion of choice that really doesn't effect the story is kinda dumb.
Loved the visuals though.
346
« on: February 17, 2016, 06:10:35 PM »
How short are we talking?
Steam says I played it for 3 hours, but that includes me pausing it and going to lunch.
347
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:54:48 PM »
I mean, come on, you're world leaders in science and technology.
Maybe our industries, but certainly not the general population.
348
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:53:45 PM »
How the fuck do you get a D in band?
349
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:47:28 PM »
But the rhetoric against raising the minimum wage is that ANY minimum wage increase is the end of the world.
And you have conservatives here telling you otherwise. Why are you opting to use the strawman/dumb argument over the argument that is being presented to you right now by conservatives who are probably more intelligent than the average Republican voter?
Because contrary to what you might think, the retarded things our political leaders say have an effect on things here. A not-insignificant number of people really think that raising the minimum wage even a penny will spell disaster for businesses because that's what they've been led to believe, and that's how they'll vote. Americans are dumb and easily misled. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
350
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:14:39 PM »
Its ok, take comfort in the fact that I once got a 7/200 on a multiple-choice final exam in my Principles of Accounting class.
351
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:07:37 PM »
At what rate is it acceptable to raise the minimum wage?
The best work on an appropriate minimum wage policy has probably been conducted by Dube at UMass (note: Dube is on the Left politically).
The conclusion is basically that if we're going to keep setting minimum wages at the federal level, it should probably be gradually raised to $10/hr.
...which is still significantly higher than the $7.25 it has been at since 2009. Why is $10 acceptable but not $15. Would $10 not also result in the catastrophic unemployment of minimum wage workers, too?
No. That's the magic of GRADUAL increases.
But the rhetoric against raising the minimum wage is that ANY minimum wage increase is the end of the world.
352
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:53:54 PM »
At what rate is it acceptable to raise the minimum wage?
The best work on an appropriate minimum wage policy has probably been conducted by Dube at UMass (note: Dube is on the Left politically).
The conclusion is basically that if we're going to keep setting minimum wages at the federal level, it should probably be gradually raised to $10/hr.
...which is still significantly higher than the $7.25 it has been at since 2009. Why is $10 acceptable but not $15. Would $10 not also result in the catastrophic unemployment of minimum wage workers, too?
353
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:41:31 PM »
Is that not the purpose of minimum wage - the minimum amount of money you need to live on?
The purpose is whatever we define it as. I think, broadly, the minimum wage ought to be considered a single tool in our anti-poverty kit. What's the point of having a minimum wage if we're going to double it at the federal level and cause significant disemployment effects across the country?
The minimum wage has a role to play when it comes to things like combating asymmetric labour markets--assuming they are a significant factor--and reducing churn in low-skilled markets, but there's nothing inherent to it which makes it the go-to anti-poverty policy.
At what rate is it acceptable to raise the minimum wage? Because no current proposition relating to raising the minimum wage includes doubling it immediately, it's all spread out over a number of years.
354
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:34:59 PM »
just that their minimum wage should reflect the cost of living so they can..y'know...live.
But why do you view minimum wage policy as having this unrealistic goal to fill? We're talking about setting a price, and when you set a price you have to hit an equilibrium point. The point the minimum wage--if we have one--must target is the point at which welfare gains from higher income meets welfare losses from disemployment.
And that equilibrium point could leave us with wages far below some contrived standard of living we want to shoot for.
I don't find keeping minimum wage up with the cost of living increases to be unrealistic. Is that not the purpose of minimum wage - the minimum amount of money you need to live on?
355
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:27:53 PM »
The kind of company who is paying minimum wages isn't interested in paying those people more. Pay is based on productivity, and has tracked it well for as long as we've had data on it.
Minimum wage is code for "if I could legally pay you any less, I would" This would be true in a monopsonised labour market. There are three problems with this, though:
- There's not a lot of evidence for monopsony labour markets, but if they exist they're certainly in low-skilled labour markets.
- It doesn't necessarily follow that the minimum wage is an appropriate policy response; even if it is, the minimum wage certainly shouldn't be judged on some quality of life metric. That's not how markets respond to policy, and it will likely lead you down a bad road.
- In terms of poverty reduction specifically, minimum wages are actually pretty poor tools compared to government transfers.
So if minimum wage isn't a good tool, what tools keep people with roofs their heads, food on their table, and clothes on their back?
356
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:25:21 PM »
it would just increase their margins.
Not so, it would raise wages, investment and employment. Labour demand is highly elastic.
The kind of company who is paying minimum wages isn't interested in paying those people more. Minimum wage is code for "if I could legally pay you any less, I would"
Or maybe it's because the employee is working an unskilled job that anyone else could easily do, so their job is naturally less valuable?
And I'm not arguing that they should be paid substantially more, just that their minimum wage should reflect the cost of living so they can..y'know...live.
357
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:20:18 PM »
it would just increase their margins.
Not so, it would raise wages, investment and employment. Labour demand is highly elastic.
The kind of company who is paying minimum wages isn't interested in paying those people more. Minimum wage is code for "if I could legally pay you any less, I would"
358
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:12:32 PM »
But Charlie, don't you know that raising wages makes prices go up? That's a basic economic principle!
But it kinda does?
You can't artificially increase value. If costs go up you have to look for something down the pipeline which will inevitably compensate for that, whether it be a reduction in labour or price increases.
Well when the cost of living naturally goes up X% per year, and you haven't gotten a raise in 4 years, your wage is worth less now than it was when you were hired. Either raise minimum wages to keep up with the cost of living, or ditch the minimum wage entirely and admit they don't give a fuck about people making minimum wage.
So you're solution to the apparently exuberant cost of living is to increase the cost of living? Because that's what increasing the minimum wage will end up doing.
So how do we magically make minimum wage people match the cost of living without raising their wages...make everything cheaper? How exactly do you propose we do that?
Decrease corporation tax and deregulate sections of the private sector for starters, but you're probably better asking the economics guru of the forum because he can probably explain it much more eloquently than me.
What I do know however, even from the most rudimentary grasp of economics is that raising the minimum wage does little, if anything in raising people from poverty or reducing the cost of living. Even just a penchant of common business sense can see why.
Decreasing corporate taxes wouldn't lower prices, it would just increase their margins.
359
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:05:45 PM »
But Charlie, don't you know that raising wages makes prices go up? That's a basic economic principle!
But it kinda does?
You can't artificially increase value. If costs go up you have to look for something down the pipeline which will inevitably compensate for that, whether it be a reduction in labour or price increases.
Well when the cost of living naturally goes up X% per year, and you haven't gotten a raise in 4 years, your wage is worth less now than it was when you were hired. Either raise minimum wages to keep up with the cost of living, or ditch the minimum wage entirely and admit they don't give a fuck about people making minimum wage.
So you're solution to the apparently exuberant cost of living is to increase the cost of living? Because that's what increasing the minimum wage will end up doing.
So how do we magically make minimum wage people match the cost of living without raising their wages...make everything cheaper? How exactly do you propose we do that?
360
« on: February 17, 2016, 03:53:27 PM »
But Charlie, don't you know that raising wages makes prices go up? That's a basic economic principle!
But it kinda does?
You can't artificially increase value. If costs go up you have to look for something down the pipeline which will inevitably compensate for that, whether it be a reduction in labour or price increases.
Well when the cost of living naturally goes up X% per year, and you haven't gotten a raise in 4 years, your wage is worth less now than it was when you were hired. Either raise minimum wages to keep up with the cost of living, or ditch the minimum wage entirely and admit they don't give a fuck about people making minimum wage.
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 251
|
Show Posts