2016: No more race to the center
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
218 comments displayed.
#85 to #9
-
billycakes (09/27/2015) [-] He doesn't seem to support either. He is pointing out the flaws in each. One is too far left while the other is too far right.
#167 to #85
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Except he's holding a sign that says love when it should say theft.
#78 to #44
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] A minimum wage increase is not only perfectly reasonable, it's good for the economy and it *only* hurts the profit margins of larger companies that do little to no research and development or risky investment.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't change the amount of money in circulation, just who is circulating it, so the dollar won't experience any inflation above the natural rate. Any price increase would be on behalf of the businesses paying more money, and wouldn't even touch your wallet.
McDonalds, Walmart, and a plethora of other inferior good outlets would be the ones hit by a hike in the minimum wage. But will you feel it? Hardly, unless you're one of the millions of Americans struggling to get by. Sure, businesses will raise prices at first, maybe even preemptively; they'll make a noise of it in hopes that people repeal or choose not to vote for it. But as most minimum wage jobs produce inferior goods, and as most inferior goods tend to have elastic demand, in the long run they won't raise prices outside of inflation.
Elastic demand goods means that the good responds quickly to price increases; if McDonalds bumped your dollar cheeseburger up to $2, chances are you're going to buy less McDoubles. Whereas a good like gas, which has an inelastic demand, can fluctuate between $1.70 and $5.00 and you'll still buy about as much as you did before. So when McDonalds raises the price of their food, they lose more money than they would lose if they just took the cut and paid their workers more. Either fast food would become too expensive for it's quality, or consumers would purchase from a cheaper (ie: more efficient) firm (ex: Burger King eating into McDonalds' profits).
But once the economy takes the brief shock of a minimum wage hike, then comes a secondary effect; people in general have more money. Now, any reasonable hike (lets say to $12 pegged to inflation) isn't going to make the difference between poor and middleclass, but it does mean a poorer person can afford to live meagerly reliably. Which happens to put inferior goods, like McDonalds and Walmart, directly into their budget curve. So suddenly people start buying more McDonalds and ****** produce and frozen dinners (as bad as fast food is, it's still a superior or a luxury good when compared to something like ramen), pic related. That money that the businesses forked over for decent wages, at least in part, makes it back into their wallets. Theoretically, this force could be great enough to make fast food and other inferior goods cheaper for everyone!
Raise the minimum wage and peg it to inflation. You'll see people rely less on the government for subsidies and welfare, a rise in efficiency as businesses are motivated to innovate, and an increase in the quality of service as businesses become more selective about who they hire (if they're spending more, they gotta get the bang for their buck).
Bernie isn't being stupid asking for $15 an hour. He's expecting pushback, so that politically something like $12 an hour seems more agreeable.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't change the amount of money in circulation, just who is circulating it, so the dollar won't experience any inflation above the natural rate. Any price increase would be on behalf of the businesses paying more money, and wouldn't even touch your wallet.
McDonalds, Walmart, and a plethora of other inferior good outlets would be the ones hit by a hike in the minimum wage. But will you feel it? Hardly, unless you're one of the millions of Americans struggling to get by. Sure, businesses will raise prices at first, maybe even preemptively; they'll make a noise of it in hopes that people repeal or choose not to vote for it. But as most minimum wage jobs produce inferior goods, and as most inferior goods tend to have elastic demand, in the long run they won't raise prices outside of inflation.
Elastic demand goods means that the good responds quickly to price increases; if McDonalds bumped your dollar cheeseburger up to $2, chances are you're going to buy less McDoubles. Whereas a good like gas, which has an inelastic demand, can fluctuate between $1.70 and $5.00 and you'll still buy about as much as you did before. So when McDonalds raises the price of their food, they lose more money than they would lose if they just took the cut and paid their workers more. Either fast food would become too expensive for it's quality, or consumers would purchase from a cheaper (ie: more efficient) firm (ex: Burger King eating into McDonalds' profits).
But once the economy takes the brief shock of a minimum wage hike, then comes a secondary effect; people in general have more money. Now, any reasonable hike (lets say to $12 pegged to inflation) isn't going to make the difference between poor and middleclass, but it does mean a poorer person can afford to live meagerly reliably. Which happens to put inferior goods, like McDonalds and Walmart, directly into their budget curve. So suddenly people start buying more McDonalds and ****** produce and frozen dinners (as bad as fast food is, it's still a superior or a luxury good when compared to something like ramen), pic related. That money that the businesses forked over for decent wages, at least in part, makes it back into their wallets. Theoretically, this force could be great enough to make fast food and other inferior goods cheaper for everyone!
Raise the minimum wage and peg it to inflation. You'll see people rely less on the government for subsidies and welfare, a rise in efficiency as businesses are motivated to innovate, and an increase in the quality of service as businesses become more selective about who they hire (if they're spending more, they gotta get the bang for their buck).
Bernie isn't being stupid asking for $15 an hour. He's expecting pushback, so that politically something like $12 an hour seems more agreeable.
#171 to #78
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Except, when they raise minimum wage, companies are going to fire every single worker that could conceivably be replaced by a machine. Including people that didn't want higher minimum wage.
Hell, it's already happening.
Hell, it's already happening.
#193 to #191
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Because they, until now, had some form of respect and understanding for the workers. Now that's gone out the window with the demands for pretty much doubling minimum wage.
It's gonna affect everyone.
It's gonna affect everyone.
#214 to #210
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Or something along those lines.
The guys in charge would rather have robots that don't get paid than have to take a hit to their paychecks.
The guys in charge would rather have robots that don't get paid than have to take a hit to their paychecks.
#184 to #171
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] So? Let's get people back in school; it isn't coincidence that Sander's supports universal access to higher education more than he does a minimum wage hike.
When you raise the minimum wage, it's going to be harder to get those jobs, which is exactly why we need more skilled, specialized labor.
When you raise the minimum wage, it's going to be harder to get those jobs, which is exactly why we need more skilled, specialized labor.
#188 to #184
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Patty flippers aren't skilled jobs. We need unskilled, uneducated, cheap labor to have a strong economy. You know, for the people still in school.
#192 to #188
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] There's always going to be unskilled labor; even if everyone goes to college or trade school, they're technically unskilled as far as the market is concerned.
That's when you'll have the minimum wage jobs you keep talking about; a revolving door of temporary jobs people use to get experience and spending money before moving on to a career.
That's when you'll have the minimum wage jobs you keep talking about; a revolving door of temporary jobs people use to get experience and spending money before moving on to a career.
#104 to #78
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] Well, I do agree that those who supply those minimum-wage jobs will be working toward getting more bang for their buck (pic related).
So which inflation rate do you want to use since the *real* inflation rate is much greater than the advertised '2%' (since the Fed plays games with chaining items and conveniently leaving off such things as schooling, health care and gas/fuel out of their calculations)?
So which inflation rate do you want to use since the *real* inflation rate is much greater than the advertised '2%' (since the Fed plays games with chaining items and conveniently leaving off such things as schooling, health care and gas/fuel out of their calculations)?
#137 to #104
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Let them get "more bang for their buck." That's the wonderful thing about the free market; when faced with higher costs, like higher wages, firms innovate.
At least, they should innovate. Rather than cut wages and corners, firms should innovate. Complacency is an easy way to squeeze the market, but hurts everyone in the long run.
Make automated ordering systems the norm, free up labor for the rest of the markets. Hell, put them to work making the ordering machines. And then hire more technical workers to maintain the ordering systems.
At least, they should innovate. Rather than cut wages and corners, firms should innovate. Complacency is an easy way to squeeze the market, but hurts everyone in the long run.
Make automated ordering systems the norm, free up labor for the rest of the markets. Hell, put them to work making the ordering machines. And then hire more technical workers to maintain the ordering systems.
#159 to #137
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] Ah, but this were the argument breaks down:
Companies can, and have, innovated your lowest-wage workers to the unemployment line. And they will continue to do so until that super specific Starbucks order is being taken by a machine, filled by a machine and maybe delivered to you by a human.
This indeed frees up labor markets...with lots of unemployed people. Plus the cost of the machines is going to continue to go down while their quality improves.
However, by raising minimum wage to $15/hr you are putting humans in direct competition with machines. Spoilers: a machine does not have to be perfect, just work better than a human on a dollar-per-hour basis.
Again, we are talking about low-skilled workers. These workers are certainly not going to go from flipping burgers to working a high-tech manufacturing line! These jobs are going to go to trained, educated, experienced workers.
Which brings us back to higher minimum wage leads to more unemployed workers...
Companies can, and have, innovated your lowest-wage workers to the unemployment line. And they will continue to do so until that super specific Starbucks order is being taken by a machine, filled by a machine and maybe delivered to you by a human.
This indeed frees up labor markets...with lots of unemployed people. Plus the cost of the machines is going to continue to go down while their quality improves.
However, by raising minimum wage to $15/hr you are putting humans in direct competition with machines. Spoilers: a machine does not have to be perfect, just work better than a human on a dollar-per-hour basis.
Again, we are talking about low-skilled workers. These workers are certainly not going to go from flipping burgers to working a high-tech manufacturing line! These jobs are going to go to trained, educated, experienced workers.
Which brings us back to higher minimum wage leads to more unemployed workers...
#181 to #159
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Let's not forget that companies can and will hire illegal immigrants who they can pay the previous minimum wage or lower. There are some "laws" in place stating that they can be prosecuted for this, but the thing about laws is, you gotta enforce them for them to have any teeth, and this one hasn't been enforced in years. and if the old communist is elected you know very well it wont' ever be enforced. so not only is the American worker competing with machines, they'll be pushed out be illegals who won't force 15 dollars an hour out of them.
#139 to #137
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] i've been with you so far but..
how do you expect minimum wage workers to start building machines? they're not engineers
how do you expect minimum wage workers to start building machines? they're not engineers
#162 to #139
-
wisdombranch (09/27/2015) [-] Engineers design machines, they don't build them unless they have a replicator.
#163 to #162
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] yeah i understood what he meant as soon as i hit "reply"
#160 to #137
-
wisdombranch (09/27/2015) [-] Ok, my bad, I thought you were an idiot. Sorry.
What we need to get back to though is turning from a service-complacent-economy ----- to a -------> industrialization-innovation-economy.... to become the 2nd edition of what we were in the 50s~70s.
The innovation side is relatively unhampered. The industrialization side has been VERY happered since the ?mid? 90s.
What we need to get back to though is turning from a service-complacent-economy ----- to a -------> industrialization-innovation-economy.... to become the 2nd edition of what we were in the 50s~70s.
The innovation side is relatively unhampered. The industrialization side has been VERY happered since the ?mid? 90s.
#142 to #137
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] nvm i understand what you mean.
still, assembling machines requires a certain level of skill minimum wage employees don't have.
still, assembling machines requires a certain level of skill minimum wage employees don't have.
#147 to #142
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Even fast food workers get job training when they're hired.
You can't assume that all fast food workers have no skillsets, either. Not to sound harsh, but if they don't have the skills necessary to stay in the job market, then they shouldn't be hired.
Indirectly, raising the minimum wage provides incentive for people to go back to school. There's all sorts of externalities in play here, I can tie in just about every aspect of American culture with minimum wage laws, but I'm trying to stick to direct price/wage effects.
You can't assume that all fast food workers have no skillsets, either. Not to sound harsh, but if they don't have the skills necessary to stay in the job market, then they shouldn't be hired.
Indirectly, raising the minimum wage provides incentive for people to go back to school. There's all sorts of externalities in play here, I can tie in just about every aspect of American culture with minimum wage laws, but I'm trying to stick to direct price/wage effects.
#150 to #147
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] well, by definition minimum wage workers don't have any specific skills.
it's all well and good to imagine turning them towards skilled labor, but that is not something that companies would be interested in doing unless they got tax breaks/benefits for doing so, wage policy won't do that on its own
it's all well and good to imagine turning them towards skilled labor, but that is not something that companies would be interested in doing unless they got tax breaks/benefits for doing so, wage policy won't do that on its own
#154 to #150
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] No, by definition, minimum wage workers make minimum wage. I know too many people with degrees working at Taco Bell because they're waiting on the places they applied to get back to them. At the same time, I know plenty of educated people, some of them veterans, working minimum wage jobs just because they're too old; undesirable hires.
It's not necessarily a companies responsibility to educate either. When its harder to get work, people will educate themselves.
It's not necessarily a companies responsibility to educate either. When its harder to get work, people will educate themselves.
#158 to #154
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] well they may be skilled but they're working a job that requires none of them, is the point.
and those disparate skills are still not all applicable to any higher level jobs into which they may be funneled.
i don't know that it could be so easy for people to educate themselves when they have a primary short term obligation to survive.
and those disparate skills are still not all applicable to any higher level jobs into which they may be funneled.
i don't know that it could be so easy for people to educate themselves when they have a primary short term obligation to survive.
#182 to #158
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Again, that's getting into externalities, something I won't delve too far into.
And is precisely why we should support a public education system that reaches past high school and into college education. It's not socialist to want the entire nation to have a higher value stock of human capital; it's good business.
And is precisely why we should support a public education system that reaches past high school and into college education. It's not socialist to want the entire nation to have a higher value stock of human capital; it's good business.
#178 to #78
-
failtolawl (09/27/2015) [-] Your explanation is perfect.
Sanders knows how to play the game, order more than what you need and you will never be dissatisfied.
That, and it's a political move that will get people paid less than 15/hr to hop on board.
Sanders isn't stupid.
Sanders knows how to play the game, order more than what you need and you will never be dissatisfied.
That, and it's a political move that will get people paid less than 15/hr to hop on board.
Sanders isn't stupid.
#157 to #78
-
wisdombranch (09/27/2015) [-] Workers are also consumers.
What happens when prices go up for consumers?
Are you claiming that if we raise wages by 50%, cost-of-living will increase by a smaller degree?
Once the prices adjust, what will be the NET effect? Will Workers have more worth in the bank? We know that they will have more dollars, but will they have more worth?
What happens when prices go up for consumers?
Are you claiming that if we raise wages by 50%, cost-of-living will increase by a smaller degree?
Once the prices adjust, what will be the NET effect? Will Workers have more worth in the bank? We know that they will have more dollars, but will they have more worth?
#190 to #78
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Hmmm I do agree with most of what you're saying. However, with the less people on public assistance statement I do believe is false. Seattle has actually seen just a decline in the amount of hours put in for work. So that they still make their $15/hr however, they only work half the amount of time to still be on a poverty level to receive public benefits.
#195 to #190
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] In two parts:
I believe $15 an hour is too high; there is an effect where when people make more, they start to work less, but this effect is mostly seen around the $80k+/year range.
Second, welfare is the messiest of economic issues. There is no solid data on any of it because there are so many different types; the only consensus we have is that welfare needs to be as targeted as possible to avoid corruption and abuse. It sounds like Washington needs to rework their welfare policies and criteria to provide incentive to work more.
I believe $15 an hour is too high; there is an effect where when people make more, they start to work less, but this effect is mostly seen around the $80k+/year range.
Second, welfare is the messiest of economic issues. There is no solid data on any of it because there are so many different types; the only consensus we have is that welfare needs to be as targeted as possible to avoid corruption and abuse. It sounds like Washington needs to rework their welfare policies and criteria to provide incentive to work more.
#185 to #179
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Yes, hence why I said he needs to stop peddling his lies, the minimum wage is not the problem, and it will never b the cure all you people are hoping for. Bernie is completely stupid, he's an old throw back to the red movement that's turned to a disguised "Socialist" movement. Redistribute wealth, take from the successful, punish innovation and promote conformity, all dressed up in a pretty box labeled "equality" I don't have the time, nor do I have the motivation to make an account on this site and list all the reasons mr. economy is full of **** . plus I'm anon so no ones gonna take this seriously. but maybe some one will decide to look at the counter arguments, rather then blindly believing this **** .
#170 to #78
-
quesocnkane ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] Damn bud, I honestly was pretty against Sanders, but this definitely swayed me more towards supporting some of his ideas. Solid.
#187 to #170
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] His proposals for veteran care are second to none; even the Right wing doesn't have any better ideas for our military.
Check him out if you have the time. The guy isn't perfect, and his plan for funding universal higher education is currently very foolish, but I firmly believe he's the best hope this country has at the time.
Check him out if you have the time. The guy isn't perfect, and his plan for funding universal higher education is currently very foolish, but I firmly believe he's the best hope this country has at the time.
#169 to #78
-
lietuvisss (09/27/2015) [-] Nice one man really thorough explanation. My questions is do you think maybe such an extreme of increasing the wage to 15$/h is a bit rash, why don't they just increase the wages every year like UK does to account for the inflation ?
#183 to #169
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Ideally, minimum wage should be boosted to a livable rate, and then tied to an economic indicator, such as inflation or social security's COLA.
So a mix of both. My personal solution would be $12 an hour pegged to inflation, but I don't have specific numbers to back it up; although the theory behind raising the minimum wage is solid, the same theories tell us that raising it too much will create a negative effect for everyone.
So a mix of both. My personal solution would be $12 an hour pegged to inflation, but I don't have specific numbers to back it up; although the theory behind raising the minimum wage is solid, the same theories tell us that raising it too much will create a negative effect for everyone.
#99 to #78
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] Why do you expect the companies to eat into their profits like that? They'll just cut workers instead. McDonalds in particular is just waiting for an excuse to cut cashiers out entirely and have automated machines to take orders. Look at what happened in Seattle.
That's the real issue with a large minimum wage increase like that. It's not inflation, it's the number of jobs going down to keep profit margins from dropping.
That's the real issue with a large minimum wage increase like that. It's not inflation, it's the number of jobs going down to keep profit margins from dropping.
#100 to #99
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] companies are always looking to cut jobs, the salary isn't really the most important factor.
say an average worker brings me $20/hour with their work.
if i'm forced to pay them $15/hour instead of $10, they're still earning me a profit.
why would i fire them? only if they can be replaced by a more efficient worker ( who brings in more profit ). if the work can only be done by a human, and the wage is fixed, and you still get a marginal profit from hiring a person, firing them isn't logical
say an average worker brings me $20/hour with their work.
if i'm forced to pay them $15/hour instead of $10, they're still earning me a profit.
why would i fire them? only if they can be replaced by a more efficient worker ( who brings in more profit ). if the work can only be done by a human, and the wage is fixed, and you still get a marginal profit from hiring a person, firing them isn't logical
#102 to #100
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] Ah, but that assumes that the average worker is already working as hard as he can, which is pretty much never the case for minimum wage jobs.
So you can make the workers work harder to compensate for having less of them. Or, like in the case of say, McDonald's which was the start of this whole 15$/h issue , they will literally replace employees with machines.
So you can make the workers work harder to compensate for having less of them. Or, like in the case of say, McDonald's which was the start of this whole 15$/h issue , they will literally replace employees with machines.
#103 to #102
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] as i said, companies are always trying to squeeze as much profit from as few people as possible.
machines are a way to do it, forcing employees to work harder is another, but that already happens and it will keep happening no matter how much they get paid
machines are a way to do it, forcing employees to work harder is another, but that already happens and it will keep happening no matter how much they get paid
#106 to #103
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] Yes but a wage hike will increase the squeezing much more than before.
So if the number of jobs decrease as a result of the minimum wage going up, who is hurt the most by this? The minimum wage workers who got laid off. Those workers will now struggle to survive even more than before, because not only do they now not have a job, but cost of goods will rise slightly as well.
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage was to help people who were just barely scrapping by, and the actual effects of increasing the wage just hurts those people more and leaves them worse off.
So if the number of jobs decrease as a result of the minimum wage going up, who is hurt the most by this? The minimum wage workers who got laid off. Those workers will now struggle to survive even more than before, because not only do they now not have a job, but cost of goods will rise slightly as well.
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage was to help people who were just barely scrapping by, and the actual effects of increasing the wage just hurts those people more and leaves them worse off.
#131 to #106
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] Like I said above, the move is already happening to replace your low-skilled workers with machines. When you go to your local big-box (or even just a grocery store) you have probably noticed the number of self-checkout lines that have been multiplying over the past few years. Yes, there is up-front costs; however, a dozen machines only requires one human worker to supervise their function and watch the shoppers. We usually prefer to deal with a human over a machine; however, as the machines get better & cheaper they will increasingly be what we deal with at any checkout.
As for those workers who use to scan your items? Well, a chunk of them are unemployed. I will venture a guess that an unemployed worker would prefer an $7 minimum wage than a $0 wage they are currently at.
As for those workers who use to scan your items? Well, a chunk of them are unemployed. I will venture a guess that an unemployed worker would prefer an $7 minimum wage than a $0 wage they are currently at.
#134 to #131
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] Yeah, but the replacement would be much slower without having the wage hike as an excuse to speed things along. Meaning more people would stay employed for longer.
Also I think you may have misunderstood me. I know someone would prefer $7/h over $0/h, that's exactly why I'm saying that the wage hike is a bad thing.
Also I think you may have misunderstood me. I know someone would prefer $7/h over $0/h, that's exactly why I'm saying that the wage hike is a bad thing.
#143 to #134
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] I am agreeing with you.
You seem to get that there is more to the minimum wage argument than just numbers in a vacuum. There is a complex interaction between what companies will do/can afford, politics and the workers themselves. As I said above, businesses are not there for your benefit, they are there because they are making money. If we cause them to make less money they will take the path of least resistance/lowest cost in order to do so.
You seem to get that there is more to the minimum wage argument than just numbers in a vacuum. There is a complex interaction between what companies will do/can afford, politics and the workers themselves. As I said above, businesses are not there for your benefit, they are there because they are making money. If we cause them to make less money they will take the path of least resistance/lowest cost in order to do so.
#112 to #106
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] you're starting from the premise that a minimum wage increase would lead to employees being fired, which i was trying to refute.
there are however many factors in this. throughout history, in america, minimum wage increase has never brought on significant changes in unemployment, however the increase being proposed by Sanders is larger than any other America has had so its effects could be different.
but the effects are mostly overstated by those who oppose it.
there are however many factors in this. throughout history, in america, minimum wage increase has never brought on significant changes in unemployment, however the increase being proposed by Sanders is larger than any other America has had so its effects could be different.
but the effects are mostly overstated by those who oppose it.
#121 to #113
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] why wouldn't they replace them with machines even before the minimum wage rise?
considering how employees' wages have increased by less than $2, was that really all it took to switch over to machines?
it was meant to make a statement in protest. i doubt they did it out of necessity.
considering how employees' wages have increased by less than $2, was that really all it took to switch over to machines?
it was meant to make a statement in protest. i doubt they did it out of necessity.
#122 to #121
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] Of course it wasn't out of necessity. They were looking for any excuse to do it, and it just so happens that a wage increase is a neatly packaged excuse.
And the minimum wage is going up by more than $2, it's just increasing slowly over a number of years rather than all at once.
And the minimum wage is going up by more than $2, it's just increasing slowly over a number of years rather than all at once.
#125 to #122
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] but that's what i'm saying, corporations are constantly striving to replace workers with machines, regardless of their wage. any wage is worse than 0.
#127 to #126
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] who's forbidding them from doing it?
i doubt there's any regulation for that.
there are online stores with no "real life" employees whatsoever who make tons of profit, what can any government say except good for them?
i doubt there's any regulation for that.
there are online stores with no "real life" employees whatsoever who make tons of profit, what can any government say except good for them?
#128 to #127
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] It's not that anyone is forbidding it. It's that the public backlash they would face would hurt their profit margins more than the margins would increase from the reduced costs.
With the minimum wage increase, they can now go "oh, this is a measure to cut costs instead of increasing the price of our goods".
With the minimum wage increase, they can now go "oh, this is a measure to cut costs instead of increasing the price of our goods".
#130 to #128
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] eh, i don't know about public backlash really.
if anything customers might even react positively to the machines, greater efficiency, no need to talk to a person.
even if they could use the minimum wage increase as an excuse to lay off employees, i still wouldn't see it as a reason not to do it.
if anything customers might even react positively to the machines, greater efficiency, no need to talk to a person.
even if they could use the minimum wage increase as an excuse to lay off employees, i still wouldn't see it as a reason not to do it.
#132 to #130
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] The backlash wouldn't be about the people (customers) having to use machines. It would be about firing a bunch of people for "no" reason.
>even if they could use the minimum wage increase as an excuse to lay off employees, i still wouldn't see it as a reason not to do it.
They did use the increase as an excuse, and it's a reason to do it, not a reason to not do it.
>even if they could use the minimum wage increase as an excuse to lay off employees, i still wouldn't see it as a reason not to do it.
They did use the increase as an excuse, and it's a reason to do it, not a reason to not do it.
#133 to #132
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] how long does a massive lay-off of employees linger in people's memory?
it's mcdonald's. they got away with animal abuse by cleaning up their image a bit and serving salads.
i doubt they would suffer much from firing a bunch of people
it's mcdonald's. they got away with animal abuse by cleaning up their image a bit and serving salads.
i doubt they would suffer much from firing a bunch of people
#136 to #133
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] It depends on the extent of the layoff and how big the company is in the public eye.
And even if it doesn't last that long, the point was it still would have hurt their profit margins. Now, they can do it and not hurt their profit margins. See the difference having a plausible excuse makes?
And even if it doesn't last that long, the point was it still would have hurt their profit margins. Now, they can do it and not hurt their profit margins. See the difference having a plausible excuse makes?
#138 to #99
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] (reply limit)
that difference is based on the hypothetical backlash they would get for replacing employees with machines without having a valid excuse, we're not in agreement as to how bad it would be
that difference is based on the hypothetical backlash they would get for replacing employees with machines without having a valid excuse, we're not in agreement as to how bad it would be
#141 to #138
-
octavia (09/27/2015) [-] I just said I didn't know how bad it would be. But it's obvious McDonald's expected it to be bad enough to have hurt their profit margins more than the cost cutting would help. That's why they didn't do it beforehand. That's why they waited until now to do it. Because now they can do it without it hurting their margins.
#49 to #47
-
bojesus (09/27/2015) [-] The US department of labor doesn't seem to notice any substantial changes in employment rate when increasing minimum wage.
www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
#50 to #49
-
Warcom ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] they support a minimum wage increase to 12, a 3 - 4 dollar difference isnt much, a 5- 6 dollar difference is a different story, also its not just the minimum wage that goes up, if johnny bugerflipper gets 8 bucks now, and his supervisor gets 12, when the minimum gets raised to 12, do you think the supervisor will do the extra work for 12 bucks? no, they will want more to match their skills, and so on so forth up the ladder
#51 to #50
-
bojesus (09/27/2015) [-] Which is a good thing. The more working people that have more money, the higher demand for products will get which would increase supply and thus keep prices at a relatively stable level whilst making the country more economically productive overall. This is also impart due to the reduced savings glut created by wealth inequality.
#52 to #51
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] It doesn't work like that. If there are more dollars being printed, the dollar will decrease in value. Economic stimulation isn't caused by more paper money existing at one time.
#84 to #52
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] More dollars aren't being printed though, and as such inflation will remain at it's expected annual rate.
Money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve. If you raise the minimum wage, the money is coming from corporate profit margins, not from government entities.
Money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve. If you raise the minimum wage, the money is coming from corporate profit margins, not from government entities.
#124 to #84
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] At the end of the day your employer is not a charity--they are in it to make money. Capitalism at work! You are making the assumption that these companies can either afford to make less money (which in many sectors is simply not true since they have razor-thin profit margins) or will willingly reduce the value to their shareholders who seem to like making a profit on their own investment in a company. Otherwise, they sell their shares (i.e. divest from a company) and seek a higher return on investment.
This is also assuming that your average minimum-wage worker is supplying as much benefit (a.k.a. 'work') that they are being paid. If you have to pay workers that are now costing more than the benefit they are generating then you hire fewer workers. Moreover, you now have an 'expensive' entry-level job so you are much less likely to hire an inexperienced worker. In short, productivity determines wage and unskilled workers tend to not be very productive. Couple of links regarding these ideas:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j01L69eXdI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lwN5uP0LzI
Finally, these minimum-wage jobs were never meant to support a family. Like the name implies, it is the lowest paid type of job so it will require the least amount of skill and experience. Since the job market stinks (for various reasons) these jobs are being filled by more non-traditional workers. However, it still does not change the fact these jobs are still not meant to support a family on.
This is also assuming that your average minimum-wage worker is supplying as much benefit (a.k.a. 'work') that they are being paid. If you have to pay workers that are now costing more than the benefit they are generating then you hire fewer workers. Moreover, you now have an 'expensive' entry-level job so you are much less likely to hire an inexperienced worker. In short, productivity determines wage and unskilled workers tend to not be very productive. Couple of links regarding these ideas:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j01L69eXdI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lwN5uP0LzI
Finally, these minimum-wage jobs were never meant to support a family. Like the name implies, it is the lowest paid type of job so it will require the least amount of skill and experience. Since the job market stinks (for various reasons) these jobs are being filled by more non-traditional workers. However, it still does not change the fact these jobs are still not meant to support a family on.
#145 to #124
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Laborers aren't a charity either; relative wage has been falling year over year for the past decades. Why is it morally acceptable to squeeze a person, but not a corporation?
I get what you're saying about productivity, but by raising the wages you increase the competitive nature of the job. More productive laborers will fill those slots. Look at the Henry Ford model; laborers knew they had a good deal, and if they slacked off, they were very easily replaced. Keep the incentive up, and you'll keep productivity high.
Regardless of what minimum wage jobs were intended for, the fact that people are using them to try and get by long term highlights the larger problem of the labor market, but we're not here to discuss human capital externalities.
I get what you're saying about productivity, but by raising the wages you increase the competitive nature of the job. More productive laborers will fill those slots. Look at the Henry Ford model; laborers knew they had a good deal, and if they slacked off, they were very easily replaced. Keep the incentive up, and you'll keep productivity high.
Regardless of what minimum wage jobs were intended for, the fact that people are using them to try and get by long term highlights the larger problem of the labor market, but we're not here to discuss human capital externalities.
#153 to #145
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] I fail to see how increasing minimum wage will make you workers more productive. If I tell someone they are getting paid more money they will not suddenly become a better worker--those who are already a more skilled/higher functioning worker is already getting paid at a higher rate. Henry Ford lived in a different time where productivity was exceedingly low but greatly improved from the individual craftsman model. You could supervise a line and quickly cull those who are not as productive. However, given this period was immediately after WW I there were relatively fewer men to fill these jobs so it was not as if Ford had is pick of workers...
Since I find the historical topic interesting, let me aquatint you with the real reason we have minimum wage: racism.
fee.org/freeman/the-eugenics-plot-of-the-minimum-wage
Tl;dr: even in the early 1900s they realized that if you raised the wage floor then your less skilled workers effectively became unemployable. They fully knew it was a way to socially engineer a disadvantage against those whose skin colors they did not like. However, a century later we seem to be blissfully ignorant of the effects of minimum wage on the lowest-skilled and most vulnerable workers.
Since I find the historical topic interesting, let me aquatint you with the real reason we have minimum wage: racism.
fee.org/freeman/the-eugenics-plot-of-the-minimum-wage
Tl;dr: even in the early 1900s they realized that if you raised the wage floor then your less skilled workers effectively became unemployable. They fully knew it was a way to socially engineer a disadvantage against those whose skin colors they did not like. However, a century later we seem to be blissfully ignorant of the effects of minimum wage on the lowest-skilled and most vulnerable workers.
#155 to #153
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] It doesn't necessarily make them more productive, but it lets you find the most productive workers; the rest will remain unemployed until they can better their skillsets.
And no. Seriously. The moment you trade "Economics For Dummies" for a tinfoil hat, I'm out.
Peace.
And no. Seriously. The moment you trade "Economics For Dummies" for a tinfoil hat, I'm out.
Peace.
#161 to #155
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] Please try reading the article since it is based on historically available references. Eugenics was kind of a big thing before WW II and these are articles from that period's books and articles (just like what is being quoted here is based on books and articles).
But then again, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
But then again, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
#54 to #53
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] But companies will still increase their prices to compensate (unless somehow ALL of their labour is outsourced). Also businesses are going to want to take advantage of the seemingly increased spending power of the min. wage group.
More money = higher prices, less money = lower prices, there's no getting around it.
More money = higher prices, less money = lower prices, there's no getting around it.
#58 to #57
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] >But prices would rise less proportionally compared with the increase in the minimum wage.
Says who?
Says who?
#61 to #58
-
bojesus (09/27/2015) [-] It's common sense, by increasing the minimum wage you aren't just creating money from thin air, you're reducing wealth inequality. The prices would rise, but the living standards of working people would rise more. Since rich people are more likely to save money, an increase in working people purchasing will reduce the savings glut and increase productivity in the economy.
#62 to #61
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] But what if I'm a big business and I don't want to reduce wealth inequality?
#64 to #63
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] But the business isn't worse off, they just increase their prices.
Furthermore it's ignorant to assume that big company profits = big billionaire savings. A lot of money is reinvested into the companies in order for them to grow.
Furthermore it's ignorant to assume that big company profits = big billionaire savings. A lot of money is reinvested into the companies in order for them to grow.
#66 to #64
-
bojesus (09/27/2015) [-] 1. In the short run, the amount of money that will be spent on paying workers will be higher than the amount they will be able to reasonably increase their prices unless they really want to piss people off. But yeah, there are arguments for how the minimum wage could potentially improve the economy on a macroeconomic level.
2. I'm not saying all of the money companies make is saved. I'm saying that a higher percentage is saved in comparison to someone making a low income.
2. I'm not saying all of the money companies make is saved. I'm saying that a higher percentage is saved in comparison to someone making a low income.
#88 to #66
-
economyexplain (09/27/2015) [-] Reading your posts, I just wanted to apologize. You're citing solid economic principles, backed by years of practice, and you're being trampled on by popular opinion.
FunnyJunk used to be a place for facts. Now its a frenzy for whatever bandwagon is in town.
FunnyJunk used to be a place for facts. Now its a frenzy for whatever bandwagon is in town.
#110 to #51
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] We have already seen what happens: where Walmart increased wages in select stores it brought up the lowest (i.e. most junior and least skilled) workers pay without increasing the wages of anyone else. This led to a great deal of dissatisfaction with the senior/more skilled/management/semi-management types. How do you now reward your best workers?
It is one of those basic psychological things: we don't measure our happiness so much in absolute terms as we do having more that someone else
It is one of those basic psychological things: we don't measure our happiness so much in absolute terms as we do having more that someone else
#212 to #140
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] Since you asked, here are some ZeroHedge references I got:
www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-31/economics-102-walmart-cuts-worker-hours-after-hiking-minimum-wages --Increasing minimum wage leads to getting rid of more workers.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-05/guest-post-minimum-wage-forces-low-skill-workers-compete-higher-skill-workers --The name speaks for itself.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-07/walmart-ends-healthcare-benefits-workers-under-30-hours --Increasing costs to the company means less benefits to workers.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/walmarts-mysterious-store-closure-devastates-california-city --You can only squeeze a company so far before they close and cut you out of the necessary tax revenue.
I still have not found the article about higher wage/higher skilled workers resenting a decreased differential between entry and their position...
www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-31/economics-102-walmart-cuts-worker-hours-after-hiking-minimum-wages --Increasing minimum wage leads to getting rid of more workers.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-05/guest-post-minimum-wage-forces-low-skill-workers-compete-higher-skill-workers --The name speaks for itself.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-07/walmart-ends-healthcare-benefits-workers-under-30-hours --Increasing costs to the company means less benefits to workers.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/walmarts-mysterious-store-closure-devastates-california-city --You can only squeeze a company so far before they close and cut you out of the necessary tax revenue.
I still have not found the article about higher wage/higher skilled workers resenting a decreased differential between entry and their position...
#216 to #212
-
bojesus (09/27/2015) [-] I found that article on bloomberg
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/an-unintended-consequence-of-wal-mart-pay-raise-unhappy-workers
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/an-unintended-consequence-of-wal-mart-pay-raise-unhappy-workers
#173 to #165
-
thedancingfool (09/27/2015) [-] I won't disagree that needing welfare at the same time as actively working a job is a sad situation for the person forced there. However, as I said elsewhere, these jobs were never meant to be enough to support a family . They are minimum wage jobs, meaning they are the lowest paid jobs which require the least amount of skill (which mean they typically provide the least amount of productivity). The least productive workers are going to be paid less. This is not a personal hit against their work ethic or situation of life. It is what it is: a low-skilled worker getting paid a minimum wage. By raising the minimum wage you are making a business pay more low-skilled workers. As I said before, they will find the minimal cost path of least resistance which means automating jobs, leading to more workers being laid off.
I wish there were easier answers. However, we are in a stagflation state (regardless of what the Fed says) where our savings are being inflated away and unemployment is just a game of smoke-and-mirrors of those trying to make things look better. In order to see real job and wage growth we will need to burst a few bubbles, reset the economy, and start saving (and actually getting interest) on our money.
I wish there were easier answers. However, we are in a stagflation state (regardless of what the Fed says) where our savings are being inflated away and unemployment is just a game of smoke-and-mirrors of those trying to make things look better. In order to see real job and wage growth we will need to burst a few bubbles, reset the economy, and start saving (and actually getting interest) on our money.
#101 to #47
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] if you need 100 employees to do the job, and they still earn you more than you pay them ( no matter how small the margin ), why would you fire any of them?
like where's the logic in that.
companies are always trying to hire as few employees as possible to maximize efficiency, but i don't think their wage plays a significant role in their decisions
like where's the logic in that.
companies are always trying to hire as few employees as possible to maximize efficiency, but i don't think their wage plays a significant role in their decisions
#107 to #101
-
Warcom ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] if you are talking about a corporation such as that it comes down to greed, you cut into a businesses profits, they arent happy.... so a few things will change, either they will remove workers, cut hours, or raise prices, or all 3. The same will happen in a small business though the reasoning wouldnt be greed it would be the survival of the business
#46 to #45
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] >a lot more people have a lot more money
>prices inflate to compensate
>prices inflate to compensate
#89 to #46
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
by that logic, why don't we just lower the wage to $2 and then have all the prices lower proportionally, cause as far as I can see; over the years, the inflation of costs have not been proportional to the increase in wages which is leading to a greater division between classes.
#55 to #46
-
theblobbiest (09/27/2015) [-]
Workers will have more money companies and business will have less. They would not habe to print more money it's just CEO and other board members probably won't get at six figure Christmas bonus. The only people who will get hurt by this raise are independent stores and businesses
#56 to #55
-
inquisition (09/27/2015) [-] >legitimately believing companies will just accept having less money
lol
lol
#65 to #59
-
theblobbiest (09/27/2015) [-]
I have when I got a pay rise I got less work. That's what I'm saying the only way a minimum wage would work in companies if they let of more people making unemployment rates increase
#71 to #48
-
emiyashirou (09/27/2015) [-] The problem is your argument works off the assumption that time isn't a factor in the economy and that changes will take place immediately, whereas in reality, a minimum wage jump of over 50% at once will **** over the economy hard.
#73 to #27
-
supercookieduster (09/27/2015) [-] ben casrson: 85%. wut
ted cruz: 78%
marco rubio: 76%
rand paul: 75%
jeb bush: 75%
donald trump: 61%
bernie sanders: 46%
hillary clinton: 44%
ted cruz: 78%
marco rubio: 76%
rand paul: 75%
jeb bush: 75%
donald trump: 61%
bernie sanders: 46%
hillary clinton: 44%
#205 to #204
-
duudegladiator (09/27/2015) [-] Get out of our politics and watch your socialism cancer take your country out.
"You are so mad, holy **** ." No Argument left, go after the person. Good tactic.
"You are so mad, holy **** ." No Argument left, go after the person. Good tactic.
#94 to #69
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] I got similar results as well.
tbf Hilary Clinton piggybacked on a lot of the issues that Sanders made popular, like wealth inequality and college education
tbf Hilary Clinton piggybacked on a lot of the issues that Sanders made popular, like wealth inequality and college education
#109 to #108
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] mostly, yes. conservative means you want to preserve society and its values are they are, or used to be, and most of those older values were shaped by religion
#123 to #116
-
commencingfailure ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] Lol no. Conservatism has been a thing for ages FARRRRRR before the second world war. Remember the "Ancient regime"?
#219 to #218
-
commencingfailure ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] There's plenty to be said about me, but I am no idiot :^). Just admit your mistake
#119 to #116
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] that's part of it, but some of the sentiment is definitely informed by religion.
in America at least, conservatives are far more religious than progressives.
Huckabee Santorum and Carson are the more openly religious of the lot, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, creationism.
in America at least, conservatives are far more religious than progressives.
Huckabee Santorum and Carson are the more openly religious of the lot, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, creationism.
#4
-
berengar (09/26/2015) [-] It's gonna end up Bush vs Clinton. Trump will crash at some point, I think? And Sanders is just not going to have enough support to make it.
#6 to #4
-
anon (09/26/2015) [-]
In reality Trump isn't going to crash. GOP and Major media are **** scared of him cause they know it. So they try to slam him as hard as possible. Hillary won't get it specially after the email purgery scandal.
Bernie sanders is only popular with Hipsters. He wont get it considering the Black community hates him and almost every speech he gives. Is shouted off stage by #Black lives matter.
So its gonna come down to Big Corporation, A incompetent Driven bitch, A communist, and another Bush. Regardless I think most people are leaning towards trump Solely cause he isn't PC and partly out of spite and hatred for lieing politicians.
Bernie sanders is only popular with Hipsters. He wont get it considering the Black community hates him and almost every speech he gives. Is shouted off stage by #Black lives matter.
So its gonna come down to Big Corporation, A incompetent Driven bitch, A communist, and another Bush. Regardless I think most people are leaning towards trump Solely cause he isn't PC and partly out of spite and hatred for lieing politicians.
#24 to #15
-
shinycharizard (09/27/2015) [-] But he supports granting amnesty for tens of thousands of criminals?
#25 to #6
-
weirdexplain (09/27/2015) [-] At this point Hillary sounds to me like Nixon 2.0: Electric Boogaloo
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
#120 to #25
-
weirdexplain (09/27/2015) [-] I'm getting thumbed down but nobody is explaining why I'm wrong? Anyone?
#75 to #6
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
It's not just that. When you think about the less talked about backbone to American politics, you think of the people who make massive donations to both Hillary and Jeb (the two establishment-backed runners) that basically puts them in their pocket. At that point, we're not actually voting for anything different, which is part of the reason why the actual outcome of which party is voted can be a moot point on certain issues - because they're 'paid off' by the same people.
A lot of people like Trump because he's not as susceptible to that crookedness. The guy has more money than he knows what to do with already, and he doesn't need to be funded into office the way other candidates might. He's also anti-pc in a world where being white means you're everyone's personal pinata, and knows well enough that the immigration laws in this country are being completely trampled for a similar reason. I myself don't subscribe much to party politics, like most people I'm simply choosing the better of two bads in most cases, but it's hard not to feel a little sick by the blatant scheme in the democrat party to make themselves unbeatable in elections by pandering to this constant pouring in of illegals they want to give the power to vote.
A lot of people like Trump because he's not as susceptible to that crookedness. The guy has more money than he knows what to do with already, and he doesn't need to be funded into office the way other candidates might. He's also anti-pc in a world where being white means you're everyone's personal pinata, and knows well enough that the immigration laws in this country are being completely trampled for a similar reason. I myself don't subscribe much to party politics, like most people I'm simply choosing the better of two bads in most cases, but it's hard not to feel a little sick by the blatant scheme in the democrat party to make themselves unbeatable in elections by pandering to this constant pouring in of illegals they want to give the power to vote.
#34 to #6
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Nah man Trump doesn't have the money, connections or face to win, he might have done well so far but elections aren't for a while. His party will favour Bush who so far has a better all round image, more connections and more money, voters are swayed easily there's no reason to think that Hillary and Bush aren't just waiting to pull massive publicity at the last second.
#90 to #13
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] I hope you're aware that Sanders has been fiercely critical of Israel's current leadership, more so than any other republican candidate (or Clinton)
#186 to #90
-
shinycharizard (09/27/2015) [-] Yet his policies mimic exactly those enforced by liberals, and we all know they're controlled by Zionist media.
#206 to #186
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] I'm sure "zionist media" are happy that he openly criticized netanyahu
#208 to #206
-
shinycharizard (09/27/2015) [-] The puppet is outraged when finding out the puppeteer pulls his strings.
Same thing with Sanders.
Same thing with Sanders.
#209 to #208
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] and then what do you make of the republicans who gladly support Israel at every turn?
#211 to #209
-
shinycharizard (09/27/2015) [-] I oppose aiding foreign nations, and if it came down to two republicans who share the exact same stance, but one of them is pro-Israel and the other is not, i'd pick the latter.
Unfortunately, the ones in this election are all pro-Israel, (maybe there are a few that aren't, but have different stances I don't support), so it comes down to who is the lesser evil.
Unfortunately, the ones in this election are all pro-Israel, (maybe there are a few that aren't, but have different stances I don't support), so it comes down to who is the lesser evil.
#23
-
brobafett (09/27/2015) [-] All the candidates suck. There had never been a better time for innawoods.
#82 to #23
-
isolovegames (09/27/2015) [-] Have you made tribute to our lord and savior Mosin Man yet?
#222 to #87
-
cackledemon (10/26/2015) [-] Thanks man, I've been asking whenever some of these pictures came around and now I finally got it
#29
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Love?...are you ******* kidding me? you think that old communist stands for love?
And what about trump makes you think he's leading by hate? the ignorance of this is astounding. Tell me what about what Trump has said implies he hates any one? he speaks in plan terms and simple truths, Immigrants ARE a ******* problem, they need to be dealt with, that's not hate, it's common sense.
And what about trump makes you think he's leading by hate? the ignorance of this is astounding. Tell me what about what Trump has said implies he hates any one? he speaks in plan terms and simple truths, Immigrants ARE a ******* problem, they need to be dealt with, that's not hate, it's common sense.
#97 to #29
-
discobleach ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] well, you could start from his twitter, where he picks petty fights with random people calling them "losers" and "idiots" on a daily basis
#114 to #29
-
Tyranitar ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] It's not even just immigrants, Trump hates just about everybody. He takes criticism as well as a 4 year old, and is constantly attacking the character of people (and even the physical safety of one person) who are against him instead of trying to prove them wrong.
#2
-
doctersmiles (09/26/2015) [-]
You need to login to view this link
Here's a link to a poll i made, let's see who funny junk puts in office.
Here's a link to a poll i made, let's see who funny junk puts in office.
#194 to #2
-
duudegladiator (09/27/2015) [-] Europe doesnt ******* count, unless they're joining the USA as states.. so take all the Eurofags out, and see the new results.
#70 to #3
-
sakagamitomoyo (09/27/2015) [-] Socialism isn't destroying economy. If you want to blame something, blame saving. The value of money lies in the circulation of it. Saving large amounts of money means that there is less money for the rest of the people, this increases the value of said money. Because businessess need consumers that are able to afford their products they cut the prices. When they cut the prices to make it possible for people to afford stuff the ones that has saved money suddenly has a lot more value in their money while the poor get a lot less. That is because when the prices for different services decrease wages decrease too.
#151 to #2
-
alfonshister ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] funny thing is, apparently most people here are for sanders
yet you see way more pro-trump stuff.
conclusion? Trump-Voters are just louder
yet you see way more pro-trump stuff.
conclusion? Trump-Voters are just louder
#8 to #2
-
doctersmiles (09/26/2015) [-]
So it's come to my attention that the poll seen on my post is a bust, thanks poorly maintained websites!
If you vote on it and it gives you a wall of texts please use this one instead, I've seen admin use strawpoll a couple times so hopefully that means something.
strawpoll.me/5588719
If you vote on it and it gives you a wall of texts please use this one instead, I've seen admin use strawpoll a couple times so hopefully that means something.
strawpoll.me/5588719
#17 to #8
-
landcucumber (09/27/2015) [-]
funny junk really don't like Hillary, and has a boner for Sanders. Also I think there are a lot more contestant than those. Like Fiorena who is in third.
Any way trump wont gain any more supporters and the ones spread out among all the other candidates will start to concentrate, and you will get a real idea of who will actually be running.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
Any way trump wont gain any more supporters and the ones spread out among all the other candidates will start to concentrate, and you will get a real idea of who will actually be running.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
#18 to #17
-
landcucumber (09/27/2015) [-]
oh and the Dem polls.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Probably going to be Biden. ether way it doesn't look good for the Democrats come the election.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Probably going to be Biden. ether way it doesn't look good for the Democrats come the election.
#37
-
realitycheck (09/27/2015) [-]
Only an idiot thinks a man who wants to steal from everyone is promoting "love," and that a man who wants to throw lawbreakers out of the country is promoting "hate." This is toddler-think, it's preschool logic, nice teacher give you a cookie, mean teacher paddle you for breaking the cookie jar...
#38
-
captainprincess ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] Itt: Trumpfags whining about "communism" like it's still the cold war and the soviet union still exists in full strength
Careful of that red demon guise
Comin' to getcha
Maybe Trump should build an iron curtain
Careful of that red demon guise
Comin' to getcha
Maybe Trump should build an iron curtain
#164 to #38
-
heartlessrobot (09/27/2015) [-] Well, if Communism were successful, the Soviet Union would still be in power.
They just don't want the US to collapse like the USSR did.
They just don't want the US to collapse like the USSR did.
#168 to #164
-
captainprincess ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] If communism were successfully implemented though, like for real
It would probably have turned out vastly different, and probably could've veered away from the problems that caused it to buckle and fall
See what the US is afraid of isn't communism at all
It's a violent despot in control of a military police-state
That's what Stalin was, and had, afterall
Because that's the problem with communism
You need someone to have absolute power in order to instate it
And then they need to give it up
which they totally will, honest
It would probably have turned out vastly different, and probably could've veered away from the problems that caused it to buckle and fall
See what the US is afraid of isn't communism at all
It's a violent despot in control of a military police-state
That's what Stalin was, and had, afterall
Because that's the problem with communism
You need someone to have absolute power in order to instate it
And then they need to give it up
which they totally will, honest
#135 to #105
-
captainprincess ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] I live in europe
It's not a communist continent
So far all the world's instances of communism have been underpinned by a dictatorship. Really, there hasn't been a properly implementation of communism since humanity's tribal ages
It's not a communist continent
So far all the world's instances of communism have been underpinned by a dictatorship. Really, there hasn't been a properly implementation of communism since humanity's tribal ages
#42
-
voltkills ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] >sanders
>love
as long as your not straight, white, male then yea, straight, white, male or all 3? lol get ****** you deserver nothing, now hand over dem tax monies.
>love
as long as your not straight, white, male then yea, straight, white, male or all 3? lol get ****** you deserver nothing, now hand over dem tax monies.
#156
-
themonkeyfrompluto (09/27/2015) [-]
being an Eurofag I can only laugh sbout american politics like the smug arsehole I am. But seriously, why is your minimum wage so low? "Mcdonalds shouldn't be acjob you just settle for" okay, so what makes more sense, letting them work s lot of hours so they can live an impoverished existance, or pay them more so they can live more decent or on the same level, so they can get an education working parttime at some low skilled job. I worked for mcdonalds for 6months and I disliked it, it is boring as **** and no one wants to work there for years on end, not even for 15.00 dollars an hour.
#175 to #156
-
vilememory (09/27/2015) [-] Because the vast majority of jobs that still exist in the US are considered dead end jobs meant for teenagers to get some money to go to college. Only problem is these mythical jobs that people say should be getting this higher pay don't really exist or they are being held by people who won't leave them. Retirement? **** that I'm working here until the day I die. Other jobs that require a degree that takes years to get, and they don't exist either because nobody wants an inexperienced person.
Plus it is cheaper to take them on as an intern making them work like a real employee for free! You are getting experience now! Okay I have the experience can I have the job now? **** NO! We aren't hiring at the moment, but you can keep interning for us!
Plus it is cheaper to take them on as an intern making them work like a real employee for free! You are getting experience now! Okay I have the experience can I have the job now? **** NO! We aren't hiring at the moment, but you can keep interning for us!
#118
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
Good point. Political parties are starting to turn into cults. Wish we could safely start over with the givernment without China and Russia messing with it.
#11
-
kiaserzerg (09/26/2015) [-] trumps a joke, bernie is a pussy, hillary is a criminal, and jeb would just be a royal **** up.
#189
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (09/27/2015) [-]
It's like the ghost of reagan possessed all you people into a conservative circlejerk
