Upload
Login or register

kerplunking

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/11/2011
Last Login:12/27/2014
Location:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 18 total,  46 ,  28
Comment Thumbs: 1611 total,  2280 ,  669
Content Level Progress: 35.59% (21/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 7% (7/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:4588
Times Content Favorited:3 times
Total Comments Made:481
FJ Points:1715

latest user's comments

#183 - If people can not live off of minimum wage, then the minimum w…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/18/2013 on Getting tired of your shit 0
User avatar
#235 - Ruspanic (02/18/2013) [-]
It's a problem that minimum wage is so much lower than the cost of living, but consider on the other hand that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment and hurt low-skilled workers, many of whom would be laid off or have more trouble getting hired because their labor is not worth the added cost.
#248 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
That makes the assumption that companies employee people because they really love giving people jobs.

They don't. Minimum wage or not, they'll employee the smallest number of people they can possibly run a business with, in order to maximise profits.

In addition, a higher minimum wage means that poorer people spend more (which is good for everyone).
User avatar
#278 - Ruspanic (02/18/2013) [-]
Companies don't necessarily aim to hire the smallest number of people, but rather seek to minimize costs and maximize profit. Otherwise they'd just hire a few people to do many different jobs, which would be less productive than dividing labor among more employees.

Profit is the difference between revenue and costs. More employees = more cost, but they also mean more revenue and more productivity, provided there are enough jobs for them to do.

Think of it this way: if a low-skill employee brings in $8/hr of revenue, then if he is paid a $7/hr minimum wage he remains profitable and it's worth keeping him. However, if the minimum wage is raised to $9, that employee is now a liability and will be fired (of course productivity is estimated, but I'm using exact numbers for clarity).
More productive employees will benefit because their salaries will now be raised. However, more productive employees had a higher chance of getting raises or promotions anyway.
#310 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
Britain had no minimum wage until 1999. There was no significant corresponding rise in unemployment afterwards.

That's not to say that a minimum wage which is too high won't have an affect on jobs, but I think that a minimum wage equal to a "living wage" would be fine.
User avatar
#201 - heartlessrobot (02/18/2013) [-]
They can, but given the choice between a couple hundred a week or twice that, what would you choose?
#157 - You actually think Obama is a socialist? Holy ****, y… 02/18/2013 on Getting tired of your shit -2
#156 - No they're not, you racist cunt.  [+] (9 new replies) 02/18/2013 on Getting tired of your shit -1
User avatar
#184 - konradkurze (02/18/2013) [-]
right
have you ever been inside a welfare office to see who most of the clients are?
#188 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
Just because most welfare recipients are black, doesn't mean they all want to stay on welfare while other people work.

Sure, some black people are benefit scroungers, but then so are some white people.
User avatar
#190 - konradkurze (02/18/2013) [-]
yeah but blacks hold majority on the scrounging
#219 - jujuface (02/18/2013) [-]
www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
That's correct. Blacks hold majority. By 1%. Followed by *drumroll* whites, which easily double hispanics in number of people on welfare. That sure is a lot of bitching you're doing over 1%
User avatar
#315 - konradkurze (02/19/2013) [-]
right
whites on welfare because they cant get jobs, or at least well-paying ones, blacks on welfare because they dont want jobs

then again i dont know the full story of american welfare....blacks might get race-base 'pity welfare' that gives them more than white people....i know the blacks in australia get twice as much as any white does on welfare (like $600 a week just because theyre black)
does usa do likewise?
#259 - Dlsqueak (02/18/2013) [-]
Can't get this damn link to work for the life of me, but here I can link wepages with statistics too!!

sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/12/statistics-on-race-and-welfar e.html
#252 - Dlsqueak has deleted their comment.
#249 - Dlsqueak (02/18/2013) [-]
Interestingly enough, do you know you can get varied forms of assistance? So for instance one person could get $120 a month in food stamps, while another could get $400 a month. Now I would like to see a breakdown of that by race. Or how about duration based on race? How long do whites stay on welfare vs blacks? How many blacks are employed by SS that handle these cases vs whites? You are naturally predisposed to help those of your race more than others, so that could have a lot to do with it (also...racism, yes I know astounding implication...blacks can be racist too!!). I do have to agree with konrad for the most part...black people do get it a bit easier when it comes to welfare. When my wife went in for assistance way back when we needed it, she was hassled to the point of almost crying, yet all the blacks were well taken care of, no questions asked. Sure I'm making a generalization based on a segmented observation, however, I feel that the generalization would find justification based on the stats I asked for above.
#254 - Dlsqueak has deleted their comment.
#154 - Which shows that the minimum wage is too low.  [+] (7 new replies) 02/18/2013 on Getting tired of your shit -2
User avatar
#181 - heartlessrobot (02/18/2013) [-]
Actually, it shows the handouts are too high.
#183 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
If people can not live off of minimum wage, then the minimum wage is too low.
User avatar
#235 - Ruspanic (02/18/2013) [-]
It's a problem that minimum wage is so much lower than the cost of living, but consider on the other hand that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment and hurt low-skilled workers, many of whom would be laid off or have more trouble getting hired because their labor is not worth the added cost.
#248 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
That makes the assumption that companies employee people because they really love giving people jobs.

They don't. Minimum wage or not, they'll employee the smallest number of people they can possibly run a business with, in order to maximise profits.

In addition, a higher minimum wage means that poorer people spend more (which is good for everyone).
User avatar
#278 - Ruspanic (02/18/2013) [-]
Companies don't necessarily aim to hire the smallest number of people, but rather seek to minimize costs and maximize profit. Otherwise they'd just hire a few people to do many different jobs, which would be less productive than dividing labor among more employees.

Profit is the difference between revenue and costs. More employees = more cost, but they also mean more revenue and more productivity, provided there are enough jobs for them to do.

Think of it this way: if a low-skill employee brings in $8/hr of revenue, then if he is paid a $7/hr minimum wage he remains profitable and it's worth keeping him. However, if the minimum wage is raised to $9, that employee is now a liability and will be fired (of course productivity is estimated, but I'm using exact numbers for clarity).
More productive employees will benefit because their salaries will now be raised. However, more productive employees had a higher chance of getting raises or promotions anyway.
#310 - kerplunking (02/18/2013) [-]
Britain had no minimum wage until 1999. There was no significant corresponding rise in unemployment afterwards.

That's not to say that a minimum wage which is too high won't have an affect on jobs, but I think that a minimum wage equal to a "living wage" would be fine.
User avatar
#201 - heartlessrobot (02/18/2013) [-]
They can, but given the choice between a couple hundred a week or twice that, what would you choose?
#107 - Don't watch the new ones, they're all ****. Start wi… 02/17/2013 on It's been a while? 0
#105 - Comment deleted 02/17/2013 on It's been a while? 0
#107 - The other one can't breathe. 02/15/2013 on Sadistic romance 0
#33 - Picture 02/12/2013 on The Count +9
#68 - Ok, that's enough. From now on I'm thumbing down every single … 02/12/2013 on thunderbolt -1
#121 - The problem is that if supermarkets are incapable of even know… 02/10/2013 on Dear British Food... 0