Say Anything Blog

Thanks Rob.  Facts like .003 of the workforce sure put things in perspective.  You are also right, most of those at $5.15 are teenagers and those in training.  The unions can go.  Now.  Disband the NLRB and we will all finally be free of their extortion and corruption.

To the above thesis I say BULLSHIT. And if a union worker was making $14.00 per hour or $40.00 per hour and gets a pay raise so what. Per your posts our economy is doing great. Per the MSM and other sources corporate americas bottom line is doing fine. Americas economy can support a wage increase with no problem.

To the above thesis I say BULLSHIT.

Why? It’s true. Most union wages are tied into such silly things as seniority and the minimum wage. Minimum wage goes up = union wages go up. Company has a choice: pay up or close up shop and open overseas where they will gladly work without such demands.

And if a union worker was making $14.00 per hour or $40.00 per hour and gets a pay raise so what. Per your posts our economy is doing great. Per the MSM and other sources corporate americas bottom line is doing fine.

Unions are less and less influential in this country and union workers are at an all time low since they came into being. Economy is doing great.

Think there might be a connection there?

Americas economy can support a wage increase with no problem.

Who are you to demand government coercion?

Personally, I support freedom.

Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
........
the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing minimum is undoubtedly understated.

Party of Scrooges

Party of Scrooges

Yeah, freedom sucks, huh?

Keep on bitching for more government coercion. Just don’t fool yourselves on what you’re asking for.

Well, yeah, 0.003% make the federal min. of $5.15.

But how many make less than what the Republicans in congress wanted of $7.25 as of 2008?

Who are you to demand government coercion?
likwidshoe on September 4, 2006 at 1:23 PM
I am not demanding government coercion. As usual you are talking without thinking. I am merely demanding higher wage. Got a problem with that?

A rising tide raises all boats.

I’ve given it some thought WOOF, and have come to the conclusion that you’re the scrooge.

When I was 14 and 15 years old, I was paid minimum wage under the table. This was a better job than a legal one that paid over the minimum wage. Why did I do this? Because of you. I didn’t want to jump through the hoops that you set up for younger workers. I didn’t get a “work permit” (how communistic does that sound?).

I looked at that young time in my life as a learning experience. It was a cool job. Me and a few other friends loaded up big metal poles and tent material into a huge box truck. The one friend who was 16 with a “Class C” license would drive. We’d go to weddings, graduation parties, and community fairs and set up 30x60 foot , 20x20 and 20x40 tents along with heavy metal carnival-like booths. I worked up to above minimum wage (no taxes = decent job) and gained some valuable experience. If it was up to you, I wouldn’t have worked as all. You’d call me an “exploited kid” who shouldn’t be working under the minimum wage.

Don’t count my head into your partisan game WOOF. You demonize me, yet you’re the one who is the most scrooge like here.

You should just let freedom happen in this area.

ellinas said, I am not demanding government coercion. As usual you are talking without thinking.

Thanks for the insult ellinas. As usual, you are speaking out of your ass. Minimum wages = enforced by government coercion.

I am merely demanding higher wage. Got a problem with that?

Yes. Read my response to WOOF before you demonize me.

And stop your projection. It is unbecoming.

I think this whole debate revolves around how far removed we each are from making the min. wage ourselves.  That bias from having it fresh in our minds influences our position.

I think this whole debate revolves around how far removed we each are from making the min. wage ourselves.

You’d be wrong.

That bias from having it fresh in our minds influences our position.

I had the same position back then.

Now what?

Woof: “A rising tide raises all boats.”
The only problem here is that it’s a rising tide of expense, without a commensurate increase in productivity.  That’s bad, in case you don’t know.  We all pay for it, whether we want to or not.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Free: “I think this whole debate revolves around how far removed we each are from making the min. wage ourselves. That bias from having it fresh in our minds influences our position.”

Not really. It’s a tax, and we all have to pay for it, one way or the other.  It has nothing to do with perspective; it’s a matter of dollars and cents.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

It’s slightly off-topic, but a parallel situation exists in social spending.  The govt uses the School Lunch Program(it’s “for the children") as its benchmark for all the social programs in a particular area, so if they can ram through an increase in spending for school lunches(it’s “for the children"), they increase all the other programs in that area, as well.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I would suggest that the minimum wage increase be coupled with a decrease in employer-side pay tax burden so that the employee gets more take home, but it doesn’t change the burden to the employer.

Any objection to that approach?

We all pay when people can not make a living wage.
Welfare, food stamps, earned income credit, medicaid, crime , social unrest.

Want people to work and be productive members of the community , see they get paid.
Lots of people without the means to get by, a society with lots of trouble.

Lik you know you would have been SOL in a mishap, rolling with that mad 16 yr old double clutching the stakebed around turns? No SS disability, no insurance and a business that would be gone like smoke. We were all kids.

Woof: “ We all pay when people can not make a living wage.
Welfare, food stamps, earned income credit, medicaid, crime , social unrest.”

That’s the Marxist line, alright.  The truth is that it’s people who are responsible for crime and social unrest, not the fact that they are’t productive enough to earn the money to pay for their lifestyle.

IMO, we shouldn’t be paying people to be unproductive.  Anyone with any amount of ambition can make much more than minimum wage; as Rob pointed out, a very tiny percentage is on minimum wage, and they are entry-level workers, who aren’t worth all that much.  Having low-wage jobs enables those people to accumulate the job experience and skills so that they can be productive later, and it works very well.  When I was in high school, I worked for a dollar an hour, but not for long.  Your victimhood rap just isn’t true.  Class struggle=class envy, the prime tenet of Karl Marx.  He was wrong.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Free: “I would suggest that the minimum wage increase be coupled with a decrease in employer-side pay tax burden so that the employee gets more take home, but it doesn’t change the burden to the employer.

Any objection to that approach?”

The employee is worth so much to the employer, no matter what the govt mandate is.  Why not eliminate all govt wage mandates? Why try to use more of what is wrong in the first place, which is govt interference in the market.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

WOOF asserts, We all pay when people can not make a living wage.

No you don’t WOOF. Read above.

Welfare, food stamps, earned income credit, medicaid, crime , social unrest.

Talking about the “Great Society” inner cities controlled by Democrats, eh? We don’t need those things.

Want people to work and be productive members of the community , see they get paid.
Lots of people without the means to get by, a society with lots of trouble.

Since most minimum wage is just a small stepping stone to higher pay and since a good bit is paid to those young ones just coming into the market for the first time, this doesn’t make sense.

Lik you know you would have been SOL in a mishap, rolling with that mad 16 yr old double clutching the stakebed around turns? No SS disability, no insurance and a business that would be gone like smoke.

Yes, and I took that chance mainly because I didn’t want to jump through the many hoops that YOU set up. No thank you for forcing such a choice on a young 14 year old.

What have you got against freedom? You rail so hard against it and bring up nonsensical arguments and doctored figures to back up your weak case.

Robert108,

If everyone’s favorite punching bag, Walmart, pays a wage that doesn’t allow for the worker to get by, and the worker goes on government assistance, then the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart. 

Can you refute that statement?

The employee is worth so much to the employer, no matter what the govt mandate is. Why not eliminate all govt wage mandates?

Can you guarentee that EXPENSES will decline with that decline in wages?

If everyone’s favorite punching bag, Walmart, pays a wage that doesn’t allow for the worker to get by, and the worker goes on government assistance, then the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart.

No Dustin. The taxpayers are subsidizing those welfare-loving people who don’t understand economics and how to plan for the future.

You took the chance, but who would have paid if you were maimed and had to fall back on the state for assistance?

“You” may not need the “inner cities”
but the reality is you got em.

Free: “Can you guarentee that EXPENSES will decline with that decline in wages?”

Personal attack so soon?  It’s not up to me to guarantee anything, but I would submit that expenses will absolutely go up with a mandated increase in wages, so you figure it out. You also assume that wages will decrease, when they might increase, as well, in some cases.  Some “minimum wage jobs”, without the regulations, might pay more.  Nobody ever considers that little fact.

“If everyone’s favorite punching bag, Walmart, pays a wage that doesn’t allow for the worker to get by, and the worker goes on government assistance, then the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart.”

You made a speculation, not a statement.  It’s the “if” word, you know.  Why speculate?  You know that WalMart stands accused by the lefties of paying “insufficient wages”, but at the same time, they are deluged with job applicants for every opening.  By loading up your speculation the way you did, you are supporting the leftie line, while the actual employees of WalMart are voting with their feet to approve of WalMart, while at the same time, the consumers are voting with their dollars to approve of WalMart.  Reminds me of the MSM “polling game”, where the polls don’t agree with reality.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

WOOF assumes and gets it wrong, You took the chance, but who would have paid if you were maimed and had to fall back on the state for assistance?

I would have WOOF. It’s called responsibility. I’ll never be a scrooge and demand that you pay for me or my mistakes. That much is guaranteed.

“You" may not need the “inner cities”
but the reality is you got em.

Thanks to the Democrats and their “Great Society”. I know this. We are stuck with you innane, irresponsible, and ignorant people.

dd: True that.  Nice call.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

what they really want is total government control of wages, prices and everything inbetween.

While your hallucinating, realize we will force you to marry your brother.

Woof: The truth hurts, doesn’t it?  Had to go to the nonsense comment.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

You think I’m a Nixonian price control Republican?

You think I’m a Nixonian price control Republican?

No. You’re a Nixonian price control Democrat.

Nixon was wrong to muck with the market and so are you. Money flows to where it is treated best. You’re not going to change that reality.

Woof: I find you to be a straight out Marxist.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

This argument is not about minimum wage. It’s about free market (lik, robert, rob) vs socialism (woof, elianas, free).

You forgot Denny Hastert, Bill Frist, and a few others on the Socialism side of your equation.

Free: That’s not a counter-argument; it’s just spew.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108,

If an employer is recieving labor In Good Faith and the compensation given for the work is not commiserate with the Standard of Living in that given Geo-Economic Market, any dependence upon public welfare is just as much a subsidization of the employer as it is the welfare recipient.

Call it marxism if you like, but the wages paid an employee should be based up the Intersection what the labor is valued in proportion to the revenue generated by said good or service and the wage curve for that particular location.

Supply and Demand covers the cost of the good or service, but that says nothing to what the employees recieves in wages in terms of what is Right in the Judeo-Christian sense.

Our tax policy should promote the employer’s compensation of his/her employees in a just and fair way that also allows the corporation and the owner to prosper.

Now, if I advocated the government set those terms THAT would be marxism.

However I DO NOT advocate government mandates, rather a phisophical mode of opperation for employers to operate.

Pay should be determined by:

1.) Value of labor
2.) Value of good or service on the market
3.) and what is right in the moral sense.

The government has no role in any of this other that to promote growth by minimizing the tax burden.

I think this whole debate revolves around how far removed we each are from making the min. wage ourselves. That bias from having it fresh in our minds influences our position.

For you liberal parasites probably not that far from returning to it. Except WOOF, he’s already there.

Free: “If an employer is recieving labor In Good Faith and the compensation given for the work is not commiserate with the Standard of Living in that given Geo-Economic Market, any dependence upon public welfare is just as much a subsidization of the employer as it is the welfare recipient.

In our economic system, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

Call it marxism if you like, but the wages paid an employee should be based up the Intersection what the labor is valued in proportion to the revenue generated by said good or service and the wage curve for that particular location.

In our economic system, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

Supply and Demand covers the cost of the good or service, but that says nothing to what the employees recieves in wages in terms of what is Right in the Judeo-Christian sense.

Supply and demand also apply to the market for labor.

Our tax policy should promote the employer’s compensation of his/her employees in a just and fair way that also allows the corporation and the owner to prosper.

Taxes are for the legitimate expenses of govt, as determined by the electorate.

Now, if I advocated the government set those terms THAT would be marxism.

However I DO NOT advocate government mandates, rather a phisophical mode of opperation for employers to operate.

Pay should be determined by:

1.) Value of labor
2.) Value of good or service on the market
3.) and what is right in the moral sense.

In our economic system, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

The government has no role in any of this other that to promote growth by minimizing the tax burden.”The only way govt can “promote growth” is by not doing anything beyond establishing a few ground rules, like a stable money supply, an honest banking system, and enforcement of contracts and private property rights.  Along with national defense, that’s it.  No interference with markets.  Govt can’t really promote growth, it can just minimize the damage it does.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Free: In case I wasn’t clear: Wages should be determined by the supply/demand relationship in the labor market.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Free: In case I wasn’t clear: Wages should be determined by the supply/demand relationship in the labor market.

... and the value the employer recieves from the sames of the goods and services based on supply and demand.

None of this would be a problem it employers would consider employees as assets not liabilities.

Don’t think that’s a valid statement?

Quick question, “In double entry accounting, when the cost of labor is inputed, where is the value of labor inputed?”

Quick question, “In double entry accounting, when the cost of labor is inputed, where is the value of labor inputed?”

Inventory and/or accounts receivable.

***IT LOOKS LIKE THESE NUMBERS ARE BOGUS ANYWAYS***

Take a look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says for 2005:


Wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by selected
characteristics
(Numbers in thousands)

Total at or below prevailing Federal
minimum wage, 16 years and over (Percent of total workforce)= 1,882,000 (2.5%)

Total 16 to 24 years at or below prevailing Federal (Percent of total workforce = 1,002,000 (6.1%)

Total 25 years and over at or below prevailing Federal (Percent of total workforce) = 880,000 (1.5%)

The statistical basis for this story is incorrect.

Free: “Don’t think that’s a valid statement?

No, I don’t.  It’s not accurate.  I know you have never run a business, so let me break it down to you.  The employer pays for everything, and only gets back what he generates in sales, minus his operating expenses.  He has to pay all his personal expenses, take care of his and his family’s health care, etc., out of what is left after he pays everything else, including his workers.  Get it?  The value of labor for him is determined by market forces, not the govt.

Quick question, “In double entry accounting, when the cost of labor is inputed, where is the value of labor inputed?"”

The value of labor is not an accounting item.  It is the result of a number of factors, so it is imputed from the bottom line:  Net profit.  If he isn’t making any profit, he is overpaying for everything. Generally speaking, the employers expenses, except for labor, are fixed.  If sales are slow, the labor is worth less, in the accounting sense. The better a business is run, and the better the economy is, the better for everyone, including the workers.  This is all basic business econ.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

The value of labor is not an accounting item. It is the result of a number of factors, so it is imputed from the bottom line: Net profit. If he isn’t making any profit, he is overpaying for everything. Generally speaking, the employers expenses, except for labor, are fixed. If sales are slow, the labor is worth less, in the accounting sense. The better a business is run, and the better the economy is, the better for everyone, including the workers. This is all basic business econ.

So if it isn’t inputed as a credit and only a debit, it only appears on the Liability Statement correct?

I’m done with this thread, call me when the numbers are corrected. 

This is why bloggers shouldnt quote other bloggers.

Goto the source doc.

No offense Rob, you were a victim in all this.

Please don’t fix it Rob. He’ll come back anyway but maybe he’ll leave the decent people here alone for a while.

Free: “So if it isn’t inputed as a credit and only a debit, it only appears on the Liability Statement correct?”

I haven’t done my own accounting in decades, but I believe Bullwinkle’s answer to be correct.  Since we were talking the overall value of labor, I answered your real question.  We weren’t discussing accounting, as I remember.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Please don’t fix it Rob. He’ll come back anyway but maybe he’ll leave the decent people here alone for a while.

LoL.

If you start defending a false claim and say “the message was still true” - you my frind become Dan Rather.

If we can’t retain intellectual honesty about facts and statistical raw data, we’ve lost the war because we are no better than the other side.

Once we start skewing the numbers to fit our ideology, than Conservatism itself ceases to exist as that is what seperates us from the Left.

Out.

Free: It’s not “inputed"(or inputted), it’s just “input”.  There is such a word as “inputting”, though.  In accounting, I would think the word to use would be “entered”.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This Q & O blog didn’t do it’s homework and it is now invalidated.

This is no different than Rathergate people.

Out (for realz).

Rob: Never fear.  It’s my experience that when lefties start losing on basic truths, they start trying to nitpick with numbers or some such.  I don’t know about the numbers in this case, but I do know that we are not anywhere near being a Third World country with a permanent underclass, like the lefties keep trying to say.  The real story here is telling the truth, not whose numbers are better.  Minimum wage workers are a minority; the only dispute is how small that minority is.  Are we going to tax the producers to support this minority, or not?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I didn’t defend anything. I just wopuld prefer reading what reasonable people have to say without trying to avoid your dishonest drivel. I can defend Rob using it since the article was supporting raising minimum wage. He should know better than to ever accept anything a liberals says as true but sometimes you have to just give them the benefit of the doubt.

If, as a business owner, I am forced to pay employees more than their labor/skills are worth I go out of business. Why is this so hard for woofie, E, and Free to understand?

I’m done with this thread, call me when the numbers are corrected.

This is why bloggers shouldnt quote other bloggers.

I don’t have time right now to run the numbers myself, but I’ve emailed the original author over at Q and O and he should be getting back to me.

As for bloggers not quoting other bloggers, that’s just silly.

Frankly, Free, I’m fully expecting that you’re going to be wrong on this.  You usually are.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robert 108 wrote:

He has to pay all his personal expenses, take care of his and his family’s health care, etc., out of what is left after he pays everything else,

You are confused robert.

It is the employer who assumes risk.
If suppliers , distributers, sales forces and labor do not make money the business dies.

An employer can short any of these groups and assume his profit for awhile , but ultimately he is out of business.
Labor, legally, has first dibs on any assets.

Rob: It’s still a distraction from the basic point.  Do you really think he will agree with you if your numbers are the right ones?  It’s a disagreement in ideology, not facts.  He subscribes, whether he knows it or not, to the Marxist belief in “work product”.  He doesn’t recognize, or doesn’t know, about return to capital, and how supply and demand work in the labor market, or at all, possibly.  Did you catch the statement about “3.) and what is right in the moral sense.”?  That’s pure Marx.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

freep the clueless one:

None of this would be a problem it employers would consider employees as assets not liabilities.

Don’t think that’s a valid statement?

Employers look at an employee who produces more than they cost as an asset.  Employers look at employees that produce less than they cost as a liability.

A wise businessman will eliminate the liabilities.

freep, your lack of economic understanding is only matched by two things.  Your lack of common sense and your arrogance to talk about things you know absolutely nothing about.

McQ from QandO is not wrong but it is incomplete.
My first post in this thread cites the BLS figures.
Again

520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers. ........ the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing minimum is undoubtedly understated.

Woof: “You are confused robert.

It is the employer who assumes risk.
If suppliers , distributers, sales forces and labor do not make money the business dies.If there is insufficient demand or bad management, the business dies.

As usual, you have it backwards.  The employer goes into debt to start the business, and doesn’t make any net profit until that debt is paid off.  He must make operating profit just to pay off his debt, his suppliers and pay his employees.  What is left over after all that goes to his own support.  You are confused, like a typical Marxist trying to function in the real world.

An employer can short any of these groups and assume his profit for awhileYou don’t seem to understand the concept of profit. , but ultimately he is out of business.
Labor, legally, has first dibs on any assets.”Assets usually go to the creditors.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

For those interested, McQ at QandO got the numbers from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I’ve emailed the editorialist responsible for the piece about the numbers.  He should be getting back to me, I hope.

I should point out, though, that robert makes the crucial point here.  Free’s numbers don’t really matter for the larger point.  If the numbers are wrong, they’re wrong.  I’ll fix them if they are.  But the larger point here is that increasing the minimum wage has little to do with helping the working poor and a lot to do with jacking up union wages.

Woof:

An employer can short any of these groups and assume his profit for awhile , but ultimately he is out of business.

That’s right.  Which is why the businesses that stay in business (like Wal-Mart, for instance) always pay a fair market wage.

So why then do we need a minimum wage?  By your own reasoning it’s pointless.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t have time right now to run the numbers myself, but I’ve emailed the original author over at Q and O and he should be getting back to me.

As for bloggers not quoting other bloggers, that’s just silly.

Frankly, Free, I’m fully expecting that you’re going to be wrong on this. You usually are.

Did you even look at the Official Document?

Free, I think Woof’s got it right as far as where the numbers came from, but I’m waiting to hear from the reporter.

But again, your numbers don’t change the overall point of this post.  A very small minority of Americans make the minimum wage.  Raising it, for most advocates, is more about raising union wages than helping anybody.

And in the long run, raising the minimum wage hurts pretty much everyone but union people.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Freep, you cannot pay employees more than they are worth. It kills your business to do so. Why can you not understand so basic and simple a point? woofie refuses delivery because he is anti-business, what is your excuse?

robert sang:

all his personal expenses, take care of his and his family’s health care, etc., out of what is left after he pays everything else, including his workers

roberts Second song”

What is left over after all that goes to his own support

I don’t have it backwards.

“Assets usually go to the creditors.

Labor is legally the first creditor in line.

Woof: I said exactly the same thing in both statements.  While a business is running successfully, the employer gets paid last.  When an employer goes out of business, that’s a different story.  You are confused here.  You can’t carry this tune.
You may be theoretically right, but in real life, the creditors get first pick.  But again, that is only when a business has failed and is being dissolved.  While it’s up and running, it’s what I said.  Get the difference?  When an employer goes out of business, the jobs he provided go away.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

As Dan Rather said of the National Guard Document:
(something to the effect of)
“The document was fake, but the story was accurate.”

If you look at the cite, the numbers belong to the AJC and they cite the BLS. Both numbers come from AJC articles. 520,000 divided by 151,000,000 is .003. Now you may not agree with the numbers, but that’s where they come from.

If you want to play the “intellectual honesty” game, take it up with them. If you want to hit me with not fact checking them, I’ll take the hit. It seems odd that a paper which is touting a raise in the minimum wage would go out of its way to dishonestly use a low number.

The number itself is really not that important to the crux of the argument of the article ... it was more of an entre.

Use whatever number you prefer, but you might want to read and respond to the argument.

We may all disagree on political philosophy and ideological matters, but so long as we can remain intellectually honest in our debates, we will be safe.

If such time comes where we as conservatives begin to twist the data to fit our ideological agenda, that will be the moment at which conservatism ceases to exist.

Such an instance recently occured where a conservative blog reported that “.003 of the work force earns minimum wage.”

But when you look at the Official Report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics it clearly states that the real number is 2.5%.

If we can’t retain intellectual honesty about facts and statistical raw data, we’ve lost the war because we are no better than the other side.

Once we start skewing the numbers to fit our ideology, than Conservatism itself ceases to exist as that is what seperates us from the Left.

http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/09/intellectual-honesty.html

You blew the honesty part when you included yourself as a conservative. That’s downright funny.

McQ,

I don’t have time to advocate a position supported by people who dismiss the validity of raw data when presented to them.

This isn’t about whether the wage should be increase, the Democrats blocked that already.

If we as a Greater Conservative Movement abandon the principle of truthfulness in our arguments, we might as well quit trying.

If your going to cite numbers, make sure they are right. 

If you are going to cite ideology without citing numbers that is fine.

But don’t pervert the numbers to fit your ideology.  That’s the domain of modern liberalism.

So Free, you’re calling me intellectually dishonest?

Thanks, pal.

I’d be ticked, but nobody reads your blog anyway.

And you’re arguing a moot point.  I’ll concede your numbers are correct.  Now what?  It still doesn’t mean we should raise the minimum wage, for all the reasons that have been explained to you again and again.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t have time to advocate a position supported by people who dismiss the validity of raw data when presented to them.

Works for me ... I don’t have time to waste on people who’s first reaction to anything is to go right to casting aspersions on someone’s “intellectual honesty” without finding out the details of what’s going on.

That would by you, btw.

I don’t have time to advocate a position supported by people who dismiss the validity of raw data when presented to them.

Works for me ... I don’t have time to waste on people who’s first reaction to anything is to go right to casting aspersions on someone’s “intellectual honesty” without finding out the details of what’s going on.

That would by you, btw.

So Free, you’re calling me intellectually dishonest?

No, where did I do that?  Did I link your blog?  No I linked Mr. McQ.

And you’re arguing a moot point. I’ll concede your numbers are correct. Now what?

At least your intellectually honest, that’s what.

I’ll take an honest liberal over a dishonest conservative every day of the week.

It still doesn’t mean we should raise the minimum wage, for all the reasons that have been explained to you again and again.

We have one!  Get over it!

There are more burdensome arms of this government than the minimum wage. 

Like the book says “don’t sweat the small stuff.”

Geez your an idiot freep.  Your table includes people that are at OR BELOW minimum wage.

Many entities are exempt from the minimum wage.  Many of those probably hire the disabled or family members at low wages.  I don’t know if prison labor is also calculated in that number, but it could be. 

Anyway raising the minimum wage wouldn’t help those people that work for exempt entities.  So your chart, if you would have bothered to read it, shows that raising the minimum wage would only help about an half million people.

If you’d restrain yourself from trying to “big-time” yourself you probably would actually get some respect.

Free: “As Dan Rather said of the National Guard Document:
(something to the effect of)
“The document was fake, but the story was accurate."”

Very bad analogy.  Dan Rather’s piece was a news story(or so he claimed).  This post is about the fact that the minimum wage increase will result in an increase in union wages.  The number of people on minimum wage is only a small part of the story, and doesn’t affect what the unions do with the minimum wage increase.
In the case of Dan Rather, he chose to ignore contradictory testimony from the son and the wife, the the facts about George Bush’s National Guard “score” that year(above the minimum for service credit), and relied on a fake memo for his entire story.  Not even close.  Nice try at smearing Rob, though.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Free, read Whistler’s comment.

You can apologize for calling me dishonest any time now.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Works for me ... I don’t have time to waste on people who’s first reaction to anything is to go right to casting aspersions on someone’s “intellectual honesty” without finding out the details of what’s going on.

That would by you, btw.

Hey, then don’t cite ANY numbers.  Philosophically I agree with you; politically the Anti-MinWage stance is an untenable postion to take.

You put politics over principle.

What good is getting elected if our guys are going to act like a bunch of liberals?

Honestly, why anyone in the GOP anywhere in this country hired you is beyond me.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I hope that we soon stop playing communism in the people’s house.  Private enterprise should offer any wage they like.  People are free to take it or leave it.

The Truth:  When I took a job in a hospital laundry working 44 hours a week, the supervisor came to me and told me that he could not offer to pay me any more (obviously I was worth more than the $1.15 at the time) (I did not ask for a raise).  Guess who held down my wage?  Guess!

THE UNION They are communist.  They try to regulate the laws of supply and demand, work and productivity and individualism.  Communists.

When I took a job in a hospital laundry working 44 hours a week, the supervisor came to me and told me that he could not offer to pay me any more (obviously I was worth more than the $1.15 at the time)

Obviously.

Rob: So Free, you’re calling me intellectually dishonest?
Free Says to Rob:

No, where did I do that? Did I link your blog? No I linked Mr. McQ

Didn’t see that link Free, maybe I missed it. Where exactly is it?

You did say:
If such time comes where we as conservatives begin to twist the data to fit our ideological agenda, that will be the moment at which conservatism ceases to exist.

Such an instance recently occured where a conservative blog reported that “.003 of the work force earns minimum wage.”

Geez your an idiot freep. Your table includes people that are at OR BELOW minimum wage.

So what?  Don’t people making less count?

Free: “As Dan Rather said of the National Guard Document:
(something to the effect of)
“The document was fake, but the story was accurate."”

Very bad analogy. Dan Rather’s piece was a news story(or so he claimed). This post is about the fact that the minimum wage increase will result in an increase in union wages. The number of people on minimum wage is only a small part of the story, and doesn’t affect what the unions do with the minimum wage increase.
In the case of Dan Rather, he chose to ignore contradictory testimony from the son and the wife, the the facts about George Bush’s National Guard “score” that year(above the minimum for service credit), and relied on a fake memo for his entire story. Not even close. Nice try at smearing Rob, though.

When did I smear Rob?  Point it out.

The author of the blog he cited is to blame.

Some good spin-masters in here.

Didn’t see that link Free, maybe I missed it. Where exactly is it?

http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/09/intellectual-honesty.html

Right in there bud.

Forgot to check the source again

That’s twice now.

So what? Don’t people making less count?

No, because they make less for a reason.  It’s because they make tips or have other types of income that put their total income well over minimum wage.

Again, any time you’re willing to apologize to both me and McQ.  Nobody here was being dishonest.  The numbers we cited were accurate and backed up our larger points.

You’ve just been made to look like a total fool.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You put politics over principle.

Sorry, I never got an invitation to join a Principle Party. 

I voted Libertarian twice on principle, and likely will do it again if there is not a decent America First candidate - Republican or otherwise.

Honestly, why anyone in the GOP anywhere in this country hired you is beyond me.

Maybe because I do understand the difference between Politics and Philosophy.

No, because they make less for a reason. It’s because they make tips or have other types of income that put their total income well over minimum wage.

Pitiful. 

I will say this without any differences in my political or philosophical views:

MINIMUM IS MINIMUM.  A waitress shouldn’t be paid less because the customer is expected to subsidize the stingy business owner.

Again, any time you’re willing to apologize to both me and McQ. Nobody here was being dishonest. The numbers we cited were accurate and backed up our larger points.

Well, I will apoligize to you only because you were hoodwinked.  I understand you can’t fact check everything, and that blog looks responsible.

I’ve never seen a blog try to pass the blame off on an old-media source though.  I thought the point of a blog was to be able to own up to that sort of thing.

I grew up taught that the minimum is not enough.  Go the extra mile!  Why are we promoting mediocrity?

As my boss at the pizza joint once said “Minimum work for minimum pay.”

http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/09/intellectual-honesty.html

Right in there bud.

Forgot to check the source again

That’s twice now.

Wrong.

You have to dig deep to try to understand Freep.
Just like you have to dig deep to find the “link” to MCQ. Freep wants you to go to his site, read a bit, and then find the link to QandO
Somewhat convoluted Freep. Seems like it would have been more straightforward just to create a link on this thread to QandO, rather than the moderately devious opportunistic redirect to your own blog.

Sorry for causing trouble by pointing misrepresentations.  If that equates to a smear, i am sorry.

The fact remains, if you are going to cite numbers to back up your claims, check to see if they are real.

Otherwise, do what I do and speak in generalities about how things either are or how they should be.

You learn this when you start writing term papers - if your source of credibility is bogus, so too is your argument.

I voted Libertarian twice on principle, and likely will do it again if there is not a decent America First candidate - Republican or otherwise.

And what it the libertarian stance on issues like free trade, open borders and minimum wage.

Clueless freep.

And what it the libertarian stance on issues like free trade, open borders and minimum wage.

Completely open free trade and no MinWage at all.

Of course, they have no power and can’t do anything -BUT THEY ARE RIGHT.

If being Right is more important that actually doing something, feel free to do so.

You have to dig deep to try to understand Freep.
Just like you have to dig deep to find the “link” to MCQ. Freep wants you to go to his site, read a bit, and then find the link to QandO
Somewhat convoluted Freep. Seems like it would have been more straightforward just to create a link on this thread to QandO, rather than the moderately devious opportunistic redirect to your own blog.

Yeah, right.  Whatever. Your acting like i’m new here or something when that’s you.

McQ and his aliases can whine all day but they were found with their pants down.  Pull em up and get over it.

Sorry for causing trouble by pointing misrepresentations. If that equates to a smear, i am sorry.

The fact remains, if you are going to cite numbers to back up your claims, check to see if they are real.

Is your brain in the deepfreeze.  According to the chart that YOU linked to there are only 470,000 earning the minimum wage.  Furthermore on the same chart only 149,000 full-time workers are earning minimum wage.  That’s one in a thousand freep.

There are also many jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage which are not germane to this discussion.

I could claim that you are dishonest for claiming the number of minimum wage workers was much higher.  However I think it was an honest mistake.  What wasn’t an honest mistake is being a jerk before and even after YOUR error was uncovered.

If being Right is more important that actually doing something, feel free to do so.

Just remember, there are Activists and there are Pacifists.

Just remember, there are Activists and there are Pacifists.

There are reasoned people and there are freeps.

Freep wants you to go to his site, read a bit, and then find the link to QandO

Yeah, but I don’t “go” to his site.

I’m reading the totals.

McQ originally said:

According to Bureau of Labor stats, the number of people working in the US (16 or older) is 151,000,000. And the number who earn or are paid minimum wage?

520,000 .

Yup. .003 of the work force earns minimum wage.

He didn’t break anything dow to get that number

Is your brain in the deepfreeze. According to the chart that YOU linked to there are only 470,000 earning the minimum wage. Furthermore on the same chart only 149,000 full-time workers are earning minimum wage. That’s one in a thousand freep.

44. Wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by selected
characteristics
(Numbers in thousands)
Characteristic
2005
Workers paid hourly rates Total at or below prevailing Federal
minimum wage
Total
Below
prevailing
Federal
minimum
wage
At
prevailing
Federal
minimum
wage
Number
Percent of
hourly-paid
workers
SEX AND AGE
Total, 16 years and over ............................................................................... 75,609 1,403 479 1,882 2.5
16 to 24 years ....................................................