And the Beat Goes On... Ob's SoTU

[OntheRail]

An On...

Ob's still on the stump... flappin' away.

umrp1tIBY8Q

[elysiantraveller]

:sleeping:

“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple, no. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts, domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.” - President Obama, Nov. 21st 2011

[badcompany]

Listening to this, I'm convinced that Mostpost is Obama's speechwriter.

[elysiantraveller]

Listening to this, I'm convinced that Mostpost is Obama's speechwriter.

$9.00 minimum wage?...

I think the President hacked Mostie's profile to get ideas for tonight... :faint:

[sammy the sage]

Federal employee's should have MAXIMUM rate of pay at $9.00 hr.....then we'd be getting somewhere :faint:

[Tom]

$14,500 a year.
Most of those earning that are worth......$7,000 tops.
They call it minimum wage for a reason - minimum effort, mostly.

Does anyone think a Walmart greeter is worth $14,500 per year?

[OntheRail]

I think that Ol' Joe has a spring in his seat... the way he jumps to his feet at Ob's every pause. Or could be a buzzer in the back pocket controlled by Pelosi. :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

$9.00 minimum wage?...

...

He made sure to throw that bone to the morons well away from the context of reducing unemployment.

[Tom]

FOX wasting valuable air time on that token liberal with no brains.
Why do they keep that joke on the payroll?

[elysiantraveller]

He made sure to throw that bone to the morons well away from the context of reducing unemployment.

http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obama-grabbing-ear.jpg

"What's that? Jobs aren't enough? More jobs and more money? Done."

[Tom]

To summarize....

Spend Spend Spend Spend

[mostpost]

He made sure to throw that bone to the morons well away from the context of reducing unemployment.
I assume you are referring to the Republican talking point that raising the minimum wage causes unemployment to rise. Like most Republican talking points it happens not to be the case.

I hope this chart which I made up myself is clear. I tried to attach it from My Documents, but it said "invalid file specified" and I have no idea how to make it valid. So I copied and pasted. The problem is my original is in the form of a table and each bit of information is in its own box. This stupid forum erases the lines of the boxes and moves everything to the left. Aggravates the hell out of me. :mad: :mad:

Minimum wage raised Unemployment then Unemployment 1yr later Recession Y/N
March 1956 4.2 3.7 N
September 1961 6.7 5.6 N
September 1963 5.5 5.1 N
February 1967 3.8 3.8 N
February 1968 3.8 3.4 N
May 1974 5.1 9.0 Y
January 1975 8.1 7.9 Y
January 1976 7.9 7.5 N
January 1978 6.4 5.9 N
January 1979 5.9 6.3 Y
January 1980 6.3 7.6 Y
January 1981 7.5 8.6 Y
April 1990 5.4 6.7 Y
April 1991 6.7 7.4 Y
October 1996 5.2 4.9 N
September 1997 4.9 4.6 N
July 2007 4.7 5.8 Y
July 2008 5.8 9.5 Y
July 2009 9.5 9.5 Y


Since 1956, which is the first time a change in the minimum wage could be compared to unemployment rates, we have raised the minimum wage nineteen times. Eleven of those times the unemployment rate was
Lower or the same one year later than it was in the month the minimum wage was raised. (nine times lower-twice the same. )
Eight times the unemployment rate went up after a raise in the minimum wage. All eight of those times occurred when we were officially in a recession.
Unemployment is the result of a recession, not the cause.

Raising the minimum wage does not cause higher unemployment. Recessions cause higher unemployment.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The formatting is a mess, but the data is easy enough to fall along with... if you follow the premise that logic takes a backseat to data that is obviously interpretable in several ways. That logic train that you close out with is the tried and true way of justifying it when the economy is down - just because unemployment further increases when we increase the minimum wage is can more easily be attributed to the recession. That's all well and good because you can frame it how you want because the answer it isn't available with data points and charts and graphs. It's a simple theoretical difference that realistically involves so many variables when you bring in all of the things that effect unemployment and then throw a minimum wage change into the mix. Its only really worthwhile to try and make some bold conclusion about that one variable's impact if everything else is the same and the same needs are still needs and the same resourcess that are needed are the same that are available and so on and so on.

It just becomes a matter, for me, not of anything to do with talking points or republicanism - I've been over this with you specifically damn near every time you bring it up - and its based on experience and a dash of logic. I've been through times when raising the minimum wage didn't have a discernible difference and I've been through others when it meant we had to pick up the slack for old Petey who we didn't really need since he couldn't make anything but the mop and broom work anyway. This sure seems like one of those times. As I've stated over and over, a raise in a minimum wage isn't in and of itself terrible - I'm not hardcore libertarian, free-market on the subject - but it has to be done very cautiously and quite honestly very gradually as not to price in to the market higher skilled workers that are unemployed - especially when A LOT of them are and we can't extend benefits for eternity.

[tbwinner]

How do you explain then the effect of raising the minimum wage on PRICES? Minimum wage jobs obviously do not make up all the labor costs of a business of course, but retail it sure does make up a lot. If labor goes up, margins have to be adjusted so prices likely go up, which mean the majority of the wage increase goes to paying for higher-priced goods.

If anything, the only thing a raise in the minimum wage does for certain is increase tax revenues, which is what Obama desires.

There's also the issue of if the minimum wage is raised so drastically to $9.00, which is a 24% increase (huge if enacted in one swoop as I believe Obama urged last night)...what happens to those already earning $9.00/hr? Do you really think they'll get raises in proportion to the minimum wage employees who are now earning as much as them? Think of those people that will be pissed off because now their subordinates are earning just as much as them.

If anything, more jobs will be eliminated at the lowest min wage levels and more responsibility delegated to higher employees.

[Tom]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba550

Quote:
Minimum wage laws mostly harm teenagers and young adults because they typically have little work experience and take jobs that require fewer skills. That's why economists looking for the effect of the minimum wage on employment don't look at data on educated 45-year-old men; rather, they focus on teenagers and young adults, especially black teenagers.


Quote:
Reduces Other Job Benefits. Even when minimum-wage increases don't put low-wage workers out of work, they don't necessarily help them either. The reason: Employers respond to forced higher wages by adjusting other components of employee compensation, such as health insurance or other benefits.

[tbwinner]

It's nice to have all the facts too. No one talks about this:


Federal Minimum wage was a constant $5.15 from 1998 to 2007.

During that time:

Federal receipts increased from $1.72 trillion to $2.52 trillion.
Unemployment stayed pretty consistent from 4.6% to 5.0% (with min=3.8% max=6.3%)
Real GDP grew 33.3%






http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

[badcompany]

It's not about talking points. It's about Economic Law, which transcends political parties.

When the price of labor goes up, demand for labor will go down.

Anyone can make himself unemployable. All you have to do is charge too much for your services.

[mostpost]

How do you explain then the effect of raising the minimum wage on PRICES? Minimum wage jobs obviously do not make up all the labor costs of a business of course, but retail it sure does make up a lot. If labor goes up, margins have to be adjusted so prices likely go up, which mean the majority of the wage increase goes to paying for higher-priced goods.

If anything, the only thing a raise in the minimum wage does for certain is increase tax revenues, which is what Obama desires.

There's also the issue of if the minimum wage is raised so drastically to $9.00, which is a 24% increase (huge if enacted in one swoop as I believe Obama urged last night)...what happens to those already earning $9.00/hr? Do you really think they'll get raises in proportion to the minimum wage employees who are now earning as much as them? Think of those people that will be pissed off because now their subordinates are earning just as much as them.

If anything, more jobs will be eliminated at the lowest min wage levels and more responsibility delegated to higher employees.
Would you say that the annual inflation rate is a good barometer of rising prices? If so, then if we compare the percentage increase in the minimum wage with the inflation rate we should get a good idea if a worker benefited from an increase in the minimum wage.

Looking at the nineteen instances in which the minimum wage was raised we find that in only three of them was the rate of inflation higher than the raise in the minimum wage. (Jan. 1975 MW +5%, Inflation + 9.1%. Jan. 1980 MW 6.9%, Inflation 13.5%. 1981 MW 8.1%, inflation 10.3%.6.

In all other cases the increase in the minimum wage was greater than the rate of inflation and in most cases it was much greater. Just to take the last 3 increases; in 2007 the minimum wage went up 13.6% while inflation went up 2.8%. Minimum wage up 4.85 times inflation. In 2008 Inflation was 3.8% Minimum wage went up 12%. 3.15 times inflation. In 2009 we had deflation of 0.4% and the MW went up 10.7%.

That is enough nerdiness for now, but to summarize; nineteen increases in the minimum wage, sixteen times those increases were greater than inflation, usually 2 or more times greater.

[JustRalph]

That is enough nerdiness for now, but to summarize; nineteen increases in the minimum wage, sixteen times those increases were greater than inflation, usually 2 or more times greater.

Which makes it obvious that the business owners/employers just ate the difference in their margins, to stay in business or in deference to their employees.

[mostpost]

It's not about talking points. It's about Economic Law, which transcends political parties.

When the price of labor goes up, demand for labor will go down.

Anyone can make himself unemployable. All you have to do is charge too much for your services.
It's not a labor market; it's a jobs market. At least at present, we do not have employers searching for workers to fill jobs that are unfilled. We have workers looking for jobs that are not there. The demand for jobs is high; the number of jobs is low. In this case the workers pay more for the jobs by accepting a lower salary. It does make sense, you just have to think about it.

This is in general terms. People with unique skill sets can demand more based on those skill sets. An Actor or an athlete is in a better position to dictate his salary. A sales associate at Target is not.

[mostpost]

Which makes it obvious that the business owners/employers just ate the difference in their margins, to stay in business or in deference to their employees.
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the reason people buy stock in a company is that they expect that company's profit to increase and the value of the stock to go up. Yet here you are telling me that the profits of businesses are decreasing because of higher labor costs caused by these increases in the minimum wage. If this is so, how do you explain the upward trend of the stock market-albeit with many ups and downs-over the years?

Could it be because the profitability of a company is based not just on the difference between the price of a product and its cost, but also on the amount of that product that is sold? Yes, it could be and it is.

[elysiantraveller]

It's not a labor market; it's a jobs market. At least at present, we do not have employers searching for workers to fill jobs that are unfilled. We have workers looking for jobs that are not there. The demand for jobs is high; the number of jobs is low. In this case the workers pay more for the jobs by accepting a lower salary. It does make sense, you just have to think about it.

:eek: :eek:

Explain that differently... I double dog dare ya! :)

[elysiantraveller]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the reason people buy stock in a company is that they expect that company's profit to increase and the value of the stock to go up. Yet here you are telling me that the profits of businesses are decreasing because of higher labor costs caused by these increases in the minimum wage. If this is so, how do you explain the upward trend of the stock market-albeit with many ups and downs-over the years.

:confused:

Really?

[badcompany]

:eek: :eek:

Explain that differently... I double dog dare ya! :)

It's a classic example of the saying:

"If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullish!t"

[mostpost]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba550

Quote:
Minimum wage laws mostly harm teenagers and young adults because they typically have little work experience and take jobs that require fewer skills. That's why economists looking for the effect of the minimum wage on employment don't look at data on educated 45-year-old men; rather, they focus on teenagers and young adults, especially black teenagers.
I have already proven that raising the minimum wage is more likely to lower unemployment than raise it, and in those instances in which we are notin a recession it always lowers unemployment. Now you want to argue that raising the minimum wage affects young workers disproportionately. Fine. Look at this.
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=adaef80b-d1f3-479c-97e7-727f4c0d9ce6
See the chart on Page 2-figure 1
The top line (16 to 25yo unemployment) mirrors the bottom two lines almost exactly. When they go up, it goes up. When they go down, it goes down. Yes, the top line starts at a higher percentage and remains higher, but the changes are almost identical.



Quote:
Reduces Other Job Benefits. Even when minimum-wage increases don't put low-wage workers out of work, they don't necessarily help them either. The reason: Employers respond to forced higher wages by adjusting other components of employee compensation, such as health insurance or other benefits.
That is a lovely chart the author presents to us, but where does he get the data. In the article he claims a 15% increase in California's minimum wage would result in the loss of 75,000 to 140,000 jobs overall. An increase of 3% in California's jobless rate.

What actually happened was that a 11.1% increase in California's minimum wage went into effect on Jan. 1, 2007. In 2007, California's unemployment rate went from 4.9% to 5.3%-an increase of .4% not 3%. The question is, was that increase caused by the increase in the minimum wage, or was it caused by the run up to the biggest freakin' recession in 80 years?

[mostpost]

:confused:

Really?

The overall trend. Sometimes the stock market goes down, but when it recovers it always exceeds its previous high.

[mostpost]

:eek: :eek:

Explain that differently... I double dog dare ya! :)
Doesn't double dog dare mean you have to go first.
Anyway, when you buy something at the store there are three ways you can pay for that something. You can take money out of your wallet and pay for it.
You can use a debit card and take money out of an account you have at a bank. Or you can use a credit card and pay for it with money you don't have yet. (yes, yes, I know a credit card can also be used for convenience and paid off immediately.)

Now, let's say I am out looking for a job. I had a job that was paying $20 an hour, but I was laid off due to the great recession. I have been looking for work steadily but have been able to find anything-at any salary. Finally, I get an offer. The same exact job, but with a salary of $15 an hour. That difference of $5 an hour between what I was making and what I will be making is what I am paying for the privilege of having that job.

It's not bullshit, badcompany, it is fact.
ETA: Sorry, I mean bullishit.

[OntheRail]

how do you explain the upward trend of the stock market-albeit with many ups and downs-over the years?


Fed Market Manipulation.... What are they at QE 6 or 7?

[elysiantraveller]

Doesn't double dog dare mean you have to go first.
Anyway, when you buy something at the store there are three ways you can pay for that something. You can take money out of your wallet and pay for it.
You can use a debit card and take money out of an account you have at a bank. Or you can use a credit card and pay for it with money you don't have yet. (yes, yes, I know a credit card can also be used for convenience and paid off immediately.)

Now, let's say I am out looking for a job. I had a job that was paying $20 an hour, but I was laid off due to the great recession. I have been looking for work steadily but have been able to find anything-at any salary. Finally, I get an offer. The same exact job, but with a salary of $15 an hour. That difference of $5 an hour between what I was making and what I will be making is what I am paying for the privilege of having that job.

It's not bullshit, badcompany, it is fact.
ETA: Sorry, I mean bullishit.

Okay, that makes so much more sense... :faint:

[tbwinner]

You just said yourself that "Workers are looking for jobs that aren't there"

What makes you think that jobs will magically start appearing once the minimum wage is increased???

Like I said, a DRASTIC increase in the minimum wage will encourage consolidation of job responsibilities and reduction in available positions. I work for a Public University that in my department has full-time employees (both merit unionized and management) and part-time student staff. I guarantee you that if the min wage was raised to $9, there would be a HEAVY reduction in student employment by this department and others across the board. New jobs wouldn't be created, the secondary responsibilities that the students handle would be delegated to fulltime staff and the student staff halved at the very least. (Note: they don't get minimum wage now, the Univ pays them relatively well for these types of jobs...but with an increase to $9 that would be a HUGE difference).

So who does it hurt again? Young people trying to get through school.

[Actor]

Federal employee's should have MAXIMUM rate of pay at $9.00 hr.....then we'd be getting somewhere :faint:So you'd pay $9.00 / hr to

Air traffic controllers.
Nuclear power plant inspectors.
FBI agents.
CIA agents.
Navy seals.
NTSB investigators.
Federal prosecutors.
CDC doctors.
Astronauts.
The military.

[hcap]

There is speculation and there are studies.

"In fact, the history says that raising the minimum wage has little if any impact on job creation. A study published in November 2010 in the Review of Economics and Statistics, for instance, found “ no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States.” Another published in 2011 “ found no impact on hours worked or employment levels.”

The seminal study of the minimum wage, done by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, found that job creation was actually strengthened by an increase in the minimum wage. This result has been found time and time again. So Rubio and Ryan have the history exactly backwards: raising the minimum wage results in higher wages and more purchasing power for workers, not job losses"

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2011/06/07/9747/an-increased-minimum-wage-is-good-policy-even-during-hard-times/

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

And they benefit workers by increasing the reward to work. For example, one recent study found that when states like New York, Rhode Island, California, and Vermont raised their minimum wage, their workers benefited relative to workers in neighboring states that did not raise their minimum wage. This study concluded: “These estimates suggest no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States.” [Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich, 2010, “Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties,” Review of Economics and Statistics.]

And In 2006, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed a2 increase in the minimum wage and found that "the potential employment and unemployment impacts of raising the federal minimum wage rate... are difficult to predict, but are likely to be small."....Jared Bernstein’s



Today the minimum wage is not keeping up with the economy

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-02-13-minwg1.png

[hcap]

http://www.iza.org/conference_files/EMW2009/giuliano_l5406.pdf

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7721/01-09-minimumwageeitc.pdf

[mostpost]

So you'd pay $9.00 / hr to

Air traffic controllers.
Nuclear power plant inspectors.
FBI agents.
CIA agents.
Navy seals.
NTSB investigators.
Federal prosecutors.
CDC doctors.
Astronauts.
The military.

Yes, he would. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

There is speculation and there are studies.

"In fact, the history says that raising the minimum wage has little if any impact on job creation. A study published in November 2010 in the Review of Economics and Statistics, for instance, found “ no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States.” Another published in 2011 “ found no impact on hours worked or employment levels.”

The seminal study of the minimum wage, done by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, found that job creation was actually strengthened by an increase in the minimum wage. This result has been found time and time again. So Rubio and Ryan have the history exactly backwards: raising the minimum wage results in higher wages and more purchasing power for workers, not job losses"

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2011/06/07/9747/an-increased-minimum-wage-is-good-policy-even-during-hard-times/

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

And they benefit workers by increasing the reward to work. For example, one recent study found that when states like New York, Rhode Island, California, and Vermont raised their minimum wage, their workers benefited relative to workers in neighboring states that did not raise their minimum wage. This study concluded: “These estimates suggest no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States.” [Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich, 2010, “Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties,” Review of Economics and Statistics.]

And In 2006, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed a2 increase in the minimum wage and found that "the potential employment and unemployment impacts of raising the federal minimum wage rate... are difficult to predict, but are likely to be small."....Jared Bernstein’s



Today the minimum wage is not keeping up with the economy

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-02-13-minwg1.png
Excellent stuff. Of course we are dreaming if we think it will convince the troglodytes. Here is a link that discusses the effects of an increase in the minimum wage of businesses.
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004/
Figure 5 studies states with minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. It finds that such states have a growth rate in new businesses twice that of states with minimum wage the same as the federal level. (3.1% to 1.6%) That there increase in employment among those affected (low wage earners) is one and one half times higher. (4.8% to 3.3%), and that the payroll and average payroll per worker is also higher in those states.

[hcap]

In all fairness the troglodytes have their own studiers showing the opposite.
Heritage Foundation, Glenn Beck, Fox News, WorldNutDaily, and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Yeah, we call it reality.

[hcap]

Just like DickY Morris called it :)

[mostpost]

In all fairness the troglodytes have their own studiers showing the opposite.
Heritage Foundation, Glenn Beck, Fox News, WorldNutDaily, and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) :lol: :lol:
I've looked at some of those. The studies you cited are peer reviewed studies containing statistical analysis from reputable sources. Their studies contain phrases like "everybody agrees that" (we don't) and "Business owners tell us" (which business owners and why are they more representative?)

Stories that support their theories, no matter how narrowly based, are repeated over and over. Statistical studies are ignored or disputed based on the occasional contradictory story. If a million people crossed over a bridge without incident and one person fell off, they would declare the bridge unsafe.

[hcap]

I've looked at some of those. The studies you cited are peer reviewed studies containing statistical analysis from reputable sources. Their studies contain phrases like "everybody agrees that" (we don't) and "Business owners tell us" (which business owners and why are they more representative?)

Stories that support their theories, no matter how narrowly based, are repeated over and over. Statistical studies are ignored or disputed based on the occasional contradictory story. If a million people crossed over a bridge without incident and one person fell off, they would declare the bridge unsafe.You would think at least some of the troglodytes would accept that they might be wrong occasionally. But the usual bullshit prevails as god given truth.

Just like the gun safety issue. I post close to 1800 people have been killed by gun violence since Sandy Hook and JR posts anecdotal stories showing some who have deterred crime with guns. I have asked repeatedly for valid numbers from reliable sources, but no one has ventured forth with the stats for their case.

[JustRalph]

You would think at least some of the troglodytes would accept that they might be wrong occasionally. But the usual bullshit prevails as god given truth.

Just like the gun safety issue. I post close to 1800 people have been killed by gun violence since Sandy Hook and JR posts anecdotal stories showing some who have deterred crime with guns. I have asked repeatedly for valid numbers from reliable sources, but no one has ventured forth with the stats for their case.

And you flat well know that my point has all along been that your numbers don't matter a damn bit to someone who has protected themselves.

You would deny those many many people the rights that are guaranteed in the constitution.

All of those posts I made are verified events. Call them what you will. Your stats don't matter. In the real world people use guns to protect themselves in spite of your gun grabbing numbers.

[hcap]

All of those posts I made are verified events. Call them what you will. Your stats don't matter. In the real world people use guns to protect themselves in spite of your gun grabbing numbers.
In the real world? What the %@&! does that mean? And those that died lived in a hypothetical world? What about those that were killed, or maimed by meaningless gun violence? Or the kids, wives and husbands who have to accept that their loved ones died when enforcement and new stricter regulations might have saved them. If enacted in the real world

In the real world shouldn't they care?

ACCORDING TO YOU IT'S EITHER A FREE FOR ALL WILD WEST SHOW, or a tyrannical socialist takeover.

In the real f**k**g world that is

[JustRalph]

Save your hysterics. In this country we have 2nd amendment.

Your dead kids can all be explained by irresponsible adults allowing access or a criminal enterprise. Those failures should never interfere with my rights.

No matter the numbers, you lefties think you know better. Prosecute those responsible and leave the rest of responsible gun owners alone.

You can't stop drunk driving by taking cars away from all the sober drivers, yet that is your exact tactic in the gun debate.

There are much bigger threats to the population than gun deaths yet you ignore them. Because they dont fit your agenda.

Every one of those kids you worry so much about were killed due to bad acts by a parent or guardian. If not an accidental shooting then as result of a criminal act. Take gang bangers out of your "kids killed" number and you would be much more effective if you were working toward reducing drowning incidents that kill kids. But none of that matters to you. You have an agenda.

That's the real world.

Your hero has sold 65 million guns since he was elected. Keep screaming and rationalizing. You are not going to get our guns , and you will not do anything except keep the pump primed for sales. Your best bet would be STFU, as you are so fond of saying.

See what you have done
http://bit.ly/XGiWCY


Now get to work on that anti drowning committee, summers right around the corner

[TJDave]

So you'd pay $9.00 / hr to

Air traffic controllers.
Nuclear power plant inspectors.
FBI agents.
CIA agents.
Navy seals.
NTSB investigators.
Federal prosecutors.
CDC doctors.
Astronauts.
The military.


I'd work for less than $9.00 if they let me be an astronaut.

[elysiantraveller]

...

:ThmbUp:

The fact is they don't give a shit about gun deaths. What they care about is passing meaningless legislation that feels good and appeals to their base...

Look at a lot of these Democrats in conservative areas... they are running from this shit as fast as they can.

As the Prez said lets bring it to a vote right now and see what happens. :cool:

[hcap]

You can't stop drunk driving by taking cars away from all the sober drivers, yet that is your exact tactic in the gun debate.

There are much bigger threats to the population than gun deaths yet you ignore them. Because they dont fit your agenda.
Total bullshit. If we applied the same sort of sensible requirements for guns and their owners, like licensing, driver ed, and safety features like seat belts to the world of gun ownership we would cut down on the grisly stats.

And once again you spout off garbage.

1-Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes or 9,855 vs over 37,000 from gun violence including suicides

2-In the United States, the number of drunk driving deaths has been cut in half since MADD was founded in 1980.

[hcap]

The fact is they don't give a shit about gun deaths. What they care about is passing meaningless legislation that feels good and appeals to their base...
From where I sit, the same can be said about rethugs and some of you gentlemen about meaningless gun deaths.

We think that over romanticizing weapons is your folly and appeals to fighting off tyranny to your base is crap.

[JustRalph]

Total bullshit. If we applied the same sort of sensible requirements for guns and their owners, like licensing, driver ed, and safety features like seat belts to the world of gun ownership we would cut down on the grisly stats.

And once again you spout off garbage.

1-Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes or 9,855 vs over 37,000 from gun violence including suicides

2-In the United States, the number of drunk driving deaths has been cut in half since MADD was founded in 1980.

Wow! Way to miss the point....... :lol:

Licensing, permits and education already required in many states and their numbers are even worse. See Chicago and Baltimore as examples. Throw in Washington DC for the trifecta.

More laws have no effect when it comes to guns. Criminals don't care about laws. That you can never change. Guns are almost undetectable when criminals employee them. Vehicles are a different story. The comparison for enforcement purposes just doesn't work and yet my analogy still stands.

You will never remove guns from our society. Now crawl back into your office with your useless statistics and leave the rest of the country alone. We aren't interested in your opine on guns and we will defy your President and his minions.

[elysiantraveller]

Total bullshit. If we applied the same sort of sensible requirements for guns and their owners, like licensing, driver ed, and safety features like seat belts to the world of gun ownership we would cut down on the grisly stats.

And once again you spout off garbage.

1-Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes or 9,855 vs over 37,000 from gun violence including suicides

2-In the United States, the number of drunk driving deaths has been cut in half since MADD was founded in 1980.

1. 9,855 vs 11,078. I know you want to count suicides and accidents but that's bullshit... but anything to juice the figures though right?

2. WTF does this have to do with anything?!?! The homicide rate in America has fallen 20% since the lapse of the AWB and the murder rate in America is the lowest its been since 1963... 50 years!

[Tom]

The problem is not with guns, but with people.
We do not identify problem people, and when we do, libs pamper them and feel sorry for them.

The ambush shooter on Christmas Eve had been in prison for murdering his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer. He was paroled.

Why?

This man should have:

1. been executed years ago
2. never been considered for release - EVER.

No murderer should EVER be let back out. End of story. You kill them or isolate them forever.

No violent felony should be plea-bargained as a rule.
Any felony committed with a gun present, even if not used, should have a mandatory life sentence, first offense.

If libs were half as concerned about innocent people and victims as they are about the criminals, the gun death rates would drop dramatically.

[hcap]

Wow! Way to miss the point....... :lol:

Licensing, permits and education already required in many states and their numbers are even worse. See Chicago and Baltimore as examples. Throw in Washington DC for the trifecta.

More laws have no effect when it comes to guns. Criminals don't care about laws. That you can never change. Guns are almost undetectable when criminals employee them. Vehicles are a different story. The comparison for enforcement purposes just doesn't work and yet my analogy still stands.

You will never remove guns from our society. Now crawl back into your office with your useless statistics and leave the rest of the country alone. We aren't interested in your opine on guns and we will defy your President and his minions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

...Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it; however, most countries similar to the United States have a more secure social network. Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[30][34][35]However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence. [36] [37] [38] [39]

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in low income urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[40] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[41] According to FBI statistics, the highest per capita rates of gun-related homicides in 2005 were in D.C. (35.4/100,000), Puerto Rico (19.6/100,000), Louisiana (9.9/100,000), and Maryland (9.9/100,000).[42] The Bureau of Justice statistics from 2004 do not include D.C or Puerto Rico.

And
....In Chicago, for example, gun sellers will simply set up shop just outside the city limits and sell to traffickers who bring the weapons into the city. That’s one of the key arguments for the sort of federal action being considered today, especially universal background checks at nearby gun shows to prevent this sort of trafficking. A uniform federal standard would make it much harder for criminals to take advantage of state and local variation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/assets_c/2011/01/preventionEDIT-thumb-600x463-40174.jpg
1. 9,855 vs 11,078. I know you want to count suicides and accidents but that's bullshit... but anything to juice the figures though right?

2. WTF does this have to do with anything?!?! The homicide rate in America has fallen 20% since the lapse of the AWB and the murder rate in America is the lowest its been since 1963... 50 years!
.................................................. ...............................

1-How many people commit suicide by car? You can't hold a car to your head and fire. Of course we count suicides by firearms-mostly pistols

2-We have already agreed that AW are not the major problem. Not pertinent. What is pertinent is overall gun ownership has declined.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_gun_ownership.jpg

Read this study by John Hopkins/Bloomberg

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

"Gun violence in the United States is unusually high for a nation of such wealth. Although there is little difference in the overall crime rates between the United States and other high income countries, the homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries.4 This is because the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is twenty times greater than in these other high-income countries. The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U.S. is so much more lethal than in countries of similar income levels.

[elysiantraveller]

1- Nonsense there were 32,000 traffic deaths but that doesn't illustrate your point. So accidents count with guns but not cars? Lying with numbers again...

2- So you support the NRA stance of attempting to enforce existing laws like the background system they proposed a decade ago?

You forget we aren't talking about what you want to do we are talking about what your party is attempting to do.

[hcap]

1- Nonsense there were 32,000 traffic deaths but that doesn't illustrate your point. So accidents count with guns but not cars? Lying with numbers again...

2- So you support the NRA stance of attempting to enforce existing laws like the background system they proposed a decade ago?

You forget we aren't talking about what you want to do we are talking about what your party is attempting to do.What the !%$^! arte you talking about?You can't stop drunk driving by taking cars away from all the sober drivers, yet that is your exact tactic in the gun debate.

There are much bigger threats to the population than gun deaths yet you ignore them. Because they dont fit your agenda.
JR said drunk driving is a "bigger" threat than gun deaths. Not that ALL driving is. Murder and suicide are intentional. How many people purposefully use a car to kill themselves? Or others? Guns are primarily designed to injure or kill. Cars are designed to transport.In 1999, 87 people intentionally killed themselves through car accidents; the number increased to 104 in 2009, according to the CDC. However, researchers at the Suicide Prevention Center have said as many as 2% of car accidents may be suicides, and that they are often reported as accidents.Your number 2 is just that. Number 2!

PS: if we had not ALREADY passed safety and driver regulations on all vehicles and drivers, traffic accidents would be much higher.

PPS: Gun deaths are projected to pass all auto accidental deaths in 2015. Not just drunk driving deaths

PPPS: ONCE AGAIN, we DO NOT want to take all guns away from "sober" gun owners as Ralph claims

[delayjf]

Just like the gun safety issue. I post close to 1800 people have been killed by gun violence since Sandy Hook and JR posts anecdotal stories showing some who have deterred crime with guns. I have asked repeatedly for valid numbers from reliable sources, but no one has ventured forth with the stats for their case.

That's because it difficult or impossible to formulate statistics on crimes that never happen or are under reported.

Kind of like the issue of the dealth penalty detering crime. Based on interviews of those on death row you could conclude that it does not. But the problem is, you never get to interview anyone who decided against murder due to the price they might ultimately pay - and if you tried, its not likely they would come forward.

[JustRalph]

What the !%$^! arte you talking about?JR said drunk driving is a "bigger" threat than gun deaths.

I never said that. That's where you missed the point.

[hcap]

I never said that. That's where you missed the point.

You can't stop drunk driving by taking cars away from all the sober drivers, yet that is your exact tactic in the gun debate.

There are much bigger threats to the population than gun deaths yet you ignore them. Because they dont fit your agenda.

1-You sad I wanted to take guns away

2+-You said DRUNK driving was a "much bigger" threat than gun deaths

[hcap]

That's because it difficult or impossible to formulate statistics on crimes that never happen or are under reported.

Kind of like the issue of the dealth penalty detering crime. Based on interviews of those on death row you could conclude that it does not. But the problem is, you never get to interview anyone who decided against murder due to the price they might ultimately pay - and if you tried, its not likely they would come forward.Then why do the gun advocates state 1 1/2 million I get your point. But this whole argument we are having about guns, laws and and the defensive value of guns, stems back to statements made by gun proponents here. Usually those statements bandied about numbers that were just parroted from gun magazines without critical review. Here are sources that proponents drew upon.....

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
And of course there are other studies by gun control advocates that dispute these numbers. Notably the Harvard Injury studies re: Hemmingway (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm) et al, that I have quoted.

Are you now admitting you gentlemen are in agreement with Harvard?

[hcap]

Gertting back to minimum wage. Where are the studies supporting the "con" approach?? :bang: :bang:

Meanwhile I quote another liberal who makes some--as you guys like to say-"feel good" points--worth considering

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/why_isnt_raising_the_minimum_wage_considered_a_no_ brainer_partner/

...Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 should be a no-brainer. Republicans say it will cause employers to shed jobs, but that’s baloney. Employers won’t outsource the jobs abroad or substitute machines for them because jobs at this low level of pay are all in the local personal service sector (retail, restaurant, hotel and so on), where employers pass on any small wage hikes to customers as pennies more on their bills. States that have a minimum wage closer to $9 than the current federal minimum don’t have higher rates of unemployment than do states still at the federal minimum.

A mere $9 an hour translates into about $18,000 a year — still under the poverty line. When you add in the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps it’s possible to barely rise above poverty at this wage, but even the poverty line of about $23,000 understates the true cost of living in most areas of the country.

Besides, the proposed increase would put more money into the hands of families that desperately need it, allowing them to buy a bit more and thereby keep others working.

A decent society should do no less.

Some conservatives say “decency” has nothing to do with it. Who has the right to decide what’s decent? We should let the “market” decide what people are paid.

This is one of the oldest conservative canards in existence, based on the false claim that there’s something called a “market” that exists separate from society. But there’s no “market” in a state of nature, just survival of the fittest.

A society necessarily determines how the “market” is to be organized. Standards of morality and decency play a large role in those decisions.

We set minimum standards for worker safety and consumer protection. We decide young children shouldn’t be in the labor force.

We do our best to prevent certain things from being bought and sold — such as slaves, dangerous narcotics, babies, votes, sex with children, machine guns, nuclear material.

We decide citizens shouldn’t have to buy certain things that should instead be available to everyone free of charge (paid in effect by all of us through our taxes) – such as clean drinking water, K-12 schools, safe bridges, protection from violence, public parks.

Opinions may differ about what decency requires, and we hash it out in a democracy. We might decide certain minimum standards are too costly or inefficient, or can’t be enforced, or impose unwarranted constraints on our freedoms.

Different societies come up with different answers. Handguns are banned in most other advanced nations, for example. Workers have more protections than they do in the United States. Minimum wages are higher. Taxes on the wealthy are higher. Healthcare is more universally available.

Every society must necessarily decide for itself what decency requires. That’s the very meaning of a “society.”

Don’t fall for the mindless assertion that “markets” know best. Markets are human creations, requiring human beings to decide how they are structured and maintained.

The questions we face – whether to raise the minimum wage, restrict the availability of guns, expand healthcare coverage, and countless other decisions – inevitably require us to define what we mean by a decent society.......Robert Reich

[delayjf]

States that have a minimum wage closer to $9 than the current federal minimum don’t have higher rates of unemployment than do states still at the federal minimum.

Whoever wrote that needs to check their facts a bit closer, CA's minimum wage is 8.00 dollars an hour, and CA are currently 49th in unemployment, second only to NV with a minimum wage of 8.25. NV is tied for last with RI in unemployment rate - RI's minimum wage is also over the federal level. The State of WA has the highest minimum wage of 9.19 and hour and they rank 30th in unemployment.

Nice little experiment going on in San Francisco - they have mandated healthcare, mandated sick leave, and they have raised the minimum wage to 10.55 an hour. We'll see how that works out.

So those high wage rates are going to be passed on to consumers? And how might the consumer react. Perhaps they will buy less of the product. A reduced in demand will result in a reduction in labor requirements which would result in fewer jobs.