$15 Minimum Wage Passes In SeaTac Washington

kpmarine · Jan 8, 2014

Harrekin said:
While you try figure out the commonly used analogy, I'll just lol at your stupidity until then.

Lol.

It's not an analogy, it's a logical fallacy. Keep digging the hole though; it just makes you look more intelligent as you go.

beenthere · Jan 8, 2014

schuylaar said:
wow just like most business owners i consult with, you have poor math skills.

5.81(40)(4)(52) = 48339.20

i just found 6660.80 for you!

beenthere said:
With a $5.81 raise in wages for each employee, I don't see this pie in the sky experiment working.

A business with only four full time employees will have at a minimum, after insurance and payroll burdens, a $55k increase of annual payroll.
You'd have to be a complete moron to think you could pay someone $600 a week to stuff hamburgers and fries in a bag and still make a profit.

Wow, just like most progressives without any business sense, your company would have been shut down for non payment of payroll taxes, which is one of the worst things you can do when dealing with the state board and IRS.
What you found was the money for unemployment insurance, workers comp and employer contributions, other wise know as "payroll burdens" just like the ones I mentioned!
Pro tip: Stick to selling fragrances.

beenthere · Jan 8, 2014

schuylaar said:
wow just like most business owners i consult with, you have poor math skills.

5.81(40)(4)(52) = 48339.20

i just found 6660.80 for you!

beenthere said:
With a $5.81 raise in wages for each employee, I don't see this pie in the sky experiment working.

A business with only four full time employees will have at a minimum, after insurance and payroll burdens, a $55k increase of annual payroll.
You'd have to be a complete moron to think you could pay someone $600 a week to stuff hamburgers and fries in a bag and still make a profit.

beenthere said:
Wow, just like most progressives without any business sense, your company would have been shut down for non payment of payroll taxes, which is one of the worst things you can do when dealing with the state board and IRS.
What you found was the money for unemployment insurance, workers comp and employer contributions, other wise know as "payroll burdens" just like the ones I mentioned!
Pro tip: Stick to selling fragrances.

Hey Schuylarr, you out spending that extra money you found?

beenthere · Jan 9, 2014

beenthere said:
Hey Schuylarr, you out spending that extra money you found?

Schuylarr, are you too embarrassed to address the major fail you came up with?

danky supreme · Jan 9, 2014

^^I blew a hole in his theory about this exact same thing afew pages back and he didn't address it on any level. I think he got the point its probably best to leave it alone and take the lack of response as a win.

Dr Kynes · Jan 9, 2014

kpmarine said:
It's not an analogy, it's a logical fallacy. Keep digging the hole though; it just makes you look more intelligent as you go.

the only fallacy in play is the reductio ad absurdum which in this case simply illustrates the foolishness of the assertion.

unemployment payments do NOT improve the GDP, they cannot, since they are non-productive.

GDP is a foolish measure of economic activity and the economy since it only measures money in motion, and is entirely unrelated to whether that movement is productive or un-productive.

a similar and equally absurd notion in common use in macro economics is the claim that crime increases economic activity, and thus is good for the GDP.

1) when somebody steals your car, your insurance company pays you for the loss (cha-Ching! GDP goes up by that many $'s)
2) you now buy a replacement automobile (Cha-Ching! GDP goes up again)
3) the car theif sells your car to a chop shop (Cha-Cing! now he has dollars to spend!)
4) the chop shop wrench monkeys get paid to take the car apart (Cha-Cing!)
5) those parts are sold (Cha-Ching Cha-Ching Cha-Ching!)
6) and the purchasers of those used parts now have some extra dollars to spend on other shit by paying less for dubious parts on E-Bay (Cha-Ching!)

thus car theft is "good" for the economy as a whole by increasing aggregate demand, despite being entirely NON-Productive.

of course this is all bullshit, since if your car had not been stolen, the insurance company would have kept all that money and either invested it in some shaky land deal, or blown it all on top hats and caviar at their bi-quarterly executive retreat in hawaii.

i could reductio the fuck out of that absurdum by asserting that the economy would benefit greatly if every car in america were stolen tonight and everybody had to go buy a new hooptie.
but that would be retarded.

see4 · Jan 9, 2014

beenthere said:
Wow, just like most progressives without any business sense, your company would have been shut down for non payment of payroll taxes, which is one of the worst things you can do when dealing with the state board and IRS.
What you found was the money for unemployment insurance, workers comp and employer contributions, other wise know as "payroll burdens" just like the ones I mentioned!
Pro tip: Stick to selling fragrances.

beenthere said:
Hey Schuylarr, you out spending that extra money you found?

beenthere said:
Schuylarr, are you too embarrassed to address the major fail you came up with?

Finthere has a crush!! How sweet!

see4 · Jan 9, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
the only fallacy in play is the reductio ad absurdum which in this case simply illustrates the foolishness of the assertion.

unemployment payments do NOT improve the GDP, they cannot, since they are non-productive.

GDP is a foolish measure of economic activity and the economy since it only measures money in motion, and is entirely unrelated to whether that movement is productive or un-productive.

a similar and equally absurd notion in common use in macro economics is the claim that crime increases economic activity, and thus is good for the GDP.

1) when somebody steals your car, your insurance company pays you for the loss (cha-Ching! GDP goes up by that many $'s)
2) you now buy a replacement automobile (Cha-Ching! GDP goes up again)
3) the car theif sells your car to a chop shop (Cha-Cing! now he has dollars to spend!)
4) the chop shop wrench monkeys get paid to take the car apart (Cha-Cing!)
5) those parts are sold (Cha-Ching Cha-Ching Cha-Ching!)
6) and the purchasers of those used parts now have some extra dollars to spend on other shit by paying less for dubious parts on E-Bay (Cha-Ching!)

thus car theft is "good" for the economy as a whole by increasing aggregate demand, despite being entirely NON-Productive.

of course this is all bullshit, since if your car had not been stolen, the insurance company would have kept all that money and either invested it in some shaky land deal, or blown it all on top hats and caviar at their bi-quarterly executive retreat in hawaii.

i could reductio the fuck out of that absurdum by asserting that the economy would benefit greatly if every car in america were stolen tonight and everybody had to go buy a new hooptie.
but that would be retarded.

[video=youtube;ss2hULhXf04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04[/video]

Ms KKKynes you are sooo cute when you ramble.

UncleBuck · Jan 9, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
unemployment payments do NOT improve the GDP, they cannot, since they are non-productive.

too bad economists who work for major companies like JP morgan chase disagree with you.

hundreds of thousands of jobs lost and a 0.4% drop in GDP for the first quarter if we do not extend unemployment benefits. this has been cited.

you are not a highly paid economist, you are a stock boy at target who lives with 8 family members to make rent.

while i respect that you work hard for a living, your credentials do not qualify you to contradict the predictions made by people who make millions with their economic knowledge and prowess.

sorry, bud.

NLXSK1 · Jan 9, 2014

UncleBuck said:
too bad economists who work for major companies like JP morgan chase disagree with you.

hundreds of thousands of jobs lost and a 0.4% drop in GDP for the first quarter if we do not extend unemployment benefits. this has been cited.

you are not a highly paid economist, you are a stock boy at target who lives with 8 family members to make rent.

while i respect that you work hard for a living, your credentials do not qualify you to contradict the predictions made by people who make millions with their economic knowledge and prowess.

sorry, bud.

Dr Kynes,

Some loser on the internet is questioning your credentials. How will you survive??

What are your credentials again bucky?? Oh yeah, ammonia saturated weed... Why would anyone listen to an unemployed treadmill salesman living off his wife's family?

Dr Kynes · Jan 9, 2014

NLXSK1 said:
Dr Kynes,

Some loser on the internet is questioning your credentials. How will you survive??

What are your credentials again bucky?? Oh yeah, ammonia saturated weed... Why would anyone listen to an unemployed treadmill salesman living off his wife's family?

i cannot decide which one i like best so i shall include them all.

Harrekin · Jan 11, 2014

Progressives believe minimum wages increases don't effect inflation.

Cos if you pay everyone in McDonalds $20 an hour it definately won't increase the price of a meal...

The owner will just take it in the ass, because he's cool like that.

Lefties...brainless javelin champion worshippers.

danky supreme · Jan 11, 2014

^^^Because he's cool like that, LMAO

UncleBuck · Jan 11, 2014

Harrekin said:
Progressives believe minimum wages increases don't effect inflation.

Cos if you pay everyone in McDonalds $20 an hour it definately won't increase the price of a meal...

The owner will just take it in the ass, because he's cool like that.

Lefties...brainless javelin champion worshippers.

it's been demonstrated over and over and over again that prices do not rise anywhere near as much as wages do. people have more purchasing power.

that is fact.

you feel like getting stupid about this? let's look at some examples then. that'll make you feel really stupid.

ginwilly · Jan 11, 2014

My favorite example of lefties trying to be smart was the 30hr insurance mandate. It used to be 32 hrs to be considered full time so lefties thought they would "help" those 32 hr workers by mandating employer insurance for 30 hrs. "Ha, we'll show those those evil companies that think they can get away with no paying benefits, we'll lower the mandate to 30 hrs.

They were literally surprised that businesses cut hrs back to 29. Never saw it coming and when told that it would, they yelled racist.

Good times.

$15 Minimum Wage Passes In SeaTac Washington

kpmarine

Well-Known Member

beenthere

New Member

beenthere

New Member

beenthere

New Member

danky supreme

Well-Known Member

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member

see4

Well-Known Member

see4

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member

Harrekin

Well-Known Member

danky supreme

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

ginwilly

Well-Known Member