Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 So now you are resorting to retarded comments? Seriously is that what you got out of what I said? Let's take a look at what I said: Doesn't seem to me that I was implying that it was THE "way" to get more money into the economy. I wasn't even making that point. I was speaking specifically to this issue. The point I made was two fold, one that the cost of living is rising for people and that an increase in wages would help their situation, and two that corporations are flushed with cash and that I believe are easily able to absorb these costs. I want to ask you and everyone else here a question. Has your income gone up in the past five years. I'll answer first. YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Please illustrate to me how when they did raise the minimum wage it stifled growth. The burden of proof is on you. Thank you in advance. YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOURE THE ECONOMICS EXPERT, YOU BACK IT THE !@#$ UP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 <p>have you ever noticed that snake oil salesmen sell stuff for ailments conventional medicine can't effectively treat? like baldness, hangovers and obesity. look at the industry that's developed around obesity. how many could stay in business if there truly was a simple fix? maybe you didn't understand my synopsis of the lecture: weight loss programs, even involving diet and exercise, are inherently contradictory to innate feedback mechanisms developed evolutionarily. any currently available method is fighting the bodies natural tendencies. can it be done? yes, but the vast majority that attempt it fail. You answered your own question. They stay in business because people are weak and stupid and fall for snake oil salesmen just like they have been since the beginning of time. Any "currently available method"?? The way to lose weight is not via a purchased 'weight loss program'. The way to lose weight is to eat LESS food, eat HEALTHIER food, and to INCREASE your amount of exercise. Do those 3 things in increasing increments until you start losing weight. Continue until you reach the desired impact. There ya go....KD's weight loss "program", and it's available to everyone -- for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Actually, I oppose the minimum wage; but I don't hate it. I think it does more harm than good. With that said, I do hate Magox's idea, because caste systems are bad; and his idea is terrible. That fact that I can't help but agree with an idiot truther like yourself should be enough to make Magox stop and think all on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 You answered your own question. They stay in business because people are weak and stupid and fall for snake oil salesmen just like they have been since the beginning of time. Any "currently available method"?? The way to lose weight is not via a purchased 'weight loss program'. The way to lose weight is to eat LESS food, eat HEALTHIER food, and to INCREASE your amount of exercise. Do those 3 things in increasing increments until you start losing weight. Continue until you reach the desired impact. There ya go....KD's weight loss "program", and it's available to everyone -- for free. have you ever met anyone that's done all that and still not lost more than 10% or lost more and gained it back? now you know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 have you ever met anyone that's done all that and still not lost more than 10% or lost more and gained it back? now you know why. Because the average human lacks willpower. WTF is your point here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 You answered your own question. They stay in business because people are weak and stupid and fall for snake oil salesmen just like they have been since the beginning of time. Any "currently available method"?? The way to lose weight is not via a purchased 'weight loss program'. The way to lose weight is to eat LESS food, eat HEALTHIER food, and to INCREASE your amount of exercise. Do those 3 things in increasing increments until you start losing weight. Continue until you reach the desired impact. There ya go....KD's weight loss "program", and it's available to everyone -- for free. It's difficult and it does take sacrifices and beating bad habits. Maybe because he's a doctor, he sees everything from the point of view of treatment rather than personal sacrifice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 have you ever met anyone that's done all that and still not lost more than 10% or lost more and gained it back? now you know why. Sure have. The reason is always the same: lack of willpower. "It's too hard" is the common refrain. The need to eat ice cream, frech fries and drink soda/beer is just too much to resist. Conversely, I've never met anyone who eats a light, healthy diet and exercises regulary who is obese. Even people I know with screwed up thyroids manage to keep it under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 it isn't working when 50 million people are on food stamps. it isn't working when over 1 million school kids are reported by their schools to be homeless. it isn't working when millions more go hungry on a regular basis. it isn't working when all this is going on and wealth is becoming even more concentrated. Good God... Could you make a more disingenuous argument? 50 million people are on food stamps because the threshold for foodstamp eligibility was raised to a standard which includes a massive sum of individuals who don't need to be on food stamps. 1 million children are reported as homeless by their school districts, not because they don't have homes, but because they are immigrant students who don't have permanent addresses, spending a large portion of the each year in their family homes in Central and South America, and staying with family members when they are in the US. Christ, man. Have atleast a clue what the !@#$ you're talking about before you open your idiot mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That's fine, you believe it would stifle growth, I don't. Secondly I know that when I go to a fast food restaurant, there are many people who are working there that aren't teenagers and I assume that many of these people have families. So I don't care that you believe it was "intended" for teenagers, the reality is that there are many people who don't fall under your criteria of who should hold these jobs. In regards to family solving societal problems, sure I think that's important, and that would be the ideal situation, but it's not realistic. You can talk about "should" all day long, and I will agree with that, but you will never see your ideal "should" scenario play out in your life time. It's simple. I believe that it won't stifle growth, that it won't effect profits much for most corporations and that I believe it will benefit employees earning minimum wage, and I believe it will produce positive effects on the economy. Look at the data, it's clear that the majority of minimum wage holders are young and in temp jobs. Of course there are non-teens in many of those jobs. But how do you know they're simoly not supplementing other family income? What are their numbers? Minimum wage hikes haven't had a tangible effect on growth yet because businesses know they're sporadic and not tied to automatic cola increases. You are advocating set economic policy based on the sample outliers? If you do, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That fact that I can't help but agree with an idiot truther like yourself should be enough to make Magox stop and think all on its own. /sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 have you ever met anyone that's done all that and still not lost more than 10% or lost more and gained it back? now you know why. Yes, many. It's due to habits. Generally someone who eats a low sugar/ low carbohydrate and high protein/veggie diet will generally have a healthy weight range. Go to a supermarket and take a look at the main ingredients in most food sold and you'll understand why people can't lose weight, because they eat ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, many. It's due to habits. Generally someone who eats a low sugar/ low carbohydrate and high protein/veggie diet will generally have a healthy weight range. Go to a supermarket and take a look at the main ingredients in most food sold and you'll understand why people can't lose weight, because they eat ****. Yeah but you know the old saying man: Life is like a **** sandwich. The more bread you have the less **** you eat. Liberals have always have connected well with Cheech and Chong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) It's difficult and it does take sacrifices and beating bad habits. Maybe because he's a doctor, he sees everything from the point of view of treatment rather than personal sacrifice? He's a doctor? Yikes. But that does make it easier to understand his willful ignorance on the topic. Like many in his profession, he only sees two paths: 1) take this drug to cure you or 2) we don't have a cure for that yet. Just look at how his profession has been working at turning obesity into a 'disease' in recent years, and how in his post below he references the 'currently available methods' as if the only way to 'treat' obesity is by some miracle pill with the FDA stamp of approval. Oh, and then there's the bolded part: weight loss programs, even involving diet and exercise, are inherently contradictory to innate feedback mechanisms developed evolutionarily. any currently available method is fighting the bodies natural tendencies. can it be done? yes, but the vast majority that attempt it fail. The human body has a natural tendency to gain weight throughout adulthood?? Good golly, makes you wonder what miracle all those non-fat people are relying on!! Edited March 21, 2013 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, many. It's due to habits. Generally someone who eats a low sugar/ low carbohydrate and high protein/veggie diet will generally have a healthy weight range. Go to a supermarket and take a look at the main ingredients in most food sold and you'll understand why people can't lose weight, because they eat ****. didn't you say you gained some of your loss back? are you weak willed? geez, we don't need no stinkin studies, don't need no endocrinologists or cardiologists. people just need more willpower! when a smoker comes in with chest pain next time maybe i'll try that one- brilliant! hmmm, could probably use that with std's too. guess what, human beings make mistakes and don't live perfect lives like i'm sure yall do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 There ya go....KD's weight loss "program", and it's available to everyone -- for free. That made me think of this great SNL skit that never gets old... http://www.nbc.com/s...uy-stuff/27169/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 didn't you say you gained some of your loss back? are you weak willed? geez, we don't need no stinkin studies, don't need no endocrinologists or cardiologists. people just need more willpower! when a smoker comes in with chest pain next time maybe i'll try that one- brilliant! hmmm, could probably use that with std's too. guess what, human beings make mistakes and don't live perfect lives like i'm sure yall do. On any given Sunday I can destroy anything with sugar around me at the blink of an eye. Cookies? Sure! Ice cream? Definitely. Part of the reason I gained some weight back is because I fell off the wagon. It's no secret that I have the tendency to balloon into a starting offensive lineman if I am not careful but that comes from my own willpower and the choices I make as an individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 On any given Sunday I can destroy anything with sugar around me at the blink of an eye. Cookies? Sure! Ice cream? Definitely. Part of the reason I gained some weight back is because I fell off the wagon. It's no secret that I have the tendency to balloon into a starting offensive lineman if I am not careful but that comes from my own willpower and the choices I make as an individual. I can help and here's how. I'll outlaw 32oz soft drinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Well, obviously...but it seems to me that TYTT is right in that it creates a sort of minimum-wage caste hierarchy in the interests of trying to avoid a shock to the economy (which I'm not convinced it would prevent anyway), when the traditional manner of phasing the increase in over a period of time would probably work just as well. Which is all, of course, completely beside the ridiculous idea that increasing minimum wage somehow magically eliminates poverty, which I'm still waiting for whoever-it-was with the cheeseburger-based economic theory to adequately explain, Well, I didn't make that claim. Also, rarely are there solutions that are of the variety of the be-all and end-all silver bullet ones. My view is based on three main points. 1) Cost of living is rising and wages should reflect that, if it is doable. In other words from the workers perspective. 2) Corporations are flushed with cash, and it is my belief that they easily could withstand this increase, without skipping a beat. 3) That there would be a net positive effect on the economy. Listen, you think that I like being on the side of an argument that defends mandates? I just normally don't agree with them in many instances because it usually from my perspective doesn't produce the intended results. This just happens to be one instance where I happen to believe that an increase to the level we are talking about, won't detrimentally harm corporations and would have a small net positive effect on a tiny sect of workers and the economy. I've thought about this issue a good bit over the years, and I've simply come to a different conclusion than most of you here. Edited March 21, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That made me think of this great SNL skit that never gets old... http://www.nbc.com/s...uy-stuff/27169/ This one is better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YfvBbxE1vU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Well, I didn't make that claim. Also, rarely are there solutions that are of the variety of the be-all and end-all silver bullet ones. My view is based on three main points. 1) Cost of living is rising and wages should reflect that, if it is doable. In other words from the workers perspective. 2) Corporations are flushed with cash, and it is my belief that they easily could withstand this increase, without skipping a beat. 3) That there would be a net positive effect on the economy. Listen, you think that I like being on the side of an argument that defends mandates? I just normally don't agree with them in many instances because it usually from my perspective doesn't produce the intended results. This just happens to be one instance where I happen to believe that an increase to the level we are talking about, won't detrimentally harm corporations and would have a net positive effect on the economy. I've thought about this issue a good bit over the years, and I've simply come to a different conclusion than most of you here. So are you mandating a COLA for everyone or just those at minimum wage? Why should they be the only ones to have their wages keep up with COLA. Oh wait they usually do. Those people get promotions and raises too. If you're in a $7.25 an hour job and don't get a raise every year you either suck or need to look for another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Look at the data, it's clear that the majority of minimum wage holders are young and in temp jobs. Of course there are non-teens in many of those jobs. But how do you know they're simoly not supplementing other family income? What are their numbers? Minimum wage hikes haven't had a tangible effect on growth yet because businesses know they're sporadic and not tied to automatic cola increases. You are advocating set economic policy based on the sample outliers? If you do, then Yes, but if the cost of living is increasing, just because the majority of these recipients are "temp" workers and young shouldn't exclude them for having their standards of living rise. By the way, those "temp" jobs, what age do you think most of them are? Ok, lets flip this, show me where minimum wage hikes have stifled growth and broadly negatively impacted corporations? So are you mandating a COLA for everyone or just those at minimum wage? Why should they be the only ones to have their wages keep up with COLA. Oh wait they usually do. Those people get promotions and raises too. If you're in a $7.25 an hour job and don't get a raise every year you either suck or need to look for another job. Yep, I'm the great mandating dictator now. In regards to why should they see an increase over others? that's an absurd point to make. Think about that question for a second. We are talking MINIMUM here. Let the word Minimum sink in for a second, and then rethink your comment. YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOURE THE ECONOMICS EXPERT, YOU BACK IT THE !@#$ UP. No. GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth. Edited March 21, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 No. GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth. Careful, he might yell at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, but if the cost of living is increasing, just because the majority of these recipients are "temp" workers and young shouldn't exclude them for having their standards of living rise. By the way, those "temp" jobs, what age do you think most of them are? Ok, lets flip this, show me where minimum wage hikes have stifled growth and broadly negatively impacted corporations? Yep, I'm the great mandating dictator now. In regards to why should they see an increase over others? that's an absurd point to make. Think about that question for a second. We are talking MINIMUM here. Let the word Minimum sink in for a second, and then rethink your comment. Listen I spent 25 years in an industry that probably has the most minimum wage employees. We'd start them at minimum wage. Did they stay there? No, they got raises every year. They also improved their skills. Dishwashers learned to prep veggies and make salads......got a raise. The prep and salad person learned to work the line........they got a raise. The guys on the line learned to manage and became a sous chef........they got a raise. The cook didn't have the skills to manage they went to a bigger restaurant or a hotel that paid them more or they just got a raise. All they had to do was request one. Oh the horror, I have to ask for a raise. Let's change this from minimum wage to what it really is. Something most of us can relate to......base pay. Who sets base pay? Your employer not the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth. I asked you to explain how it wouldn't. Who gives a turkey about GG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Listen I spent 25 years in an industry that probably has the most minimum wage employees. We'd start them at minimum wage. Did they stay there? No, they got raises every year. They also improved their skills. Dishwashers learned to prep veggies and make salads......got a raise. The prep and salad person learned to work the line........they got a raise. The guys on the line learned to manage and became a sous chef........they got a raise. The cook didn't have the skills to manage they went to a bigger restaurant or a hotel that paid them more or they just got a raise. All they had to do was request one. Oh the horror, I have to ask for a raise. Let's change this from minimum wage to what it really is. Something most of us can relate to......base pay. Who sets base pay? Your employer not the government. Well good, I'm glad to hear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Well good, I'm glad to hear that. Good answer. And now that I think about it most of the places I worked payed their entry level people above minimum wage. Why do you think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Good answer. And now that I think about it most of the places I worked payed their entry level people above minimum wage. Why do you think that is? Because it's actually getting quite hard to fill those jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Because it's actually getting quite hard to fill those jobs. Yup and keep them filled. Imagine that. The market forces making a minimum wage not necessary. The only minimum wage job I had was at my dad's restaurant. He gave me a raise once and I told him he had to they just raised minimum wage. Pissed the old man off. Oh and I was probably 15 years old. You know, really who the minimum wage was designed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Magox: Two things, 1) Your use of the word "ideologue" as a perjorative is the pinnacle of irony. 2) Your fiat declarations that something is "pragmatic" does not make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html historic minimum wage 1955 -2012, historic high 1968 equivalent to $10.42 today, historic low 2006 equivalent to $5.84 today http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Good answer. And now that I think about it most of the places I worked payed their entry level people above minimum wage. Why do you think that is? Because the market dictates so? You're not gonna have me defend the reasoning behind mandates, and the notion that I'm some sort of mandater in chief is absurd. I for the most part believe in free markets, I just think that in some cases there do need to be regulations and mandates. My conclusions are usually derived from pragmatism, logic and numbers, and I do not automatically subscribe to all conservative economic orthodoxy. I discount opinions based purely on ideology, and I know that many here on this board and that follow politics are usually people who either toe the party line or the accepted view of the ideology they follow. Which means that they are held prisoners to their indoctrinated views. I'm not saying you are one of them, you may or may not, but I know many here do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm enjoying this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm enjoying this. Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm taking notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 On any given Sunday I can destroy anything with sugar around me at the blink of an eye. Cookies? Sure! Ice cream? Definitely. Part of the reason I gained some weight back is because I fell off the wagon. It's no secret that I have the tendency to balloon into a starting offensive lineman if I am not careful but that comes from my own willpower and the choices I make as an individual. or does it? might there be a biologic basis for your cravings and inability to remain "on the wagon"? why do mammals perceive hunger at all? what is the reason for it from an evolutionary perspective? is it vestigial and actually harmful in modern society? then again it could be you're just a glutton. things are rarely as simple as they initially seem. witness this discussion on the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, but if the cost of living is increasing, just because the majority of these recipients are "temp" workers and young shouldn't exclude them for having their standards of living rise. By the way, those "temp" jobs, what age do you think most of them are? Ok, lets flip this, show me where minimum wage hikes have stifled growth and broadly negatively impacted corporations? Yep, I'm the great mandating dictator now. In regards to why should they see an increase over others? that's an absurd point to make. Think about that question for a second. We are talking MINIMUM here. Let the word Minimum sink in for a second, and then rethink your comment. No. GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth. It didn't take long for you to embrace COLA and how you're trying to fix a societal issue by throwing more money at it. When was the last time a societal and demographic problem fixed with governmental mandates of more money? Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be for people who are supporting a family. If someone is in that position, they're either unnwilling or unable to get a better job. Handing them $1 extra an hour will not fix the fundamental issue of why they're in that job in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Magox: Two things, 1) Your use of the word "ideologue" as a perjorative is the pinnacle of irony. 2) Your fiat declarations that something is "pragmatic" does not make it so. To your two points. 1) I do, and honestly I don't really care what you find to be ironic. 2) And your "fiat declaration" that it doesn't make it so, doesn't make it so. It didn't take long for you to embrace COLA and how you're trying to fix a societal issue by throwing more money at it. When was the last time a societal and demographic problem fixed with governmental mandates of more money? Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be for people who are supporting a family. If someone is in that position, they're either unnwilling or unable to get a better job. Handing them $1 extra an hour will not fix the fundamental issue of why they're in that job in the first place. "Throwing more money at it" What?? First off, they are earning their wage. There is no handout, there are no taxes being placed on anyone that is being redistributed. So your characterization is faulty at best. The crux of it all is that you are against minimum wages, period. Right? Now that we have it, because it is law, when do you propose is the right time to increase those wages? I'm enjoying this. Of course you are, because you usually are where I am right now. Edited March 21, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 or does it? might there be a biologic basis for your cravings and inability to remain "on the wagon"? why do mammals perceive hunger at all? what is the reason for it from an evolutionary perspective? is it vestigial and actually harmful in modern society? then again it could be you're just a glutton. things are rarely as simple as they initially seem. witness this discussion on the minimum wage. We all have our weaknesses. I have a hard time managing my habits which is why I just stay away ( I don't buy junk food at home, I just purchase small quantities when I feel the urge). If your liberal studies finds a way to make veggies taste like a nice nutella sandwich, then I fully support your studies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That fact that I can't help but agree with an idiot truther like yourself should be enough to make Magox stop and think all on its own. If you really think about it, based on this comment, maybe it isn't me who should rethink their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts