4,601 Forum Posts by "BeFell"
At 11/17/06 07:50 AM, ReiperX wrote: BeFell, why do the states with the highest minimum wage have the best economies?
Source?
As far as costs going up, yes they may increase slightly, but its not going to be a 40% increase in overall cost, and thats even if they don't lay anyone off. Unless of course your average person flipping burgers at minimum wage averages 1 burger a day, then it costs 40% more to make. But since they probally make closer to 400+ burgers a day, plus fries, then that little hike in their pay barely even touched the cost to produce what they are making.
Burger flippers make more than minimum wage. McDonalds measures its labor costs as a percentage of sales meaning that labor should always be a constant percentage of sales, usually about 24%. An increase in pay will push this percentage up meaning one or two things are going to happen. The first thing is people are going to be sent home and not scheduled meaning less or no income for some employees. If it is found that demand can't be met with the reduced capacity then prices are going to go up and some people will come back but everyone's wage gains are going to be diminished meaning the whole process will have to begin again in few months. So as you can see we're looking at two problems, unemployment and inflation specifically spurred by the government. While you may be correct in your claim that inflation will not increase as much as wages this topic is about the unemployment problem you jackass.
At 11/16/06 10:39 PM, Draconias wrote:At 11/16/06 09:51 PM, BeFell wrote: Does this seem fucked up to anyone else?BeFell, if lost employment was a permanent thing, then yes. But those 2.5% can find better or other jobs. Natural job decreases occur, and people survive. This shouldn't be any different.
If they could get better jobs why are they working for minimum wage? Also this isn't a natural decrease in employment it's government mandated.
Also, increased minimum wages would increase the upward pressure on workers capable of reaching better jobs-- a good thing.
If anything it will put pressures on the wages of better jobs leading to even more unemployment.
As an alternative to just allowing "anyone" to lose a job, a coordinated elimination of the illegal immigrant problem could easily remove 4% of our total population. That would most definitely remove more minimum wage workers than there are minimum wage jobs.
Yeah we can dream but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
At 11/16/06 09:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: But I would love for that to go up.
For one that gets minium wage, that would be a godsend.
Um, what if you're in that 2.5%?
Does this seem fucked up to anyone else?
My ignorant little understanding of this tells me they are basically saying, it's ok to screw over a minority of people as long as a benefits a majority.
At 11/14/06 11:05 AM, stafffighter wrote: You're jumping from one extreme to the other. My argument is that in the case of private accounts such professionals would become so much an institution that they would serve the same purpose as a government agency. Many things are institutions in life and they have at the least government regulatory agencies
So why not set up rules for investing private account investments so that 10% can be invested in stocks, 20% in mutual funds 20% in treasury or other government bonds and the rest in certificates of deposit. That way only about 30% of your money will be at any significant risk. Even then the risk will only be as great as you choose.
One thing that I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen addressed in this topic is the inadequacy of the current system. Does anyone think you can really have a good life being dependent on the payouts of the currents system? Even more important does anyone here actually believe the current system will still be around when they retire?
I for one don't appreciate knowing that I most likely never again see the 8% of my income the government takes from me every paycheck. I would like to see a system set up where the government can't borrow my retirement without asking and we won't have to see a 50% tax hike to ensure everyone gets the benefits they were promised. We are not suggesting abolishing social security, even a republican knows the majority of Americans are too stupid to plan for their own retirement. We are simply suggesting that when the government takes that money out the do something intelligent with it or even better give us a chance to.
At 11/14/06 12:17 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: This topic took a turn for the stupid.
If you were dealing with intelligent people on this issue, this topic wouldn't be necessary.
At 11/11/06 09:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Question: If these things are so profitable, why isn't everyone using it.
Americans are ignorant of the nature of investing. For example, what would you do if you won the lottery and acquired 5 million dollars? If you are thinking anything other than investing the entire sum at a guaranteed 5% and making $250,000 a year for scratching your ass, chances are you won't have any money for very long. How many Americans do you suppose do that? Not many. Our society is one of instant gratification and thus very few people think to put their extra cash away so they will have even more of it at a later date.
What makes a private account system such a good idea is it forces people to save but unlike social security, it allows them to maintain control of their money and potentially earn far better yields. The possibility of financial failure can easily be limited by placing a cap on the proportion that can be placed in the high risk bond market, lower risk private bonds and the lowest risk government bonds. Hell if that still sounds risky to you, invest in a Federally insured CD with your local bank for about 5%. Even if your bank folds you'll still recover up to $100,000.
Basically the only way people would lose all of their money in a private account system with diversity mandates is if the government were to go bankrupt. Wouldn't that be an ever bigger problem in the current system?
At 11/10/06 01:19 PM, iiREDii wrote: I'm a moron troll and not even a very good one.
I was debating on whether or not to respond to your adolescent attempt to insight controversy then decided, why not, either way you come out as and idiot. Besides a part of me was wondering if perhaps you really are that stupid and I'm giving you too much credit by assuming you're just a 13 year old looking for fun.
There is one very simple means by which you don't have to pay taxes which you or anyone else is perfectly free to peruse. My suggestion is of course, DON'T EARN ANY INCOME. Yes indeed if you don't make any money and you don't buy anything there is nothing the government will do to "rob" you. If however you do choose to find employment you will most likely use government services you will be expected to help pay for. Services such as roads on which to get to work, oversight of a market in which to do business in and oversight of your employer to make sure you actually get paid and he doesn't just strap you in chains and beat a drum. Now why don't you sit and think about all the things the government might provide which I haven't mentioned, make game out of it. Then you may promptly pull your head out of your ass.
Didn't the Simpsons already do this in a much more funny and thought provoking way?
For those of you who are 14 The Simpsons is a prime time television show that in it's day had such a level of hilliarity it made Family Guy look like an episode of Boy Meets World. Not the Jr high and high school years, those were ok, I'm talking the college years, those sucked. That Topanga was one fine piece of ass though.
At 11/9/06 12:02 PM, Malachy wrote: there was some marines thingy in my college's cafeteria and it had little passport looking things that said "class of tomorrow" and i took about four of them, crossed out "class" and wrote in "casualty"
then i put them back..
i felt rebellious
Wow, that's really gay.
Did you run away giggling afterwards?
At 11/9/06 01:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: lol at troubles for the evil Republicans (and no, I'm not generalizing the party, I'm being specific to the one's that have done awful things while in office) for their current troubles. The universe does pay you back bitches.
Dude, your talking about the universe dishing out just punishment to the "evil" as Nancy Pelosi is stepping up as speaker of the house?
At 11/8/06 07:56 PM, stafffighter wrote: Once again, it fills my heart with hope that the happily married guy talks more about porn than anyone else.
So I was all set up when the door bell rang so I had to close the browser and put some pants on and run down and answer the damn door. I open up and I see it's one of my wife's friends wanting a ride home. My initial thought was "hey as long as she's here" but fearing castration I quickly dismissed such silliness. So I give the friend a ride home and then realized it was time to pick up my wife from work and said to myself, "so much for that orgasm." Then I got to thinking because and decided to test my luck. When my wife got into the car I told her to agree to have sexual intercourse with me the second we get home or I would kick her ass out of the car and she could walk home. After weighing which action would require more effort on her part, she agreed, much to my surprise. Even more surprising, once we reached the apartment she followed through.
Moral of the Story:
=P
At 11/8/06 07:24 PM, TechnicalProblem wrote: am i regular enough to lounge here or does this only apply to the politics section?
If you have to ask...
Come to think of it do I even still qualify as a regular anymore?
God damn school and work keeping me away from the important things like anime porn.
I was just thinking about the senate, what happens if Lieberman decides to punish the democrats for opposing his reelection and calling him a dirty Jew?
At 11/8/06 04:41 AM, fli wrote:At 11/8/06 02:33 AM, JMHX wrote: Who would have thought, the Senate AND the House.Not official yet, but...
I was so sure the Republicans would win... and that the marriage debate will suddenly and conviently reappear.
Democrates... fuck yeah!
My state killed gay marriage, we killed it dead. Along with any legally recognizable form of premarital cohabitation between a man and a woman...
Well, that's Mormons for you.
At 11/8/06 12:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/7/06 09:49 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: OMG WE'RE RID OF RICK SANTORUM I'M SO HAPPY.Republicans in general are getting fucking nailed. I wonder how many seats have to be lost before BeFell's head explodes...let's take some bets on that one, yes? : p
I will face defeat with dignity, not like you pinheads two years ago. =P
"OMG I'M GOING TO CANADA!!!!!!!!! >=("
I posted in the wrong topic.
I'm too upset tonight.
As long as I'm here, Saddam threw people in plastic shredders you assholes.
You fools, Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the presidency!
I'm kind of fond of this method,
http://www.rotten.com/library/death/execution /plastic-shredder/
So I ran all over campus to get a Justice Studies major added to my accounting major then again to get the form signed to allow me to take 21 credits. Then when I went to register for my 7th class I found that I don't meet the prerequisites.
Fuck college.
This author made the mistake of submitting this late at night with no batting average when you were still able to vote without watching submissions. It didn't stand a chance. I'm happy to see the score has gone up, the first time I voted on it it was <1. The fact it didn't make the front page showed me how fucked up the voting system was at the time.
At 10/13/06 07:11 PM, fasdit wrote: It would be a poor idea to fuck the fish since they make up a large portion of the human food source. And yes if you make hydrogen using non poluting measures then it's perfectly fine. Iceland has so much geothermal and hydro power capabilities that they use all that extra power to make hydrogen and sell it. You could also use Nuclear power to make hydrogen.
My point was that the president makes big claims about hydrogen being the fuel of the future without explaining how he plans to produce all of it or set up an infrastructure.
We grow fish on farms now, we need wild salmon like we need wild cows.
Don't be player hating on Detroit. Parts of it are shit but some of the suburbs are nice. That city has nothing to do with the lack of E85 pumps. We have plenty of farms here in Michigan so it's bullshit that there isn't a better infrastructure. Governmental elections are coming up and I hate both candidates. Neither of them will probably do anything with Ethanol. Too bad I won't be 18 by the time they roll around.
I was actually more refering to the corporate image of Detroit rather than agricultural image of your state. Perhaps that's still too subtle, how to get the point accross...
THE BIG FUCKING THREE
That ought to do it, maybe.
At 10/13/06 03:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:At 10/13/06 01:12 AM, BeFell wrote: I live in constant fear of naked pictures of Hillary Clinton or Condeliza Rice surfacing, I don't wanna see that shit.Likewise, but with a Jerry Falwell angle.
*shudders*
At 10/13/06 01:13 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Then why not wipe out the entire bear population? Because every single one has the potential to kill a human.
Hippies.
I live in constant fear of naked pictures of Hillary Clinton or Condeliza Rice surfacing, I don't wanna see that shit.
At 10/13/06 12:13 AM, fasdit wrote: Also I would like to talk about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a means of energy storage. You have to use electricity through electrolosis to make hydrogen. Your just storing energy in this matter.
What if you used elecricity produced by a dam? I like that, dam powered cars, fuck the fish.
One more thing to add is that here in Michigan I have never seen an E85 ethanol or Biodiesel pump ever in my life. I know they have more in other states but there are hardly any around here. I think that's bullshit.
You mean Michigan the state that Detroit is in? Hmm... I'm going to have shrug and scratch my head on this one, a good ball scrath wouldn't hurt either. Oh yeah that's the stuff...
At 10/12/06 04:05 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Also, like the tracking down of bears that kill people�I find it amusing, and sometimes just sad when people try and place human laws onto animals.
They don't track down and kill bears who harm people to punish the damn things and the motive certainly isn't revenge. Does it not occur to you that perhaps they just don't want something running around with an affinity for killing humans and the strength and ferocity to knock your head the length of a football feild with one swipe of its paw?
A stingray isn't really comparable to this situation though because human contact with them is far more limited. Hell before this happened I didn't even know a stingray could kill a man in that fashion, I always thought they had a poison tip tail or something. A bear on the other hand, those confrontations occur often enough that I have a pretty good idea what a mauling looks like.
At 10/11/06 12:05 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: But there would be restrictions placed on those licenses, of course. No driving after a certain time except in an emergency as defined by the court, no passengers outside their immediate family, etc. It's not as if the judge just says "Oh, your parents are crippled? Here's carte blanche to do whatever."
Wouldn't all of that be covered if your restriction that you want to place on everyone simply required a legal guardian to be in the vehicle?
Which would you rather have? A few 17 year olds with limited licenses transporting their handicapped parents or guardians around, or your tax dollars paying some social service bureaucracy hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to haul them around in fancy shuttle buses?
Using your same argument wouldn't it be more prudent to have a simple rule that applies to everyone and accomadates the cripples rather than bogging down court systems with people trying get exemptions because Dad stubbed his toe?
At 10/10/06 11:43 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:At 10/10/06 11:42 PM, BeFell wrote:Why?
You don't trust kids with able bodied parents to drive before adulthood but you do expect a cripple to have a tighter rein? Why don't you just make the restriction of the permit, must be accompanied by legal guardian?
Why do you want the driving age to be 18. Kids don't get in trouble when Mom or Dad is in the front street stomping the imaginary brake. They get in trouble when they have a car full of friends talking one their cell phones with the radio turned up. Under your system nobody would be able to drive by themselves except the child of the Crippletons. When they get in a wreck because they suddenly find themself the most popular kid and school and discover they don't drive so good going down the road getting a bj, how are their gimp parents going to get to the hospital to kick their ass? In other words, there is no reason the rules can't be the same for everyone.
At 10/10/06 11:34 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: In addendum, I personally feel the minimum licensing age should be 18, and only then after having a learner's permit for 2 years. However, I also feel that, if there is somesort of mitigating circumstance (i.e. a disabled parent, etc.), that a judge should be able to grant licenses at an earlier age, dependent, of course, on the applicant passing all standard road and written tests.
You don't trust kids with able bodied parents to drive before adulthood but you do expect a cripple to have a tighter rein? Why don't you just make the restriction of the permit, must be accompanied by legal guardian?
