TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Here you go:
This ones tells you that you're wrong on min income driving inflation, which in economic terms is direct correlation of "purchasing power"
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/.../200230pap.pdf

This shows inflation rates have slowed
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi

This one shows that purchasing power has been unchanged since 1979
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-for-decades/
"But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979 "

I doubt you've read any of the above so i'll paraphrase it for you, just like other post. Inflation is driven by a complex set of variables. Only one of which is min wage.

As for personal attacks, i'll ask you again. You live in one of the healthiest economies in the country that is run top to bottom by liberal polices. Now I'm not saying all is good in the liberal world, but what aspect of it can't you grasp? I wouldn't be on your case so much if you were not factually wrong as much as you are.

I read everything that is posted and I read many things before I post. None of what you posted has anything to do with your emotional flaw of needed to resort to personal attacks.

I always appreciate a give and take of ideas however I have been on this forum discussion and arguing with these same people for many years. We all know we can cherry pick certain items to help prove a point. The information is out there, however there are certain things that people try and show in data that really does not meet the basics. Many times these articles will try and move data around to tell you it is raining when they are pissing on you.

As far as my california experience, I am getting squeezed out from a middle class existence every day. Your data is not going to tell that story. My buying power has been squeezed and squeezed. My pay is not based directly by local prices but by a number by people from another part of the country who use your numbers to set the cost of living for our area compensation. It takes a dual income family both making approx $100,000 a year each to even afford a house in the town I live in. Gets way more expensive that that just 10 miles over the hill. Regular workers are pushed further and further from work. The average person commutes 2 to 3 hours a day to get back and forth to work. A single bedroom apartment is around $2000 a month in the same town. It used to be $670 for the same apartment in 1990.

You act like I don't understand that inflation is a complex issue. That is foolish to think I don't. That is an absolutist position, however minimum wage is also a contributor and not to speak about it is equally foolish.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Did you not realize I was admitting defeat on that? Haha, I should have been more careful after calling somebody out eh?

I know I could not resist. I usually don't jump into the fray on grammar. I could not resist because I struggle like crazy with effect and affect and I feel much better about myself if I could bring you down about it.

Originally Posted by fly135

The stock market is an example of how govt money can inflate prices above the level of the free market.

Exactly, and we have yet to see what the fallout from QE will be in the long run.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Did you not realize I was admitting defeat on that? Haha, I should have been more careful after calling somebody out eh?

...And you STILL DON'T GET IT. Effect=noun. Affect=verb. Sheesh!

Originally Posted by markj

...And you STILL DON'T GET IT. Effect=noun. Affect=verb. Sheesh!

Maybe quotes around affect would have been better to use. I was saying he caught my mistake. And affect and effect are not strictly verbs and nouns. But neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Maybe quotes around affect would have been better to use. I was saying he caught my mistake. And affect and effect are not strictly verbs and nouns. But neither here nor there.

Hey. I was just busting chops. I screw it up daily. I am laughing with you and at me on this at the same time, however, I try not to judge others on these things. Grammar nazi's in discussions really have no place.

I see Trump was too chicken **** to bring up who is paying for his proposed wall when he spoke with Nieto today in Mexico. Funny how a face-to-face meeting changes what a person will talk about.

Maybe he was negotiating and doesn't want to reveal anything yet.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Maybe quotes around affect would have been better to use. I was saying he caught my mistake. And affect and effect are not strictly verbs and nouns. But neither here nor there.

Correct. They aren't strictly that way, but your odds of getting it right are much better if you remember the noun/verb thing. What do I know? I'm only a high school drop out, but I know how to Google "effect vs affect." I just had to light you up for misspelling something while in the process of correcting someone else's spelling/grammar. Carry on.

Originally Posted by markj

Maybe he was negotiating and doesn't want to reveal anything yet.

Most likely. Maybe he will promise to pay Mexico once it is completed and then offer them 25%? Or hell, he will just do what he was going to and blackmail them. Either way, pretty sketchy.

Originally Posted by markj

Correct. They aren't strictly that way, but your odds of getting it right are much better if you remember the noun/verb thing. What do I know? I'm only a high school drop out, but I know how to Google "effect vs affect." I just had to light you up for misspelling something while in the process of correcting someone else's spelling/grammar. Carry on.

You really missed the point of lighting someone up over spelling/grammar didn't you?

I can't find the article I recently read, but I thought it was rather amusing. It was from Seattle where they just raised minimum wage that had to do with how the folks there were now fighting with employers to reduce their hours so that they wouldn't lose their section 8 housing. Seems a little counter intuitive to me.

Also this is about the best thread I've been watching lately. Everyone is an expert, no one individual is wrong, and everyone else is an ill educated bigot. Carry on.

This ones tells you that you're wrong on min income driving inflation, which in economic terms is direct correlation of "purchasing power"
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/.../200230pap.pdf

Interesting article. I am not economist, however it looks like this is trying to say the Keynesian Phillips curve is a poor indicator for 'labor income share' in setting monetary policy for interest rate adjustments. I can not get down their model driven arguments but apparently the authors of the Keynesian Phillips curve must not agree or they would not have published in the first place.

One thing I am trying to come to a basic term with is exactly who is the 'labor income share'. One term basically stopped as the corporate board or some high level position like that. So in Cliff's case, he is still part of the labor income share as described in neo-classical and marxist economoic models.

Glad you sent the link because it has started to take me down yet another Wake World led education.

This shows inflation rates have slowed
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi

I have to call BS on inflation. I can see it in my local economy. Hell, if I waited one year, I could not even afford my house now. I am paying way more for fast food. something does not pass the sniff test.

This one shows that purchasing power has been unchanged since 1979
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-for-decades/
"But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979 "

I doubt you've read any of the above so i'll paraphrase it for you, just like other post. Inflation is driven by a complex set of variables. Only one of which is min wage.

Looking at the comments of the article, people seem to believe the data is tied to inflation which makes the data look flat. Basically an accounting trick.

They don't use total compensation in the chart only wages.

I like this guys comment:

According to the debt clock, wages in the U.S. have only gone up by $400 whereas the cost of new homes has gone up by $125,000 since 2000. We are in a huge debt bubble and when it goes we will be in a world of hurt. usdebtclock.org

As for personal attacks, i'll ask you again. You live in one of the healthiest economies in the country that is run top to bottom by liberal polices. Now I'm not saying all is good in the liberal world, but what aspect of it can't you grasp? I wouldn't be on your case so much if you were not factually wrong as much as you are.

California is succeeding in spite of liberal policies. Lucky for California, they have a healthy software industry, Hollywood, oil, the federal reserve, sea ports. Those things attract outside money. With that, liberal policies have driven the middle class to the breaking point. Every town, area and state has their hand in everyone's pocket book. You can not even afford to be poor anymore with all the little fines for this or the fee for that. Passed a carbon tax that is going to pull $15 billion a year of indirect tax to the people. regular manufacturing has been ran out of the state. I make a good wage and I can not even live in the town that I work.

There are somethings I do like about California and the labor laws for instance, however it makes it very expensive for businesses to run.

Originally Posted by timmyb

I see Trump was too chicken **** to bring up who is paying for his proposed wall when he spoke with Nieto today in Mexico. Funny how a face-to-face meeting changes what a person will talk about.

So you are saying that Trump has the ability to sit down with someone and be reasonable? Why..... that sounds down right presidential.....

Delta are your skills portable? Can you move somewhere with a lower cost of living?

Over here on this side of the hill we have always had trouble attracting tech and other skilled industries even though we're so tax favorable, because our schools suck... because we're bottom 25th percentile on per pupil spending.... it's a self perpetuating cycle.

I mean just the number of top tier public universities in CA.... whew! You guys aren't wasting ALL the tax money, lemme tell you. Our best and brightest kids get exported from the state and often don't return, because we don't have a competitive top tier university.

I know lots of people that complain about living in CA, but they stay anyway.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

So you are saying that Trump has the ability to sit down with someone and be reasonable? Why..... that sounds down right presidential.....

It does sound presidential.

But it also sounds like exactly what trump's supporters don't want. They want a wall, they want illegals deported. End of discussion.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It does sound presidential.

But it also sounds like exactly what trump's supporters don't want. They want a wall, they want illegals deported. End of discussion.

I think you take things a little too literal. We want illegal immigration stopped. A wall is a good talking point. It does not have to be a physical wall. We want illegals off the tax payer doll. You can't physically grab every illegal, however you can make it painful for employers and keep them from getting benefits. Matter of fact majority of California's voted for just that and the court said it was against the state constitution. How the hell is it against the constitution? It should have never been.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Delta are your skills portable? Can you move somewhere with a lower cost of living?

Over here on this side of the hill we have always had trouble attracting tech and other skilled industries even though we're so tax favorable, because our schools suck... because we're bottom 25th percentile on per pupil spending.... it's a self perpetuating cycle.

I mean just the number of top tier public universities in CA.... whew! You guys aren't wasting ALL the tax money, lemme tell you. Our best and brightest kids get exported from the state and often don't return, because we don't have a competitive top tier university.

I know lots of people that complain about living in CA, but they stay anyway.

I am on a pension so at this point I am holding on. You see, the funny thing is. The more you guys vote for more government, the better I do. I am trying to vote for what is best for my fellow man and not for my best interests.

Indiana is the same way as far as brain drain. We had a good technical college but no jobs. Me and a handful of my classmates actually got recruited to come to California. They really don't have any top technical programs in California oddly enough. I packed up and moved 2400 miles away at 19 just before my 20th birthday. Seen some crazy price shifts out here.

If you look at the high schools in Cali, they kind of are horrible. My high school in Indiana had much better facilities and academics. Cali is so dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. They then turn around and give the regular hard classes an AP name and give them college credits for it. One advantage Cali high schools and colleges have is there are so many parents and teachers that have high tech and complex workforce experience. It makes for a perpetual well skilled workforce in some sectors.

I think something that gets overlooked for pulling jobs from areas like Cali is:
1) The workforce. Plenty of people with good skill sets plus huge supplies of cheap labor. They get people from all over the world just getting off the boat and getting jobs.
2) Infastructure. Machine Shops, Industrial gas, equipment suppliers, tools supplies, venture capitalists and so on.

I don't think schools have a bunch to do with it to be honest. They get PhD's and engineers from all over the world. Most of the technical assembly is cheap off the boat labor. I worked at a photolithography equipment manufacturer at one point. The Optics assemblers were Vietmanese (sp?), the electronic assemblers were Philapino (sp?), the system guys were all different races but they needed to understand complex systems. Most things were engineered so they all be in a process mode. Not much thinking. Most could not speak English that well. They would do it the same way every day and would not complain about it. Usually they had the one lead that spoke english and the rest their native tongues.

One thing I think is going to come to a head at some point. They labor really can not afford to live near work and the quality of life is getting lower. Our establishment got the benefit of not being too close to silicon valley so most of the old timers could live in town. Now the younger work force has to drive an hour each way to work and we are the lucky ones compared to the silicon valley workers.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

You really missed the point of lighting someone up over spelling/grammar didn't you?

Nope. The original point was your hypocrisy and general POS'ness (how's that for grammar?) when "correcting" delta. Can you let this die or do you want to continue as a troll? I'd rather take the high road and let this die. No one wants to read minutiae. Peace.

Why build a wall when more Mexicans are leaving than arriving?

Originally Posted by markj

Nope. The original point was your hypocrisy and general POS'ness (how's that for grammar?) when "correcting" delta. Can you let this die or do you want to continue as a troll? I'd rather take the high road and let this die. No one wants to read minutiae. Peace.

I don't think you can call somebody a POS and then say you're going to take the high road. And I wasn't correcting Delta. Again, zero clue as to what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

I don't think you can call somebody a POS and then say you're going to take the high road. And I wasn't correcting Delta. Again, zero clue as to what you're talking about.

BS! You were bagging on him because he missed a letter in hierarchy. Dude. Forget it.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It does sound presidential.

But it also sounds like exactly what trump's supporters don't want. They want a wall, they want illegals deported. End of discussion.

So , you're an expert on Trump supporters? Maybe the Donald will hire you.

Originally Posted by markj

BS! You were bagging on him because he missed a letter in hierarchy. Dude. Forget it.

It had nothing to do with Delta lol. I was bagging on cliff because he dismissed my knowledge on a subject due to a cartoon. Just like I dismissed his due to a spelling mistake. It was sarcasm..

But you probably miss that sarcasm all the time when you're taking the high(low) road.

Originally Posted by ralph

Why build a wall when more Mexicans are leaving than arriving?

Not sure if that is true. I don't know what we are making right now, but prices are getting crazy again. House prices just went up 10 to 20% this year alone.

I haven't looked at this thread in a day or two.

Yes, more people having more money is great. Yes, of course I would want that.

Employees making more money would be great. Employees with more income generally means a happier, more productive employee.

I would absolutely like my employees to have health benefits, retirement plans, quality of life....etc.

I also know that a night time dishwasher position has a wage cap. Once that employee reaches it, he will get paid that amount for 10 years to come.

Usually, that translates into him moving on to bigger and better things (which allows that position to "turn", thus keeping the wages paid lower), or he is given the opportunity to learn more within the organization and make more money.

you can't pay someone $50,000 a year to only wash dishes....even if they've been at the job 50 years.

It has been mentioned several times over the years, that other restaurants, Applebee's for example, is the competition. This is a great point. As minimum wages increase, large chains and publicly owned places can sometimes"weather the storm" better than the smaller places.

They increase their national advertising in order to increase traffic. They lower their wallstreet estimates, don't immediately raise prices, and ride it out until customer counts increase. They are able to buy in larger quantities, thus keeping their food costs low...their managers, landlord, executive staff.... make the same money. It's the stockholders that take a hit, but only if they sell...

The small guy doesn't have a national advertising campaign. He has more immediate cash flow needs. As wages increase, most, will need to cut costs until customer traffic increases (if that theory holds true).

If he immediately increases prices, he might lose market share to the chain restaurant, that didn't increase prices.

In the long run, things will wash out/even out.

The employee who is suddenly making more money, will still be living paycheck to paycheck. He will still spend money on stupid crap. The upside, is the dollar will "churn" more, thus possibly keeping inflation at bay in some segments, but not all

sorry if this is a ramble, or an incomplete thought. Sorry if there are grammatical or spelling errors. I, like normal, am a hands on worker, while I type

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Cali is so dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. They then turn around and give the regular hard classes an AP name and give them college credits for it.

You know those college credits have to be earned by passing a nationally applied AP test, right? If you earn credits by scoring well on the test, you have mastery of the subject matter compared to your peers on a national basis.

As long as CA provides opportunity, people will flock there from places that suck more.

Originally Posted by ord27

I haven't looked at this thread in a day or two.

Yes, more people having more money is great. Yes, of course I would want that.

Employees making more money would be great. Employees with more income generally means a happier, more productive employee.

I would absolutely like my employees to have health benefits, retirement plans, quality of life....etc.

I also know that a night time dishwasher position has a wage cap. Once that employee reaches it, he will get paid that amount for 10 years to come.

Usually, that translates into him moving on to bigger and better things (which allows that position to "turn", thus keeping the wages paid lower), or he is given the opportunity to learn more within the organization and make more money.

you can't pay someone $50,000 a year to only wash dishes....even if they've been at the job 50 years.

It has been mentioned several times over the years, that other restaurants, Applebee's for example, is the competition. This is a great point. As minimum wages increase, large chains and publicly owned places can sometimes"weather the storm" better than the smaller places.

They increase their national advertising in order to increase traffic. They lower their wallstreet estimates, don't immediately raise prices, and ride it out until customer counts increase. They are able to buy in larger quantities, thus keeping their food costs low...their managers, landlord, executive staff.... make the same money. It's the stockholders that take a hit, but only if they sell...

The small guy doesn't have a national advertising campaign. He has more immediate cash flow needs. As wages increase, most, will need to cut costs until customer traffic increases (if that theory holds true).

If he immediately increases prices, he might lose market share to the chain restaurant, that didn't increase prices.

In the long run, things will wash out/even out.

The employee who is suddenly making more money, will still be living paycheck to paycheck. He will still spend money on stupid crap. The upside, is the dollar will "churn" more, thus possibly keeping inflation at bay in some segments, but not all

sorry if this is a ramble, or an incomplete thought. Sorry if there are grammatical or spelling errors. I, like normal, am a hands on worker, while I type

Where are you getting $50,000 a year to wash dishes? There are no grammatical or spelling errors, thats a math error.

If you go and look at what minimum wage is actually worth compared to how it used to be, we just now pulled even with 1950. It's peak was in the 70s. There is something wrong with that picture. You wonder why families need government handouts, you simply can't support a family on minimum wage.

I think Cliff is saying "you don't get to make a living wage and raise a family on a dishwasher's salary." Can't we all agree that supporting a family on an unskilled labor job has probably been difficult since the beginning of time, and will continue to be difficult, and that the government doesn't really owe it to you to be able to raise kids and buy a house on an unskilled job?

The "american dream" isn't just about spending power it's about self improvement. You don't get to just "have stuff" without some hard work. But work hard, and there shouldn't be impediments to what you can achieve.

Sheesh I'm starting to sound like Glen Beck.

^exactly. You shouldn't start a family if you can't afford to take care of them. You are not owed a d&*n thing.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You know those college credits have to be earned by passing a nationally applied AP test, right? If you earn credits by scoring well on the test, you have mastery of the subject matter compared to your peers on a national basis.

As long as CA provides opportunity, people will flock there from places that suck more.

They may have a "standard" but our high school's standard allowed me to sleep through two years of general ed and math in college. We did not do AP in Indiana. It was just the way it was. Maybe they do now but not then.

Yep, people will always flock to opportunity but can they maintain for a 40 year career without being burned out and unemployed?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#439850513893

Anything that kills off McDonald's is a good thing IMO

Can you even imagine the unemployment rate if McDonald's went out of business?

I can, it would go down!

If you follow the logic, the same number of people need to eat, what is more labor efficent, McD's or a sandwich bar?

New math. McDonald's with hundreds of thousands of locations with 20 to 25 employees per location wouldn't affect unemployment.

Millions of kids not only wouldn't want to go to a sandwich bar. Their parents couldn't afford to take them there. Liberal logic?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

New math. McDonald's with hundreds of thousands of locations with 20 to 25 employees per location wouldn't affect unemployment.

LOL speaking of "new math," I'm not sure how you get "hundreds of thousands of locations?"

You shouldn't start a family if you can't afford to take care of them. You are not owed a d&*n thing.

I was in the grocery store a while back and a woman who spoke zero English was in there with her 3 kids and looked to be a couple of weeks from dropping her 4th was buying a cart full of groceries and when it came time to pay she whipped out her food stamps card. Now I'm all for helping someone when they're down, but I don't see why the gov't should subsidize someone who is having MORE children when they obviously can't afford the ones they already have. It really chapped my ass.

Originally Posted by bigdtx

I was in the grocery store a while back and a woman who spoke zero English was in there with her 3 kids and looked to be a couple of weeks from dropping her 4th was buying a cart full of groceries and when it came time to pay she whipped out her food stamps card. Now I'm all for helping someone when they're down, but I don't see why the gov't should subsidize someone who is having MORE children when they obviously can't afford the ones they already have. It really chapped my ass.

Don't worry Big D -- the liberals' war on the poor by forcing them to have safe and legal abortions should take care of that problem.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Millions of kids not only wouldn't want to go to a sandwich bar. Their parents couldn't afford to take them there. Liberal logic?

OMG, is that why there was so many starving children pre 1955, no McDonalds!

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

LOL speaking of "new math," I'm not sure how you get "hundreds of thousands of locations?"

There is 14,000 stores in the US.

Originally Posted by ralph

OMG, is that why there was so many starving children pre 1955, no McDonalds!

There goes that liberal logic. You don't even realize how stupid that statement is. Pre 1955 alot of American beliefs and habits were different than today. Example people from pre 1955 actually took responsibility for their actions. Today's generation blame their behavior on parents, skin color, economic status and traumatic experiences.

Originally Posted by ralph

There is 14,000 stores in the US.

Actually there are 14248 McDonald's in the USA alone. I realize that's only 40% of the worldwide McDonald's number of 36525 locations. With a total number of employees at 420,000 there would only be 168,000 jobs lost. We would never even notice that small amount. Lol

Upon further review McDonald's has 420,000 company employees worldwide and 1.5 million total employees. That Includes both franchise employees and company employees. That's the second largest employer next to Walmart.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

There goes that liberal logic. You don't even realize how stupid that statement is. Pre 1955 alot of American beliefs and habits were different than today. Example people from pre 1955 actually took responsibility for their actions. Today's generation blame their behavior on parents, skin color, economic status and traumatic experiences.

I don't know why you label any logic you can't follow as "liberal logic"? Of course I don't think it is stupid, if I did I would think something else!

So if the fast food industry was taxed out of existence like the tabacco industry, is it your position that todays kids would just starve? No other food industry would pop up to replace it? If cheap, mass produced empty calorie food was not available no market would develop for "real food" which takes a higher labor content to produce?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Actually there are 14248 McDonald's in the USA alone. I realize that's only 40% of the worldwide McDonald's number of 36525 locations. With a total number of employees at 420,000 there would only be 168,000 jobs lost. We would never even notice that small amount. Lol

Sooo, when you say hundreds of thousands of locations you actually mean 14,248? That is a crazy rounding system you use.

Anyway, my point is if these 14,248 stores where shut down because the empty calorie fast food industry was taxed in such a way as to reflect the social harm they do (like tabacco) and were forced to close then in their place another food industry would "sprout" up. The people who used to ask "want fries wif dat" can now ask "want sprouts with that" or whatever. And more of the people would be required, not less due to the relative inefficiency of producing real food rather than foam rubber that looks like food.

I rarely eat there, but you guys are makin me hungry for a sausage mcmuffin with cheese now.

Mmm. Gotta get me some. I'll be sure and order it "extra liberal" just to see what that produces. Wait... Did I just say liberal and produces in the same sentence? I'm pretty sure that's a worldwide first. Lol

By cheese I presume you mean yellow plastic with no smell or taste

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Upon further review McDonald's has 420,000 company employees worldwide and 1.5 million total employees. That Includes both franchise employees and company employees. That's the second largest employer next to Walmart.

The big employer argument is a double edge sword and one that the collective liberal body has a hard time with. While McDonalds and Walmart do cost tax payers $1.5B annually they do provide a needed service. Walmart provides a cheap alternative to consumer goods and Mikey D's a cheap meal.

The big employer argument claims that if operating cost goes up than the prices of goods/services will equally go up. However, their executive bonuses are massive!!

https://www.google.com/search?source...57j0.11886j0j7

Before anyone jumps to a false argument keep in mind bonuses are paid out of profits and not operating cost. Point being that there is room to move the pay scale so that their employers are earning enough to not rely govt assistance.

To think it through let's say that Walmart did raise the cost of goods to reflect the increased min wage and not cut into profits. So we're now at a place where the employees (who are statistically a better economic driver) are making more, subsequently have more to spend. But now the goods they would buy cost more. The issue for Wal-Mart mgmt is now competition. K-mart in the lowest income areas all the way to amazon and Jet.com (now walmart) in the high income areas. Based on basic competition, net revenue is going to drop with profits to follow. Lastly, corporate bonuses.

So in my mind, big employers that pay low wages are not going to change on their own. What they're doing isn't broken. So for conservatives, if you want more people off the system then you need to be willing to change part of the system that keeps 420,000 on it in the first place. Two common answers is unions or federally mandated min wages. Both of which, IMO, perpetuate the gap between classes.

This is also an issue that can't be extrapolated from small business like Cliff's restaurant and my families car wash and tire shop. As stated there is a cap for dish washers and oil changers.

Going back to the Trump campaign, it appears that his campaign has figured out that Hillary's small business plan works better than his. How do we know this? His campaign has said that if Hillary wins and we don't close the border, there will be Taco trucks on every corner. To me that says she is better for small business.

Finally a reason to be pro-Hillary. I for one welcome our new taco overlords - can't get a damn decent taco in Hawaii to save my life.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

So you are saying that Trump has the ability to sit down with someone and be reasonable? Why..... that sounds down right presidential.....

They really cant handle when he presents himself in a presidential manner, just love it when the concealed libs(independents not self labeled conservatives) lose it, it's so fun to listen to their emotional arguments and then never ending labeling of homophobe , biggot, racist when the lose their emotional appeal.

Here's the facts from an old person , during a presidency of 1980-88 while cutting taxes(trump promised to do) without corralling spending , the job market was on fire!!!!
I was hired out of my Saturdsy morning hangover sleep by a large corporation I had never contacted. That was just 6 months after taking a job for a 40% increase from a 1st post college job from which I was fired for performance reasons.

If any young ir liberal or independent voter thinks we are ever going to have a job economy like that while keeping taxes high or raising them is losing it!!!!! Check your meds!!!!

Originally Posted by timmyb

Going back to the Trump campaign, it appears that his campaign has figured out that Hillary's small business plan works better than his. How do we know this? His campaign has said that if Hillary wins and we don't close the border, there will be Taco trucks on every corner. To me that says she is better for small business.

Hope sarcasm ! The following is the day I went from young liberal heart felt to 35 year old brain using conservative!
I was starting a small business that I funded with 100% borrowed capital ($100,000.00)including 2nd mortgages and revolving cc debt and savings plan loan. In 95, I think when Hillary was involved in her Hillary care initiative was quoted as saying when asked " what do you think about the cost effect that your health care initiative will place on small and medium size businesses",
Her reply that I witnessed live, "I can't be responsible for every under capitalized business in America".
She was speaking to me and she had never in her life funded a small business, everyone of which is undercapitalized.
Now if that's what you want for a president , than welcome the taco overloads

Here's my homo, racist , bigoted view:
I want whites , blacks and other minority citizens of this country to have higher wages which would happen if the illegals were not here., my roofer brother illegally paid Hispanics by changing social security numbers when the non matching arrived from the SSA. These men were paid well, higher than most illegals. But basic economics said those here when they go home would have higher wages . If we start e verify with stiff penalties , they will self deport

Oh by the way , the current lib admin, of which Hillary was a vital cog in the wheel Does Not Send Out The Non Matching social security report with names and numbers

Originally Posted by granddaddy53

Hope sarcasm !

If you couldn't pick up that this was 100% sarcasm, you should dismiss yourself from this thread immediately!

Actually giving you backhanded sarcastic approval and reinforcement. I was dismissed from everything a few years ago, I don't know why I'm allowed anywhere as the homophobe, bigoted, racist that I am labeled.

Originally Posted by ralph

Sooo, when you say hundreds of thousands of locations you actually mean 14,248? That is a crazy rounding system you use.

Anyway, my point is if these 14,248 stores where shut down because the empty calorie fast food industry was taxed in such a way as to reflect the social harm they do (like tabacco) and were forced to close then in their place another food industry would "sprout" up. The people who used to ask "want fries wif dat" can now ask "want sprouts with that" or whatever. And more of the people would be required, not less due to the relative inefficiency of producing real food rather than foam rubber that looks like food.

I was guessing to make a point. The point is McDonald's is a huge employer. If they went out of business the only restaurant that could take their place is one just like them with a different name. What you fail to realize is you can't sell steak at rice prices. Also hundreds of thousands of jobs won't easily or quickly be replaced. It is strange to me that you can Google facts to prove a point but you can't Google understanding business and market draw.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

It is strange to me that you can Google facts to prove a point but you can't Google understanding business and market draw.

It is strange to me that you would claim to "understand business" and be off by more than 10x. If I owed your business "hundreds of thousands" of dollars, you aren't going to be in business very long if you think my payment of $15K is "close enough."

So giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are saying that if McD's went out of business because of minimum wage issues, that it would be impossible for another similar purveyor to fill the void and millions of Americans would be unable to feed themselves?

Remember, min wage is going to impact all fast food providers equally (at least to the extent they rely on human labor), so it's not like McD's would be at a particular disadvantage if the cost of a hamburger went up by a dime, because burger king and taco bell would likely need to do the same.

But you are arguing that it's a zero sum game right? Either everything stays as is, or min wage increases and McD's is dead?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

I was guessing to make a point.

If your point is that you don't understand economics then you nailed it.

What you guys don't understand is this isn't about feeding people. It's about losing jobs. I was in business for 27 years and retired at age 54. I guess that proves i'm stupid by your standards.

I was using McDonald's versus Sandwich shop. The Sandwich shop couldn't take McDonald's place in the market. No restaurant could replace McDonald's price point if the minimum wage was raised.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

I was using McDonald's versus Sandwich shop. The Sandwich shop couldn't take McDonald's place in the market. No restaurant could replace McDonald's price point if the minimum wage was raised.

But why wouldn't McD's and other fast food providers just continue as before but charge a little more to cover the increased labor cost?

Not stupid, just that macro economics is not one of your gifts. Congrats on retiring, I hope to do the same in a few years

Originally Posted by cwb4me

I was using McDonald's versus Sandwich shop. The Sandwich shop couldn't take McDonald's place in the market. No restaurant could replace McDonald's price point if the minimum wage was raised.

Yeah, so. If you think our economy hinges on being able to buy a double cheeseburger for 99 cents, then we are screwed. 30 to 40 years ago, Howard Johnson's was the largest restaurant chain in the US; now there is only one left. When a business closes, there are plenty more chomping at the bit to take that business' place in the world.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

I was using McDonald's versus Sandwich shop. The Sandwich shop couldn't take McDonald's place in the market. No restaurant could replace McDonald's price point if the minimum wage was raised.

Minimum wage has increased many times over the course of McDonald's existence yet they are still here. McDonalds makes Billions (with a B) in profit, $1.09 Billion last quarter on sales of $6.26 billion to be exact. You are saying that if min wage goes up, it will cost them their entire profit? We'd have to dig into their financials a bit more to see what their labor costs are to know for sure.

Originally Posted by timmyb

Minimum wage has increased many times over the course of McDonald's existence yet they are still here. McDonalds makes Billions (with a B) in profit, $1.09 Billion last quarter on sales of $6.26 billion to be exact. You are saying that if min wage goes up, it will cost them their entire profit? We'd have to dig into their financials a bit more to see what their labor costs are to know for sure.

I see in this discussion that there are 420,000 McDonald's employees worldwide if various sectors. Reported $1 billion a quarter in profits. The math says that if you give them all a $4 hour raise, you will kill all profit in the business.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I see in this discussion that there are 420,000 McDonald's employees worldwide if various sectors. Reported $1 billion a quarter in profits. The math says that if you give them all a $4 hour raise, you will kill all profit in the business.

How would raising the minimum wage in the US affect the rest of the world? Surely you aren't implying that McDonald's pays their worker the same wages worldwide. Or are you trying to deceive with those numbers?

Are you implying that all those profits come from the US? Those are world wide profits. Do profits go into paying stock holders as well?

The point is when people start trying to say' "see, they made a billion dollars last quarter. They can afford to pay for 'X'"; the argument quickly erodes in the light of basic math. You guys are arguing they should raise the wage by what $7 an hour(?) to get to $15 an hour.

Yeah, a couple of points about that:
It is only workers in the US who would be effected. Or is that affected. Ha ha
Not all workers are on minimum wage
McDs competitors face the same cost rise
They'll just put the prices up to cover it with zero effect on competitive advantage

Originally Posted by ralph

Yeah, a couple of points about that:
It is only workers in the US who would be effected. Or is that affected. Ha ha
Not all workers are on minimum wage
McDs competitors face the same cost rise
They'll just put the prices up to cover it with zero effect on competitive advantage

That's right. Except small businesses that do not have the volume.

Then there is the big kicker. Who do you think they are going to get the extra money from? They are going to get it from the consumer. Me as a consumer will stop buying fast food, I will guarantee that.

The average consumer gets hit twice. If they choose buy the food any longer due to the increased price and the extra money in the economy (if at all) will be in direct competition with the middle class where retailers will raise prices to even out demand.

I guess one thing is, it you really think McDonald's gets a huge profit bonus from minimum wage workers, then maybe small businesses like Cliff's can come out ahead if his business has little reliance on minimum wage. If the small business has to raise the wage, then they are more than likely stuck. My guess Cliff's business is hurt worse because McDonald's and the like have huge supply chain advantages.

Originally Posted by ralph

Yeah, a couple of points about that:
It is only workers in the US who would be effected. Or is that affected. Ha ha
Not all workers are on minimum wage
McDs competitors face the same cost rise
They'll just put the prices up to cover it with zero effect on competitive advantage

Also, the workers may not be a minimum but they are certainly not at $15 an hour.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I see in this discussion that there are 420,000 McDonald's employees worldwide if various sectors. Reported $1 billion a quarter in profits. The math says that if you give them all a $4 hour raise, you will kill all profit in the business.

Ok, so how can they cover the labor cost of 420,000 workers with only $6 Billion in revenue in your argument if giving them a $4 per hour raise costs $1 Billion? That math doesn't add up.

Please write out the math you used for your calculations. How many hours did each employee work and at what wage?

Given the data that has been presented, we have no idea of what the labor/food/facility costs them indivdually right now other than there are currently about $5 Billion in expenses total or did I miss something?

Without knowing the cost structure of a burger it is hard to say what the labor content in a bigmac is. Also need to consider what impact on raw material price increases there would be following though from farm increases. I suspect it is not super significant but it could be I guess.

Min labor rate in effect is a tax, a redistribution of wealth. As a society we need to decide what a reasonable level is to have the lowest level on, what is the lowest wage rate someone can live on while working a reasonable number of hours?

I don't know where the level is but i think that currently it is too low. However any changes need to be staged and progressive to prevent system crisis.

As a separate issue I am very in favor of a sugar/processed food tax to disincentivise consumption and incentivise unprocessed food

Here's an interesting article on this topic:
http://the-american-catholic.com/201...icing-history/

Originally Posted by ralph

As a separate issue I am very in favor of a sugar/processed food tax to disincentivise consumption and incentivise unprocessed food

You just hit one of my recent curiosities. I have recently started reading about Sugar/Corn Syrup and how we got to this point. Turns out its due to tariff's on sugar cane and America's need to make their sugar more valuable than imported sugar.
This is pretty interesting to read from sugarreform.org :
http://sugarreform.org/why-reform/hi...sugar-program/

I am more concerned with the health effects of sugar and how hard it is to avoid in the modern diet but yes, white death is evil in a number of ways

Originally Posted by timmyb

Here's an interesting article on this topic:
http://the-american-catholic.com/201...icing-history/

Pretty balanced and fair from someone qualified to comment IMO

Originally Posted by timmyb

Ok, so how can they cover the labor cost of 420,000 workers with only $6 Billion in revenue in your argument if giving them a $4 per hour raise costs $1 Billion? That math doesn't add up.

Please write out the math you used for your calculations. How many hours did each employee work and at what wage?

Given the data that has been presented, we have no idea of what the labor/food/facility costs them indivdually right now other than there are currently about $5 Billion in expenses total or did I miss something?

The article said 1.09 billion a quarter. A standard work year is 2080 hours. That is 40 hours a week ever week. The article said 420,000 workers. Divide profit by work hours in a year. 4 billion divided by 2080 is roughly $4.50 an hour. How much of the profit do you want to wash away without hurting investors returns?

I agree that you would have to know the actual work hours and yada yada, but you can quickly get to the first order calculation to see if you are sniffing glue or not. A few billion in profit goes away real quick when diversified over a great many people.

So you know soda and french fries is the big money maker for these establishments. They do not make a lot on the sandwiches.