Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 am No. you're just venting stoopidly.

In the middle of a rare discussion on this board.

I'm sorry.
Please continue.
Forgot my place for a second.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:44 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 am No. you're just venting stoopidly.

In the middle of a rare discussion on this board.

I'm sorry.
Please continue.
Forgot my place for a second.

Yeah, get back to work!

If you aren’t busting your ass for me then how am I gonna gas up that yacht?

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:44 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 am No. you're just venting stoopidly.

In the middle of a rare discussion on this board.

I'm sorry.
Please continue.
Forgot my place for a second.

Easy, there, Gutter.
Say what you want, but don't cry when you're called stoopid for doing so.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:44 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:40 am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:30 am So, fuck 'em...right?

What a stoopid and irrelevant response.

This means SO much coming from you.

Now quick, post a gif of a squirrel!

You think it was smart and helpful?

giggle.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:43 am
And of course the price of coffee would go up, shittiness notwithstanding. But maybe more workers could afford the same shitty coffee they’re slinging if all along they were paid a living wage, with decent equity too!

Wut?

So...you're saying that wages should grow FASTER than the rate of commodity inflation, just because government says so, despite the fact that labor costs are the predominant component in consumer goods prices?

You'd be better off arguing for price controls than minimum wage increases.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:51 amgiggle.

See how quickly the conversation degenerated?

And yet you wonder why I don't always want to play nice.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:54 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:51 amgiggle.

See how quickly the conversation degenerated?

And yet you wonder why I don't always want to play nice.

Okay, okay.

To answer your question - no, I did not find the squirrel gif to be smart, nor helpful.

Now could we please play nice?

Too late.

Now I'm bored.

How about some kind of salary cap?

Just pass a law that says executives can only earn so many times more than that of the average wage earner. (Isn’t there already something like this in some of them SoCiALiSt countries?)

And haven’t wages grown SLOWER than inflation, just because the job creators say so?

And if I may ask again, what sort of equity is the average wage earner typically offered?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:49 am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:44 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 am No. you're just venting stoopidly.

In the middle of a rare discussion on this board.

I'm sorry.
Please continue.
Forgot my place for a second.

Easy, there, Gutter.
Say what you want, but don't cry when you're called stoopid for doing so.

That's cute.
Lulz?

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:37 am Good to know that they couldn't use $100 or so extra bucks a week.
(that could be about 1/4 more money)

I would be pretty stoked about 25% more this year.

Why is this so difficult. That 100 a week would be spent on stick buying the same products at the new increased rate that wiukd be necessary to compensate for the higher wages. No increased spending power. Not sure why this is hard. It's simple, basic economics 101.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:13 am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:37 am Good to know that they couldn't use $100 or so extra bucks a week.
(that could be about 1/4 more money)

I would be pretty stoked about 25% more this year.

Why is this so difficult. That 100 a week would be spent on stick buying the same products at the new increased rate that wiukd be necessary to compensate for the higher wages. No increased spending power. Not sure why this is hard. It's simple, basic economics 101.

Does the price of products have to go up just cuz wages do too?

Couldn’t prices remain about the same if the increased wages were paid for by just distributing the profits more equally instead of supply siding them all to the top?

Btw haven’t many corporations been enjoying record profits over the last few decades?

They will. That's how the economy works. Like I said before if your fantasy is a that corporations are going to fund increased wages without passing along those increased expenses to the consumer than AOC and Bernie are your candidates. Good luck with grounding planes, funding those that dont want to work and stopping cow farts.

...and as for the supply siders still taking home such a disproportionate share of the profits?

Are we not allowed to touch that?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:35 am ...and as for the supply siders still taking home such a disproportionate share of the profits?

Are we not allowed to touch that?

Don't be stooopid.

Criminy. Ok I've said my piece. I'm not going to continue to belabor the same point over and over since noone on the other side is grasping it.

One more time.

Increased wages = increased commodities = no increased spending power or life quality. No, the corporations arent going to skim their margins so that the poor can afford more, isnt going to happen, not the way capitalism is set up. If you want distributed wealth you are asking for socialism and leaning towards communism. If that's what you want then fine, vote for Bernie and support AOC. Doesnt change the simple economics that drive our free market system.

Ok, now I'm done. Feel free to continue with squirrels as you see fit.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:35 am ...and as for the supply siders still taking home such a disproportionate share of the profits?

Are we not allowed to touch that?

Do you understand that the fact that CEOs are paid principally in equity stakes is an artifact related to previous attempts to to use the tax code to cap executive salaries?

Moreover, do you understand that TRumP! and his oNLyfOrTHeriCHTaXCuT! actually changed the tax treatment of incentive-related pay?

Thank you TDub.

Indeed I grasp the idea that increased wages = increased commodities.

What I wonder about is, perhaps there is some fundamental flaw with what you call the way capitalism is set up.

I think the best model at this point is a certain free market capitalism augmented with certain - eeek! - socialist policies, just as a means of not completely killing the Merican dream.

If you’d like to argue otherwise; that socialism is bad, please feel free.

But also be prepared to argue why weekends, and 40-hour work weeks, and child labor laws, and heck, the 13th amendment, are all bad things too.

Cuz if it was left entirely up to the capitalists...

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:08 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:35 am ...and as for the supply siders still taking home such a disproportionate share of the profits?

Are we not allowed to touch that?

Do you understand that the fact that CEOs are paid principally in equity stakes is an artifact related to previous attempts to to use the tax code to cap executive salaries?

Moreover, do you understand that TRumP! and his oNLyfOrTHeriCHTaXCuT! actually changed the tax treatment of incentive-related pay?

You mean that same equity offered to wage earners that you haven’t been able to explain yet?