Jump to content

Nighthawk

Member
  • Content Count

    3,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Libertarian

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    Abc@abc.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Anytown, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Now that my browser will let me access this site again- let the bumping continue.. Bump.
  2. Why the hell would you bumping the thread supposedly "bother" me??? It saves me from having to bump it as often myself. Bump.
  3. You are like a petulant child, sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting- "I can't hear you, I can't hear you." Lol... If I am really so "dumb", but yet you can't disprove anything I have actually posted, or even answer most of my simple questions, what the hell does that say about you, idiot? Don't worry, I will be sure to keep this thread bumped for a long time so everyone can see your childish antics, outright lies, pathetic cowardice, and utter stupidity.
  4. Dumbass, I just completely obliterated everything you posted, point-by-point. So why the hell are you just posting it all again as if this never happened??? I will post this again- Unfuckingbelievable... I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease. There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong. It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it. And this is happening over and over and over. What the fuck is wrong with you? Good luck.
  5. No, nothing says "victory!" like when their opponent cowardly and repeatedly dodges most of the simple questions they are asked like a scared little pansy. Now, who do we know that has been doing that in this debate? Hmmm??? And the reason I keep on repeating things is because as I clearly posted above- Unfuckingbelievable... I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease. There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong. It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it. And this is happening over and over and over. What the fuck is wrong with you? If you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG, you damn imbecile. From now on, I am going to start putting things you have ignored and I have to continually repeat in blue. If you keep ignoring them, then I will keep right on posting them again and again and again. Good luck. I already very, very clearly explained to your ignorant ass why ANY study that shows the money coming from profits (apart from the caveats I listed above) absolutely HAS TO BE WRONG. Period. I am sure if I looked hard enough, I could discover the flaws in any other so-called study you happen to find with similar moronic conclusions. The reason I know for an absolute fact that they are flawed is because such a moronic conclusion is completely ILLOGICAL, and thus completely impossible. And as I asked you above- "First of all, why in the holy hell would these supposedly "greedy" bastards take the money out of their profits??? If investors/entrepreneurs needed a certain return on investment based on the risk being taken to open these businesses before, why the hell would this number magically change just because an industry-wide input cost to the business changed?" And what was your response to this question? That's right, as usual, it was- DEAD FUCKING SILENCE. Maybe another simple question will help- Suppose that as a result of a MW increase, the profit margins for a certain industry in a given region will decrease from say 5% down to 1% in the short term. Will this result in: A. more investment into this industry, because we all know that the evil, greedy entrepreneurs & investors don't give a damn about how much profits they can possibly make when deciding what business to open? or B. less investment into this industry, because investment always seeks out a higher reward for a given risk? Do you say A or B? Or will you cowardly dodge the question like you usually do? Good luck. Where is your quote from the study that backs up this claim? I will admit I have not gone through it line-by-line, but a cursory glance does not seem to state that the examination of this industry was just an unrelated and irrelevant side note that had nothing whatsoever to do with their actual study. If you can provide evidence of it stating this, then I will withdraw this particular criticism of the study. Of course, this would beg the question of why the hell they would even bother to waste time and effort on this industry and put it in the report in the first place if it was not part of the study, moron? The only reasons I can see for them analyzing this industry are that they are fucking retards or they were severely biased with an preset agenda to try to make it look like that profits would be reduced, in any way they could twist the data to make it appear so. In either case, it means that the entire study cannot be trusted and is nothing more than worthless trash. This was not the only flaw or criticism I had, dullard. Again- In fact, here is a statement from their conclusions that further shows how flawed and useless their garbage study truly is- We could not find any evidence that low wage firms were forced out of business by the higher wage costs resulting from the minimum wage. One explanation for this absence of an exit effect may be because our time period is still too short and that in the very long run there is significant exit. It may also be that there is less entry into the low wage sectors as a result of the minimum wage. As I have told you over and over and over and over ad nauseum- I am talking about what happens in the LONG TERM, dunce. In the SHORT TERM, all kinds of strange things can happen, including lower profits, until the industry has time to adjust, nimrod. This adjustment could include simply having fewer total companies in the industry with which to divide the available customers. And here is another bit of abject stupidity from your precious piece of trash study- An alternative explanation is that firms were making profits from paying low wages prior to the minimum wage introduction and that one consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage to the UK labour market was to moderate these “excess” profits by channelling them back to the wages of low paid workers. Someone needs to ask these brainless fucking idiots the very obvious question that would arise if this ignorant fantasy was reality- if this industry truly had all these massive "excess profits", then why in the holy mother of hell wouldn't there be more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more new "greedy" companies piling into that industry every day to cash in on those massive profits for themselves, until the resulting increased competition eventually brought the profits down to reasonable levels? What, do these brainiacs think that the entire world just suddenly ran completely out of "greedy" people that wanted to easily get filthy rich? Lol... Again, those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive, dunce- The "nearly all" was referring to the one possible source they were examining: price increases on consumers, you fucking illiterate retard. They were not examining the other possible sources in that study. For example, if hypothetically, 90% of the cost was passed onto consumers, 5% was transferred from workers that lost their jobs entirely, and 5% was from eliminating services like cashiers, then someone saying "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers" and "ALL of the cost came from something other than profits" then BOTH WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY BE TRUE STATEMENTS, moron!!! And as I also posted above- And who really gives a damn if the cost is truly "all" passed on or just "mostly all" passed on? From a philosophical perspective in the context of this debate, the difference is meaningless. The main point is that switching to a moronic living wage law instead of welfare to subsidize workers will primarily adversely affect consumers and not the greedy employers, opposed to what you idiot libs like to foolishly pretend, regardless of whether it is all or mostly all. It seems like you are just trying to split hairs on an irrelevant distinction (that you are falsely accusing me of even making) because you have absolutely nothing else with which to refute my argument. How pathetic... Let's examine a couple of statements, shall we? Here are your exact words: 1. "You claim I never answered where money for a livable wage would come from, when clearly I said it would come from employers, " Note that you did NOT put words such as "a tiny part of" in front of the word "it" in this statement, implying that 100% would come from the evil employers. And here is what your beloved "scholarly experts" concluded in their study: 2. "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers." These 2 statements cannot both be correct. One of them HAS TO BE WRONG. So which is it? Are you lying, or are your beloved "scholarly experts"? Good luck. Again- if you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG. Good luck. Then let's see you post a quote where I said any such thing, or admit that you are a fucking liar. Good luck. Here is what I ACTUALLY said- Link. But that does not apply to the scenarios I have been discussing, you illiterate twit. I have very, very clearly and repeatedly stated that I have been talking about a cost increase affecting "an entire industry." As my link above very clearly explains- Of course, most firms cannot raise prices by themselves without losing business to competitors. A unilateral increase in McDonald’s burger prices would send diners to Burger King or Wendy’s. But when cost increases hit every firm in an industry, these firms can collectively raise prices. Though higher prices will drive some customers away, no single firm faces a competitive disadvantage. As a result, most affected businesses respond to mandatory starting-wage increases by raising prices. Or as I clearly posted from the excellent book on economics in the link in my post above- Economics in One Lesson- It is usually assumed that an increase in wages is gained at the expense of the profits of employers. This may of course happen for short periods or in special circumstances. If wages are forced up in a particular firm, in such competition with others that it cannot raise its prices, the increase will come out of its profits. This is much less likely to happen, however, if the wage increase takes place throughout a whole industry. The industry will in most cases increase its prices and pass the wage increase along to consumers... Where did I say I have never taken a course in economics, you damn lying piece of shit? Of course I have done this, dolt. Not that alone this really means anything these days. Hell, look at AOC for example. She supposedly majored in economics, but whenever she discusses any economic issue she comes across as an air-headed, babbling, idiotic twit that doesn't know the most rudimentary economic concepts any more than she knows her ass from a hole in the ground - Link. Lol... Where do you imagine you have done this, other than in your insane fantasies? Was it when you- 1. Repeatedly engaged in numerous logical fallacies, including some that even after I pointed them out to you and gave you an example of slavery to demonstrate how fallacious and stupid it was, that you STILL continued to use like some kind of damn imbecile- Link? 2. Ignored most of the arguments I have made throughout this thread, causing me to have to continually repeat them (like the parts of this post in blue)? 3. Cowardly refused to answer most of my extremely simple questions, despite asking some of them over and over and over? 4. Lied about statements that I supposedly made, but you were never able to actually produce a quote of me ever saying them? 5. Citing studies that either didn't back up your claims in any way or were just badly flawed outliers, while ignoring the studies that I cited? So, which one of these things supposedly left me "wallowing in humiliation", dipshit? Lol... If you want to claim that my boast on this issue is a lie, then yes, you will have to provide evidence of this being the case by posting an example. If I am really as dumb as you say, then you should be able to find numerous examples of this in just a 2 minute search of my posts. Good luck. No, I just thoroughly enjoy destroying and humiliating you idiot libs, and then continually gloating about it after you all cowardly run away. I know it is being a bad sport, like pointing at the scoreboard when routing an opponent in a sporting event, but it is tons of fun, so I will continue to do it. If you don't like it, then tough shit. If I am really so "dumb" then then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Good luck.
  6. So you are claiming that in all of the posts I have made in this thread, I have stated absolutely nothing other than just plain "bragging and boasting"? No statistics of typical fast food restaurant profit margins and other expenses? No explanations of how companies will pay for increased wages in the long term using irrefutable logic? No links to arguments from USSC decisions? No links to studies that support my claims? No passages from economics books? And you, on the other hand, have supposedly filled all your posts with "substance" on the topic I am debating? You do realize that anyone can very easily look back at the posts made in this thread and see which one of us is truly full of shit and lying out their fucking ass, don't you? What a fucking retard... Lol...
  7. Again- if you don't like me boasting, bragging, and taunting with impunity, then the solution is quite simple- PROVE ME WRONG. I have made dozens of posts in this thread alone. If you can't find one single thing of "substance" that someone that has supposedly been "exposed" has posted that you can disprove, then I guess everyone can see which one of us is truly "hollow" and "empty" and is just making "tough talk." It is not just "talk", when you can back it up with an undefeated record, dimwit. Good luck.
  8. Thanks. It is really quite enjoyable, but I wish at least one of these pitifully stupid little twits would give me at least a slight challenge every now and then...
  9. If I have supposedly been "exposed... plain and simple", then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Even if you don't care if I get shut up, surely all the other people I have easily destroyed would appreciate it if you could give them a helping hand as to how to defeat me for once. Good luck.
  10. Sure, you could supposedly be the very first person on this forum to ever prove me wrong, but instead, you choose to let me continue to boast, brag, and taunt with impunity because putting me in my place and shutting me up for good is supposedly just "not worth the time"??? And rickytavy was claiming that ***I*** am the one shoveling something??? Lol...
  11. You mean the one JSTOR study that you just linked multiple times, dumbass? If so, I have already clearly shown the ways that this so called study was so badly flawed it was just a worthless piece of trash, created by a bunch of brainless morons. You, on the other hand, have STILL not "dealt with" this- How about the fact that I cited a study from a group & author that ***YOU*** claimed to be "scholarly experts" (your exact description of them here- Link). Are you now claiming that they are not "credible" and thus your earlier description of them was in fact a lie? Will you answer this time or will you cowardly dodge the question like a sniveling little pansy yet again? Good luck. If I am really just posting "bullshit", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove it, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Good luck. I only pointed that out because ***YOU*** were moronically claiming that your dumb position is based on "basic economic principles", when it clearly is not, retard. If I have "never taken a course in Economics" and my positions are not truly "superior", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove it, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Good luck. If you don't like me bragging and boasting, then the solution is quite simple- PROVE ME WRONG. You can lay claim to being the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so. Good luck. No, I did not use the word "never", you illiterate fucking cretin. I gave a list of possible caveats & clarifications to my claims here- Link. Are you EVER going to learn how to read??? Lol... See above. And you STILL have not even attempted to make anything even slightly resembling a rational argument as to why employers should arbitrarily be assigned the responsibility of giving charity to these workers instead of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE in the most efficient, fairest, and least harmful method possible, despite my having asked you this about a half dozen times, dumbass. Is that because you simply have no reason whatsoever? You just believe this because it is what your liberal masters told you to think, dimwit? Lol... If you claim this is not true, then let's see you post a link to where some idiot lib has proven me wrong. Good luck.
  12. If it was truly "stupidity", then it should be extremely easy and enjoyable for you to show why and finally put me in my place for once, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little pansy. So why can't you seem to do this, shithead? What?!?!? Apparently my pleas for you to finally learn how to read have STILL gone unheeded. If you knew how to read, you would see that the quote clearly shows that restaurants ARE REPRESENTATIVE of the subject at hand- entire industries that are affected from moronic MW laws in a manner that doesn't easily allow competition from others not subject to the laws, dimwit. I don't know what the holy hell you are babbling about, but if it somehow helps you sleep at night while knowing that you just got your ass absolutely handed to you, then more power to you. Let the record show, I gave you a full and fair warning at the beginning of this debate what I would do to you if you foolishly tried me, and you did not listen. You have no one to blame for your utter humiliation and destruction than yourself, and of course your liberal masters that have brainwashed the everliving fuck out of you. Did you really have the audacity to think that a mental midget like yourself would be the first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong on this forum??? Lol... Don't worry, I will be sure to bump this thread for a long, long time, so everyone will see your cowardice and stupidity. You mean the one JSTOR study that you just linked multiple times, dumbass? If so, I have already clearly shown the ways that this so called study was so badly flawed it was just a worthless piece of trash, created by a bunch of brainless morons. You, on the other hand, have STILL not "dealt with" this- How about the fact that I cited a study from a group & author that ***YOU*** claimed to be "scholarly experts" (your exact description of them here- Link). Are you now claiming that they are not "credible" and thus your earlier description of them was in fact a lie? Will you answer this time or will you cowardly dodge the question like a sniveling little pansy yet again? Good luck. As I posted above- What??!?! ***I*** am the one giving ***YOU*** links and quotes from passages right out of a fucking economics book that support my arguments and destroy yours, shit-for-brains!!! Just blindly claiming a bunch of economically illiterate nonsense is actually "basic economic principles" does not magically make it true, twit.
  13. So the fuck what, dumbass? Restaurants are an excellent industry to examine on this issue because it has a very large percentage of unskilled workers that are affected by moronic MW laws, the companies are actually legally allowed to raise their prices, and because the MW affects the entire industry since people living in the given region cannot easily go eat somewhere outside the area governed by the MW law. As my original link very clearly explained- This finding fits with economic theory. Southern manufacturers compete nationally and internationally. Higher effective Southern minimum wages do not affect their competitors in other states or countries. Affected manufacturers cannot raise prices without losing customers. However, services are local. Restaurants and hotels paying higher wages compete with local companies whose costs have also risen. Such companies can, and do, respond by raising prices. Studying the effects of MW laws on some other industry with few or no unskilled workers, or one where the companies are not allowed to raise their prices (like your garbage study) would be pretty fucking stupid and the results would be meaningless, dullard. You keep on claiming that I have supposedly said it would ALL come from one single source, but you still have not been able to produce any quote of me actually saying for some strange reason. When you tried to do this earlier, you posted a quote where I said nothing of the sort. Can you finally produce this quote of me saying it or will you admit you are a fucking liar? Good luck. Then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove this with an actual quote that backs up this accusation. So what the fuck are you waiting for, shithead? Good luck. If this is really true as you claim, then why the hell would these fucking idiots even bother to study this industry or include it in the report at all, dumbass? "Derrrrp, we done decided to waste a bunch of time and effort studying this thing that was completely useless & meaningless, and we then decided to put this irrelevant garbage in our report anyway, cuz our brains don't work so good." Lol... You have pointed it out, but you have yet to produce an actual quote from the study that backs this up. In fact, here is a statement from their conclusions that further shows how flawed and useless their garbage study truly is- We could not find any evidence that low wage firms were forced out of business by the higher wage costs resulting from the minimum wage. One explanation for this absence of an exit effect may be because our time period is still too short and that in the very long run there is significant exit. It may also be that there is less entry into the low wage sectors as a result of the minimum wage. As I have told you over and over and over and over ad nauseum- I am talking about what happens in the LONG TERM, dunce. In the SHORT TERM, all kinds of strange things can happen, including lower profits, until the industry has time to adjust, nimrod. This adjustment could include simply having fewer total companies in the industry with which to divide the available customers. As I very clearly asked you above, with you cowardly dodging it like you usually do- Suppose that as a result of a MW increase, the profit margins for a certain industry in a given region will decrease from say 5% down to 1% in the short term. Will this result in: A. more investment into this industry, because we all know that the evil, greedy entrepreneurs & investors don't give a damn about how much profits they can possibly make when deciding what business to open? or B. less investment into this industry, because investment always seeks out a higher reward for a given risk? Do you say A or B? Or will you cowardly dodge the question like a sniveling little pansy yet again? Good luck. And here is another bit of abject stupidity from your precious piece of trash study- An alternative explanation is that firms were making profits from paying low wages prior to the minimum wage introduction and that one consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage to the UK labour market was to moderate these “excess” profits by channelling them back to the wages of low paid workers. Someone needs to ask these brainless fucking idiots the very obvious question that would arise if this ignorant fantasy was reality- if this industry truly had all these massive "excess profits", then why in the holy mother of hell wouldn't there be more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more new "greedy" companies piling into that industry every day to cash in on those massive profits for themselves, until the resulting increased competition eventually brought the profits down to reasonable levels? What, do these brainiacs think that the entire world just suddenly ran completely out of "greedy" people that wanted to easily get filthy rich? Lol... See above. The "nearly all" was referring to the one possible source they were examining: price increases on consumers, you fucking illiterate retard. They were not examining the other possible sources in that study. For example, if hypothetically, 90% of the cost was passed onto consumers, 5% was transferred from workers that lost their jobs entirely, and 5% was from eliminating services like cashiers, then someone saying "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers" and "ALL of the cost came from something other than profits" then BOTH WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY BE TRUE STATEMENTS, moron!!! Damn, you still seem to be getting dumber with every post you make. Lol... Many of those links were FOR THE SAME DAMN STUDY, that I very clearly exposed as worthless trash dolt! Just "less than applicable"??? That level of kindness in describing the insanely idiotic methodology they used in that piece of trash is beyond complete absurdity. That is like saying a mass murderer was just being "less than friendly" to his victims. Lol... What??!?! ***I*** am the one giving ***YOU*** links and quotes from passages right out of a fucking economics book that support my arguments and destroy yours, shit-for-brains!!! Just blindly claiming a bunch of economically illiterate nonsense is actually "basic economic principles" does not magically make it true, twit. I will ask you this question yet again, since you have cowardly dodged it every times I have asked it so far- How about the fact that I cited a study from a group & author that ***YOU*** claimed to be "scholarly experts" (your exact description of them here- Link). Are you now claiming that they are not "credible" and thus your earlier description of them was in fact a lie? Will you answer this time or will you cowardly dodge the question like a sniveling little pansy yet again? Good luck.
  14. What?!?! How the hell does a conclusion of "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers" NOT support my supposed "ignorant bleating", dumbass? What, do you think that this study instead supports your dumb claim here - Link? Your exact quote: Now, which one of us was truly making ""ignorant bleating" again, dumbass? Lol... Again- just because you don't know how to fucking read, it does not mean I did not cite something, shit-for-brains. Here is the - Link - with the evidence therein yet again for you, dolt. Again- Analyzing the effect of MW laws on prices for companies that are not permitted to raise their prices is actually a pretty MASSIVE flaw that essentially makes the entire study a worthless piece of trash, dope. Again, I have never once stated that "all" would come from one single source, moron. I asked you to post proof of me ever saying that and you utterly crashed and burned the on first try by quoting me on something that clearly did not say that. Do you want to try again? Good luck. What?!?!? I am claiming that forced wage increases from moronic MW laws WILL affect prices, numbskull!!! No shit, dumbass. If you knew how to read, you would see that the conditions that appear to really exist means that they are passing EVEN MORE than the extra wage costs onto consumers- "Basker and Khan’s findings thus suggest that restaurants may raise prices more than what is necessary to cover costs." Are you ever going to learn how to fucking read for a change? Lol... But you still have not proven that cost incidence disputes a single thing I have posted, dullard! I very easily destroyed your lame attempt to do this, even with an explanation straight out of an excellent book on economics, twit. Please keep your irrelevant "tangential knowledge" out of this debate, as you are just clouding the issue, moron. Damn you really are quite stupid. Pointing out that a MASSIVE, GAPING FLAW of a study examining the price effects from a MW laws from companies that WERE NOT PERMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO RAISE THEIR PRICES AND IS THEREFORE WORTHLESS TRASH is indeed demolishing it, you damn imbecile. Then let's see you post a link or quote that actually proves this for fuck's sake. Good luck. First of all, this would be an opinion, and thus it is not possible to categorize as a lie. Secondly, see above for why it is an accurate opinion to anyone with a functioning brain. Then let's see you post a link or quote that actually proves you answered something that I falsely claimed you were silent on for fuck's sake. Good luck. See above for the link with the evidence therein that I have given you numerous times. Credible sources? How about the fact that I cited a study from a group & author that ***YOU*** claimed to be "scholarly experts" (your exact description of them here- Link). Are you now claiming that they are not credible and thus your earlier description of them was in fact a lie? Lol... Again, I have very clearly stated that my claim is based on theory and in general numerous times in this thread. I would not claim that it is completely impossible for any employer to ever give up even one single penny of profit ever, like some kind of brainless fucking retard, because even if just one single employer ever decided to be charitable or something and do this, then it would thus make me wrong. And I would never set myself up to be proven wrong that easily, dumbass. And who really gives a damn if the cost is truly "all" passed on or just "mostly all" passed on? From a philosophical perspective in the context of this debate, the difference is meaningless. The main point is that switching to a moronic living wage law instead of welfare to subsidize workers will primarily adversely affect consumers and not the greedy employers, opposed to what you idiot libs like to foolishly pretend, regardless of whether it is all or mostly all. It seems like you are just trying to split hairs on an irrelevant distinction (that you are falsely accusing me of even making) because you have absolutely nothing else with which to refute my argument. How pathetic... Pointing out the massive, gaping flaws, with links to prove it, of your crap studies is not "stamping feet", dimwit. Please keep your irrelevant "tangential knowledge" out of this debate, as you are just clouding the issue, moron. You really don't understand how to debate, do you? Just insulting someone without showing how they are supposedly wrong is not an argument or a winning debate strategy. Hope this helps... Why are you foolishly acting like employers have some limited assigned set of workers they can hire and thus they would somehow be hurt if those workers were not alive??? Even if your insanely idiotic claim that workers currently on welfare would just die if there were no welfare were true, then employers could simply hire their workers from the pool of non-poor people, like me as a teen. I estimate that at least 90% of my MW coworkers at the time were not poor/on welfare. Why the hell would my employers give a damn if that number was 100% instead? They wouldn't, nimrod, so how the hell are they supposedly benefiting from this situation??? If that is true, then it should be extremely easy for one of you idiot libs to finally prove me wrong for a change. So what the fuck are you all waiting for? But you just fucking said I was wrong to claim that "employers get no benefit out of society paying their workers enough for them to survive," dumbass!!! If the "benefit" that you think they are getting is not higher profit margins than they would supposedly get without welfare, then what the hell are you claiming it is?!?! I swear, my suspicion of your being clinically INSANE is looking more and more accurate with every post you make. Lol... No fucking shit, Sherlock. When did I ever say they were??? No fucking shit, Sherlock. When did I ever say they would??? You need to change your username to "Captain Obvious", with all these amazing revelations you keep coming up with. Lol... The point I was making, twit, is a counter to your idiotic belief, per your exact words- Link - "If taxpayers don't keep workers fed and housed, their wealthy employers would not have employees." Note that you did NOT say- "If taxpayers don't keep workers fed and housed, their wealthy employers would not have employees, except of course for the vast majority of workers that are not poor, which means they would not really be hurt too badly after all." I guess that more accurate statement just wouldn't be quite as persuasive, now would it? Lol... I did not "avoid" a fucking thing, you illiterate cretin. Seriously, learn how to fucking read!!! Again- I very easily destroyed your lame attempt at an argument on this, even with an explanation straight out of an excellent book on economics showing why it was wrong, twit. And this had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made. Here it is again, since you cowardly dodged it- Finally, even if it was possible to get the money from the evil employer's profits, you still have not shown ***WHY*** they should supposedly be the ones responsible for subsidizing certain poor people to the point of having some level of comfortable life, just because they are making an economic transaction with them. Note the word in red and see if you can address it this time. Good luck. What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted? Payroll taxes are not used to fund welfare, income taxes are. I never said that it did, simp. Seriously, learn how to fucking read!!! I was arguing that MY lesser evil method of wealth distribution was MORE LIKELY to come from the evil rich and LESS LIKELY to come from any poor people than your dumb method, moron!!! If they had to pay them some amount that they don't currently have to pay them in a free market, then it would not really be "wages", it would be "charity", simp. Since you cowardly dodged my question, here is it again for you- For the sake of argument, let's assume your asinine claim that just "some" of the increased wages from a living wage law is paid by higher prices on consumers is correct. Aren't there some poorer people that consume goods and services made by unskilled workers, like fast food? Conversely, essentially no poor people pay federal income taxes to fund welfare programs, as the bottom 45% or so do not pay these taxes. So tell me again- which of us is truly the "lickspittle suckers" for the rich and powerful, and which of us is truly looking out for the poor people, imbecile? Good luck.

No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...