Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later[^][v]#155,861
The more of these crazy Republifucks the better, they are only serving to polarize the division between Republicans and Democrats, something that's been needed for a long time. Republicrats and Dempublicans have been almost melded for to long, with only enough differences to keep them from actually accomplishing shit, except war of course.
As far as #2, yes, in the very short-term sense, but it would quickly lead drastic, long-term unemployment.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#155,862
Is she there solely to make Palin seem like a decent choice by comparison? Her stupidity is mind-boggling, but hey, at least she understands ONE thing right (about minimum wage).
Did you know that she actually wants to prohibit pornography under penalty of law?
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#155,864
what the fuck
#ronpaul2012
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#155,897
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#155,933
@155,861 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Its causing democrats to move more right. Look at it. As a culture we are becoming more liberal. More people demand gay marriage. More people demand equal treatment of all citizens. More people want live saving drugs to be available to those who need it.
the problem is, our government is moving even slower to do the right thing.
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I read about this. The slavery quote thing doesnt even make any sense. Its just like they want to throw something in about how blacks are bad. I started to follow her on twitter, but havent caught anything yet.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,021
@155,861 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
How would eliminating the minimum wage increase unemployment?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,053
@previous (A)
The short and simple answer: jobs aren't created by people not spending money (because they don't have it) and the vast majority or people working for minimum wage already rely on government assistance. That's two problems with people working at the minimum wage, now imagine even more people working below MW, better count in those people working for MW now, because those types of companies aren't going to pay that wage unless they are forced to. Think of it as a cancer spreading throughout the economy. Trickle up poverty yo.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,086
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Except that most people are getting more than minimum wage, since they aren't leaning on it, they wouldn't be lose any pay, and wouldn't directly be affected.
And teenagers, and other people looking for a first time job would have an easier time if they could get paid 5 or 6 dollars an hour, and then from there use the work history and experience to find a job that pays better. Overall they would have a job, and eventually a better paying job, compared to being unemployed doing nothing.
Some people may be essential enough that they need to be hired, and only be getting minimum wage because it's forced, but even in these situations where they take a pay loss, that money doesn't disappear it goes into either a cheaper product, a better product, or more consumption from the person making the profits, and redistributed into the economy.
tl;dr abolishing the minimum wage wouldn't affect most people, and the people it did would create jobs and better paying jobs in the long run, and any pay losses to the people on min. wage would still be spent elsewhere in the economy.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,098
@previous (A)
I can see your logic, and I really do understand your points, but I disagree with them. Putting more people into a welfare state will not help the economy. Its not just teens looking for those jobs these days, you've got Mexicans, under qualified whities and poor the poor black community competing for minimum wage jobs. Allowing companies to pay below minimum wage would only create more government dependent families, families that do not contribute to the economy in any positive way. It would be akin to slow economic suicide. I suppose if you and Michelle Bachmen were right, then MW would be abolished, but it hasn't been, and it never will be.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,110
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Not to mention that it makes it easier for employers to exploit their employees. They could start someone off at minimum wage, and then when the economy tanks and they have no other jobs to turn to, that's when the employer cuts their pay in half and there isn't shit they can do about it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,415
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yes, they could, they could stop working there.
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,416
who is this
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,417
@previous (dreamworks)
some dumb republican amerislut
dreamworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,420