Not theories. Actual Studies. The difference between a theory and a study is that a theory puts together a modle and makes predictions. A study actually gathers data and derives a conclusion from said Data. Theories can be wrong. Data doesn't lie.
An argument based on semantics is the worst....you do not dispute or answer anything I say but rather focus on choice of words. Putting that aside.....I'm sure you've heard the saying "I can make a statistic tell me anything I want it too". So maybe data does not lie, but the user of said data certainly can manipulate it and focus it to achieve a certain outcome.
An argument basoned on statistics is not the worst but rather the best. Its the most factual way of making an argument. Math is absolute. Its true that data can be miconstruted to a degree but there is a point where it is no longer warped but simply false.
And a near unanimous conclusion actually disproves the idea that its a single convoluted and warped set of data to suit anyone's need. I have not simply "changed the wording". There is real and legitimate differences between a theory and a study on the subject.
Also If I recall it stated elsewhere in the book that the slowing of economic growth due to increased wages is only temporary and actually results in net gains of jobs/money down the road.
You've yet to show any type of evidence that supports this. I'm willing to listen but I'm not just going to take some guy word for it.....I need proof.
Other than studies? do you want more links? I've been linking left and right.
Wrong. I am saying they must live within their means as they have unfairly taken more profit than they should have been alloted by cutting the percentage made by employees.
Can you tell me what percentage of a business owner's profits they are entitled to keep?
Depends on the business. The size, what it does, the original profit margin. Any number of factors. But as I just read in another thread reducing the profit by a samll percentage can make explosive impacts on the wages of your employees. So a 5% decrease for him/her means a 20-30% increase in wages for all his employees which will in turn stimulate the economy and he still walks away with large sums of cash that dwarf his employees. Everyone is happy.
The percentage paid out to employees was much higher in the 6o's 70's. The bosses and owners weren't filthy rich and the workers weren't obscenly poor. This has changed and its nothing other than the buisiness practices.
Here we go again. I still have not heard what obscenely poor means....is it some arbitrary standard you have in your head? Further, how do you form this standard?
I assume you have some monetary line that you would point to as "obscenely poor"?
Is your entire understanding of poor based entirely on how much they make? Here is the biggest rub we have against each other. You think people are entitled to a certain quality of life (including income) that may or may not be sustainable. I just cant get behind this ideology. This does not mean to say I'm opposed to government assistance. I would agree that we need a social safety net and should for the most do good by our citizens and improve their quality life where practical. However, I think our current quality of life expectations are too high. I once again point to the college kid who, it appears, thinks he entitled to keep the same quality of life he's grown accustomed too and it would be beneath him to lower it despite his own acceptance that he can not afford to maintain that quality of life with out assistance via a law that would increase minimum wage. He and you became repugnant when I suggested he "lower himself" to living within his means which meant sacrificing his current assisted quality of life, if he wanted to move out. He has an expectation to maintain his quality of life despite him sacrificing or providing anything. If you or him is better off living with your parents.....good you should do that....there is no issue there. The issue is this expectation that you should be able to live in the nicer neighborhoods or makes certain amount of money so you can maintain that standard of life you've come accustomed to, of which you've contributed little to nothing, is bull**** in my opinion.
Your right. We do differ. I do believe there is a certain level in which a person shouldn't have to fall. I think that thoes levels should really be reserved for people who have truely screwed up in life and made terrible choices. Not people wrapped up in the web of poverty since birth and having a near imppossible way to get out. I know there are sucess stories by they are by in large the exception rather than the rule. If anyone could do it then they would.
I have never EVER stated that I would want someone to not contribute. Everyone should contribute and social programs should be temporary and be focused more on getting them back on their feet rather than simply holding them up. Only time I can think the society has an obligation to take care of someone without expecting things in return are the severly disabled.
The wealthy and sucessful aren't some major crazy evil conspiracy. Its just the natural order of how buisness has developed. It is in the nature and function of a buisness to try and make as much money. But eventually this trend will make it collapse on itself and on the way makes massive inequality.
The funny thing is.....since you are going to college....it is unlikely you will ever be faced with this "inequality". I digress...yes you will...because you feel you are entitled to more because business owners make too much profit and you should get some more of it. In my opinion, if you want to make more money, start a business, go to school in a field that pays good.
Here is the reality. There are opportunities out there. There are multitude of ways you can get help with education. And we can do better.... There multitude of way you can get help with starting an business. And we can do better. However, most people just do not want it bad enough or are comfortable with what they have......or they don't want to sacrifice free time to go to school at night.....there are multitude of reasons why people do not take advantage of opportunities. With that said, the continued liberal (I'm sorry If this is an insult) ideology that the government somehow has to make everyone economically equal is bull**** in my opinion.....I'm not opposed to the government increasing opportunities to improve economic equality.
Increasing the minimum wage is not increasing opportunities its basically attempting to hand out income equality. In my opinion, people should earn more income by getting promotions, going to school, starting business....all of which I support government assistance. The fact you think people are entitled to make more money with the same effort, is wrong in my opinion.
True. I am not the one facing this. I am angry not on my behalf but on the behalf of others. Several I know personally. Most obviously not.
Reasoning for increasing the minimum wage is to help those scraping by at the very bottom. Wages should increase across the board. Not necessarily via governmetn action.
Here is another example. If the top 10% had taken only 56% of the increase in weath in the past 20 years, that means only 1 in 10 people would accumulate more wealth than the 9 others combined, then the average wealth increase of the past 20 years for the other 90% would increase 11 fold. Less than half of the wealth increase of the top 10 % could change the growth rate by over 1000% for the rest of the country. I don't think that is unreasonable. Its just not the way things unfolded or are unfolding. However people who are getting screwed are fighting tooth and nail to get screwed over by this.
In my opinion, most poor people do not feel entitled to something they did not earn.
And in my opinion people work and earn far more than they recieve. I feel the amount of work being put in my most people in this country gets a disproportionately lower compensation.
EDIT:
here is another chart I have found that shows us how much of the economy is measured in Wages. It is at a record low since they have started keeping track. In other words the amount of money being paid out in wages in comparison to the amount of money actually in the economy via investments, capital gains and purchases is litterally lower than every year prior to now and its only getting worse.
I'm not sure why you assume I do not accept or believe there is income inequality. I just do not think its that it is that big of deal for reasons expressed above. The reality is, there will be have's and have not's. It is rather dramatic right now. I agree. However, when you put in perspective of the entire world.....our low income workers, self included, still have it pretty good and we have the opportunity to improve our lot in life with out it being handed to us. This idea you will make a poor person better off by giving him something that requires no effort instead of giving him the tools to make themselves better with a little effort is a rather large sticking point between our two ideologies. In a nut-shell giving entitlement vs giving opportunity.
Opprotunity is obviously better. However we are a long way from that point. Increasing wages isn't entitlement and actually works in favor of the employer long term.
This has more or less been what I have tried to support. Though I still support higher taxes for upper income individuals. Their taxes should probably be around 50% with less loopholes.
But other than government how could you get people to intentionally reduce profit margin? Other than tax breaks for companies that do this I can't think of any reasonable or realistic way to get compaines to pay people more than they have to.
how much is your budget? Invisible stalker IS the budget option most of the time. For this deck to really work you might have to find some peole to trade with or browse another store or online.
This has been the conventional logic for a long time. As such was many other theories. But the studies have shown the opposite. If anything higher wages actually increase growth. The more people are paid then the more they spend and the more the economy gets going. Though unfortunatly the minimum wage is very very very low and as is any wage anywhere near it. Raising the minimum wage will do only a bit to help the economy and Isn't a fix but rather the start. Most of what will be done to fix the economy won't be government oriented.
The fundamental flaw in this theory is it assumes business will hire people despite growth not being present yet. Further, these companies are quite smart.....and they have the prime motive to make money. It stands to reason that, if it were true, higher wages improved business, they'd raise labor cost. Lastly, if this were true, at what wage point does it cease to be true? In other words, how high does the minimum wage have to be before it fails to stimulate economic growth and why? According to this theory, the price of labor is irrelevant and everyone could be making $100 and hour because it will, in turn, purportedly increase growth beyond belief because we have all this extra money.
Not theories. Actual Studies. The difference between a theory and a study is that a theory puts together a modle and makes predictions. A study actually gathers data and derives a conclusion from said Data. Theories can be wrong. Data doesn't lie.
There is a book called "The high Price of Inequality" by Joseph E. Stigliz. Stigliz actually won the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics and is hailed as a leading expert. I'm not pushing the book but I can't link you to passages within it so I"ll just have to mention it. But it covers exenstivly the dangers of our polorized econmy and how it will collapse on itself if a balance isn't restored. This too is also theory but we've seen it before in history.
Granted I did not find much discussion about this guys view on minimum wage, only look at a few google results but.....I did pull this from Wiki citing Economic textbooks:
An analysis of supply and demand of the type shown in introductory mainstream economics textbooks implies that by mandating a price floor above the equilibrium wage, minimum wage laws should cause unemployment.[16][17] This is because a greater number of people are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage. Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and least experienced will typically be excluded. An imposition or increase of a minimum wage will generally only effect employment in the low-skill labor market, as the equilibrium wage is already at or below the minimum wage, whereas in higher skill labor markets the equilibrium wage is too high for a change in minimum wage to affect employment.[18]
According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[19] One such textbook says: If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity. (Formby, J., Bishop, J., & Kim, H.. (2010). The Redistributive Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage. Public Finance Review, 38(5), 585. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2140268271).) Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages. (Belman, D., & Wolfson, P.. (2010). The Effect of Legislated Minimum Wage Increases on Employment and Hours: A Dynamic Analysis. Labour, 24(1), 1–25. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1960232931).) [20]
Another interesting tidbit that does run counter to the above:
Although strongly opposed by both the business community and the Conservative Party when introduced in 1999, the minimum wage introduced in the UK is no longer controversial and the Conservatives reversed their opposition in 2000.[54] A review of its effects found no discernible impact on employment levels.[55] However, prices in the minimum wage sector were found to have risen significantly faster than prices in non-minimum wage sectors, most notably in the four years following the implementation of the minimum wage.[56]
Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The Low Pay Commission found that, rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, increased prices, and have found ways to cause current workers to be more productive (especially service companies).[57] Neither trade unions nor employer organizations contest the minimum wage, although the latter had especially done so heavily until 1999.
His views on minimum wage doesn't change his message of the book which is the dangers of accumulating wealth. We are in a dangerous situation and sprinting in the wrong direction economically.
Also If I recall it stated elsewhere in the book that the slowing of economic growth due to increased wages is only temporary and actually results in net gains of jobs/money down the road. It may take as much as 2 years but it bounces back better. We've vested 5-6 years to helping the economy. However its been sluggish. I doubt in 2 years it will have changed significantly. Some I am sure but not significantly. This could actually give us a huge boost.
Wages have to go up and if it means buisnesses have to change and to use a popular slogan thats been tossed around this past election year "live within its means" then so be it. Many of the current buisinesses need to go out and be replaced by small local ones.
This contradictory. You tell them to live with intheir means yet ask them to make a substantial investment in labor despite growth/economic conditions not warranting such a move and all the while lowering the ROI.
Wrong. I am saying they must live within their means as they have unfairly taken more profit than they should have been alloted by cutting the percentage made by employees. The percentage paid out to employees was much higher in the 6o's 70's. The bosses and owners weren't filthy rich and the workers weren't obscenly poor. This has changed and its nothing other than the buisiness practices.
Here is the chart of monitary growth in the different sections. Here.
The wealthy and sucessful aren't some major crazy evil conspiracy. Its just the natural order of how buisness has developed. It is in the nature and function of a buisness to try and make as much money. But eventually this trend will make it collapse on itself and on the way makes massive inequality. This is why regulations exist. The more you make the more you pay into taxes. If 96% of the all the economic is shared only by the top 10% and the bottom 90% struggle with only 4% of all the economic growth between 1981 and 2008. Just think about those numbers for a minute. And then you tell me again that its a contradiction to say that workers should get higher pay and the higher up buisnesses need to pay more.
Here is another example. If the top 10% had taken only 56% of the increase in weath in the past 20 years, that means only 1 in 10 people would accumulate more wealth than the 9 others combined, then the average wealth increase of the past 20 years for the other 90% would increase 11 fold. Less than half of the wealth increase of the top 10 % could change the growth rate by over 1000% for the rest of the country. I don't think that is unreasonable. Its just not the way things unfolded or are unfolding. However people who are getting screwed are fighting tooth and nail to get screwed over by this.
EDIT:
here is another chart I have found that shows us how much of the economy is measured in Wages. It is at a record low since they have started keeping track. In other words the amount of money being paid out in wages in comparison to the amount of money actually in the economy via investments, capital gains and purchases is litterally lower than every year prior to now and its only getting worse.
Actually it has been just over 50% since 08-09. And more people have been swayed inbetween the years of 08-12 than the previous 10 years combined.
I think that 50% represents less activists and more people saying live and let live. Basically who you sleep with isn't my business. (Unless you are on TV :D)
It's similar to the Abortion debate where people say things like "it's not for me to decide".
Of course Abolition had a similar apathy even in places where it was legal to speak out against slavery, most wouldn't do it.
There are about enough activists really. For marriage Equality we need it to not be a big deal. It should just be something that is innate. The more people have the "live and let live" attitude towards it the better. Those are the same people that will vote for it to be legal.
Extreme inequality is a major problem that will eventually engulf and collapse economies. We are seeing that right now in America and it only gets worse as you widen the scope to include the rest of the world. There will always be rich and poor but its sick to know that there are people with so much money they litterally can't spend it all and people who have litterally nothing and no way to get out of that situation.
Poverty is like a black hole. The closer you get the harder it is to get out. If you ever hit rock bottom in any country its nigh impossible to come back. In America and much of Europe they don't simply let you die but that isn't the case all around the world. And inversly the more money you have the easier it is to make money. Unless something major is done it will never change.
Also I don't think the OP was insinuating that the top 100 people give up money to end poverty but rather putting it in perspective out asinine it is to have so much concentration of wealth. Its mind boggling. Poverty could end tomorrow with no one loosing millions (no matter how many billions you have) but it won't. It would be so easy to end poverty in America and it could be done in a week without destroying the economy and without dismantling the entire social structure. But again they won't.
More and more people are beginging to accept it. Most polls show higher than 50% of the general population is in favor of equality. But this is neither here nor there as its a hypothetical.
The real question is will America HAVE to change its politices with other countries based on this new found morality? If we never achieve it then it stays hypothetical forever. If we do achieve it soon and before Russia and other countries do then it no longer becomes hypothetical.
I am not saying "there is no god" I am saying "prove to me there is a god. Until which I dismis the thought". The difference between the two is I will never walk up to someone I don't know or even someone I do know and say "Let me talk to you about how there isn't a god". It will NEVER come up without religion being the thing said first. I don't claim anything at all. In fact my answer to the funny Jehova's witnesses when they come to my door is this.
*knock knock* I answer
"Can I tell you about our lord Jesus christ?"
me- "Sure. Shoot. You have 5 mintues to wow me. If I don't hear anything thats not bullcrap I'll join."
I haven't joined yet. Though I do try to be polite.
What do I replace? I liked them as they were a 1cmc human on color with the potential to be 3/3. They seem better than the other options if I wish to remain human.
I am all for replacing him as this isn't a battalion deck. and arguably even legion loyalist isn't all that great. Most decks only seem to use him as a 1 of. But yeah again what 1 drop should I put in? Doomed Traveler? Or should I maindeck the sanctifiers?
Russia is on the move to ban homosexuality not just in marriage inequality but jail time for "homosexual propaganda" which is any displays of homosexual affection.
Homosexuality is still a hot topic in America but its rapidly swinging closer to acceptance. America has assurted itself as the "world police" in an attempt to fight the enemies of liberty all over the world. If america in 2016 finally accepts equality will they have a moral obligation to have some form of action against Russia? Or will it be as many African countries that have far worse treatment of homosexuals without any reprecusions from the world?
An argument basoned on statistics is not the worst but rather the best. Its the most factual way of making an argument. Math is absolute. Its true that data can be miconstruted to a degree but there is a point where it is no longer warped but simply false.
And a near unanimous conclusion actually disproves the idea that its a single convoluted and warped set of data to suit anyone's need. I have not simply "changed the wording". There is real and legitimate differences between a theory and a study on the subject.
Other than studies? do you want more links? I've been linking left and right.
Depends on the business. The size, what it does, the original profit margin. Any number of factors. But as I just read in another thread reducing the profit by a samll percentage can make explosive impacts on the wages of your employees. So a 5% decrease for him/her means a 20-30% increase in wages for all his employees which will in turn stimulate the economy and he still walks away with large sums of cash that dwarf his employees. Everyone is happy.
Your right. We do differ. I do believe there is a certain level in which a person shouldn't have to fall. I think that thoes levels should really be reserved for people who have truely screwed up in life and made terrible choices. Not people wrapped up in the web of poverty since birth and having a near imppossible way to get out. I know there are sucess stories by they are by in large the exception rather than the rule. If anyone could do it then they would.
I have never EVER stated that I would want someone to not contribute. Everyone should contribute and social programs should be temporary and be focused more on getting them back on their feet rather than simply holding them up. Only time I can think the society has an obligation to take care of someone without expecting things in return are the severly disabled.
True. I am not the one facing this. I am angry not on my behalf but on the behalf of others. Several I know personally. Most obviously not.
Reasoning for increasing the minimum wage is to help those scraping by at the very bottom. Wages should increase across the board. Not necessarily via governmetn action.
And in my opinion people work and earn far more than they recieve. I feel the amount of work being put in my most people in this country gets a disproportionately lower compensation.
Opprotunity is obviously better. However we are a long way from that point. Increasing wages isn't entitlement and actually works in favor of the employer long term.
But other than government how could you get people to intentionally reduce profit margin? Other than tax breaks for companies that do this I can't think of any reasonable or realistic way to get compaines to pay people more than they have to.
Not theories. Actual Studies. The difference between a theory and a study is that a theory puts together a modle and makes predictions. A study actually gathers data and derives a conclusion from said Data. Theories can be wrong. Data doesn't lie.
His views on minimum wage doesn't change his message of the book which is the dangers of accumulating wealth. We are in a dangerous situation and sprinting in the wrong direction economically.
Also If I recall it stated elsewhere in the book that the slowing of economic growth due to increased wages is only temporary and actually results in net gains of jobs/money down the road. It may take as much as 2 years but it bounces back better. We've vested 5-6 years to helping the economy. However its been sluggish. I doubt in 2 years it will have changed significantly. Some I am sure but not significantly. This could actually give us a huge boost.
Wrong. I am saying they must live within their means as they have unfairly taken more profit than they should have been alloted by cutting the percentage made by employees. The percentage paid out to employees was much higher in the 6o's 70's. The bosses and owners weren't filthy rich and the workers weren't obscenly poor. This has changed and its nothing other than the buisiness practices.
Here is the chart of monitary growth in the different sections. Here.
The wealthy and sucessful aren't some major crazy evil conspiracy. Its just the natural order of how buisness has developed. It is in the nature and function of a buisness to try and make as much money. But eventually this trend will make it collapse on itself and on the way makes massive inequality. This is why regulations exist. The more you make the more you pay into taxes. If 96% of the all the economic is shared only by the top 10% and the bottom 90% struggle with only 4% of all the economic growth between 1981 and 2008. Just think about those numbers for a minute. And then you tell me again that its a contradiction to say that workers should get higher pay and the higher up buisnesses need to pay more.
Here is another example. If the top 10% had taken only 56% of the increase in weath in the past 20 years, that means only 1 in 10 people would accumulate more wealth than the 9 others combined, then the average wealth increase of the past 20 years for the other 90% would increase 11 fold. Less than half of the wealth increase of the top 10 % could change the growth rate by over 1000% for the rest of the country. I don't think that is unreasonable. Its just not the way things unfolded or are unfolding. However people who are getting screwed are fighting tooth and nail to get screwed over by this.
EDIT:
here is another chart I have found that shows us how much of the economy is measured in Wages. It is at a record low since they have started keeping track. In other words the amount of money being paid out in wages in comparison to the amount of money actually in the economy via investments, capital gains and purchases is litterally lower than every year prior to now and its only getting worse.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png
There are about enough activists really. For marriage Equality we need it to not be a big deal. It should just be something that is innate. The more people have the "live and let live" attitude towards it the better. Those are the same people that will vote for it to be legal.
23 Plains
Creatures 32
CMC-1
4 Champion of the parrish
2 Doomed Traveler
4 War Falcon
2 Knight of Glory
4 Pricinct Captain
2 Elite inquisitor
3 Thalia, guardian of thraben
2 Fiend hunter
3 Frontline medic
3 Odric, master tactitian
Enchantment 3
3 oblivion ring
Sorcery 2
2 Rootbound Defenses
2 knight of Glory
2 Rootbound Defenses
2 Fiend hunter
4 Cathederal sanctifier
2 Elite inquisitor
3 Faith's Reward
Alright boys, what do? I know Boros elite sucks like a vaccume but I don't know what would be the one drop to replace him?
Actually it has been just over 50% since 08-09. And more people have been swayed inbetween the years of 08-12 than the previous 10 years combined.
Poverty is like a black hole. The closer you get the harder it is to get out. If you ever hit rock bottom in any country its nigh impossible to come back. In America and much of Europe they don't simply let you die but that isn't the case all around the world. And inversly the more money you have the easier it is to make money. Unless something major is done it will never change.
Also I don't think the OP was insinuating that the top 100 people give up money to end poverty but rather putting it in perspective out asinine it is to have so much concentration of wealth. Its mind boggling. Poverty could end tomorrow with no one loosing millions (no matter how many billions you have) but it won't. It would be so easy to end poverty in America and it could be done in a week without destroying the economy and without dismantling the entire social structure. But again they won't.
The real question is will America HAVE to change its politices with other countries based on this new found morality? If we never achieve it then it stays hypothetical forever. If we do achieve it soon and before Russia and other countries do then it no longer becomes hypothetical.
But for now we shall keep it as is.
*knock knock* I answer
"Can I tell you about our lord Jesus christ?"
me- "Sure. Shoot. You have 5 mintues to wow me. If I don't hear anything thats not bullcrap I'll join."
I haven't joined yet. Though I do try to be polite.
What do I replace? I liked them as they were a 1cmc human on color with the potential to be 3/3. They seem better than the other options if I wish to remain human.
I am all for replacing him as this isn't a battalion deck. and arguably even legion loyalist isn't all that great. Most decks only seem to use him as a 1 of. But yeah again what 1 drop should I put in? Doomed Traveler? Or should I maindeck the sanctifiers?
Russia is on the move to ban homosexuality not just in marriage inequality but jail time for "homosexual propaganda" which is any displays of homosexual affection.
Homosexuality is still a hot topic in America but its rapidly swinging closer to acceptance. America has assurted itself as the "world police" in an attempt to fight the enemies of liberty all over the world. If america in 2016 finally accepts equality will they have a moral obligation to have some form of action against Russia? Or will it be as many African countries that have far worse treatment of homosexuals without any reprecusions from the world?