Seattle raises minimum wage to $15/hr

[G-Man the Visionary]

You're making up all of this shit as you go, and doing a really poor job at it.

Yup, I'm terrible at it, but at least I'm trying . But it is quoted up there and you're welcome to reread what I actually said and see that smooth misread or misunderstood it.

[smooth]

Yup, I'm terrible at it, but at least I'm trying . But it is quoted up there and you're welcome to reread what I actually said and see that smooth misread or misunderstood it.

I neither misread nor misunderstood what you wrote. I clarified what you wrote to differentiate it from Dozyproduction's point. You'll notice in the first sentence that I wrote he can't be agreeing with you with his point unless you two are using two different definitions of "make": gross receipts of the restaurant vs. post-tax income for the owner.

He responded that he wasn't agreeing with the 40k figure and that he was talking about the restaurant's overhead. You were talking about the owner's profit. In other words, you were both talking about different points with the only convergence being that you both believe small restaurant owners aren't getting rich by any means (a point I also agree with).

The takeaway is that you can't conflate overhead with a private owner's profit. That's too simple of a model as to how those two numbers interrelate. It's not like you wrote, where direct increases in workers' wages comes right out of an owner's pocket at the end of the year. It's often described like that but it's not accurate.

[jrockbk]

Nahhh its more the evil corporations making evil profit thing.

yup smaller outfits tend to pay better, they like to keep good help around. I have worked for small family outfits where I have been at the owners house drinking beer and eating his food on a random Sunday, or helped him out with personal projects with out compensation as favor. On the flip side I have worked for and do currently for one of the largest international outfits in my industry. I am just as happy now as I was then........ They make lots of money I make lots of money, the more I can make for me the more I make for them. With out the profits they cant buy equipment to bid work, with out profits I dont have employer, I dont have a job, and I cant pay my bills.....

this eat the rich force them to give to others thing is getting rather tiresome from you. Yup real wages and the buying power of that wage has been going down, simple solution, put on your big boy pants, stop whining and go out and make more money. Sometimes we have to fail several times before we find a way too make it, and even then it can all fall apart and have start over. The trick is learning to swallow your pride and do what you have too, to make honest living

this thread sucks again hows your weather??? Its hot muggy and raining where I am

Nothing anyone said was to take from rich and redistribute, your afraid of nothing, and like most right winged who don't believe in evolution or climate change your blinded by your small world, you seem smart enough to know that the market will react to changes in overhead cost like labor and so be it the price of products may increase, like stated above by others much more detailed the general population with new wealth can absorb those increases in price no problem and be happy doing it because they can afford to. By your own logic not taking into account the opportunities that children of wealthy families have over poor ones, it's their fault for not making more money. Not everyone can just go to school or vocational school or start a business with a trust fund. Some children are burdened with debt that force them to either drop out of school to work a job to put food on table for their family or turn to crime to get by to support their moms and siblings they are not even adults. It's their fault though by your logic, yes life sucks but you don't have to make suck worse than it has to be.
So when your kid ,not whining to daddy, is taking a million cocks to the face because Porn is one of the highest paid industries in this country, it's a better wage than most honest decent entry level jobs, they are just following your advice by your logic. Making daddy proud!

[G-Man the Visionary]

I neither misread nor misunderstood what you wrote. I clarified what you wrote to differentiate it from Dozyproduction's point. You'll notice in the first sentence that I wrote he can't be agreeing with you with his point unless you two are using two different definitions of "make": gross receipts of the restaurant vs. post-tax income for the owner.

If you questioned it, you misread it, or misunderstood it. But I like how you broke it down, because there may be people who don't understand the difference. Thanks.

[smooth]

Yes, he is.
If you read the second sentence of the Wiki article you're nearly quoting, you'd understand that the SEC requires publicly traded businesses to operate according to FASB rules.

I'm not sure which wiki article you're referring to. I read the op-ed piece you posted a link to in its entirety.

The FASB is part of a group of non-governmental agencies that work in conjunction with quasi-governmental agencies that I bring up in my law and society courses to my students as part of a thought experiment.

Many of us tend to think of The Law as a series of "Big" issues. We focus a lot of time on things like the Constitution, the Supreme Court decisions, how the police interact with citizens, how citizens interact with courts, what the law says about conduct, on and on etc. etc.

This sub-forum, for example, spends an inordinate amount of time discussing issues related to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment, however, plays almost zero role in everyone's everyday living experience...even the people arguing about it here (or more correctly, the people thinking they are supporting it and believing others are trying to undermine it).

It plays a far less role, even in the most ardent gun-slinger's life in the most restrictive community imaginable, than say the FDA, or the EPA, or the FCC. People are focused on whether others can carry firearms, or how they should have access to them, or whether homosexuals can marry, or whether women should(not) have access to abortion clinics, or whether government should(not) set a floor on wages, for examples, those quasi-governmental and non-governmental agencies are making decisions about public space that impacts every single person, every single day. Meanwhile, a constellation of agencies that aren't directly answerable to the public, or even public officials, are making decisions about the everyday affairs of the public: what we eat, the water quality we drink, the medicine we can take, the air we breathe, and this example of the private financial industry. It's a major divergence from the checks and balances system that we initially constructed for this nation.

The person's article you cited can't be arguing for deregulation unless he's doing one of three things: ignoring the history of the "regulations" because he doesn't know it (unlikely), ignoring the history of the "regulations" because he thinks his audience doesn't know it (more likely), or is engaging in a strange twist of pointing to failed deregulation policies and using them as examples in order to strengthen an argument that we need even more deregulation (less likely).

I wrote "regulations" in quotes because those two things aren't regulatory. They came about in response to political pressure to deregulate wall street. That's why power rests in the hands of a private entity like the FASB and that's also why the safe harbor provisions, as they're called, specifically protect private sector from litigation!

In fact, if you read Denning's other articles it's quite clear that he is critical of deregulation and the impact it's had on our private sector financial meltdowns:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...11/11/22/5086/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...-has-run-amok/

He attributes the financial meltdown to, among other things,:
The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998.

Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument.

The SEC loosened capital requirements

The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.


Sorry, but he hardly seems like someone arguing for less government regulation. Anyone familiar with the history and intent of those two provisions would understand that they were written in to provide cover for private sector shenanigans. The corrective action isn't to deregulate the industry even more

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm not sure which wiki article you're referring to. I read the op-ed piece you posted a link to in its entirety.

The FASB is part of a group of non-governmental agencies that work in conjunction with quasi-governmental agencies that I bring up in my law and society courses to my students as part of a thought experiment.

Many of us tend to think of The Law as a series of "Big" issues. We focus a lot of time on things like the Constitution, the Supreme Court decisions, how the police interact with citizens, how citizens interact with courts, what the law says about conduct, on and on etc. etc.

This sub-forum, for example, spends an inordinate amount of time discussing issues related to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment, however, plays almost zero role in everyone's everyday living experience...even the people arguing about it here (or more correctly, the people thinking they are supporting it and believing others are trying to undermine it).

It plays a far less role, even in the most ardent gun-slinger's life in the most restrictive community imaginable, than say the FDA, or the EPA, or the FCC. People are focused on whether others can carry firearms, or how they should have access to them, or whether homosexuals can marry, or whether women should(not) have access to abortion clinics, or whether government should(not) set a floor on wages, for examples, those quasi-governmental and non-governmental agencies are making decisions about public space that impacts every single person, every single day. Meanwhile, a constellation of agencies that aren't directly answerable to the public, or even public officials, are making decisions about the everyday affairs of the public: what we eat, the water quality we drink, the medicine we can take, the air we breathe, and this example of the private financial industry. It's a major divergence from the checks and balances system that we initially constructed for this nation.

The person's article you cited can't be arguing for deregulation unless he's doing one of three things: ignoring the history of the "regulations" because he doesn't know it (unlikely), ignoring the history of the "regulations" because he thinks his audience doesn't know it (more likely), or is engaging in a strange twist of pointing to failed deregulation policies and using them as examples in order to strengthen an argument that we need even more deregulation (less likely).

I wrote "regulations" in quotes because those two things aren't regulatory. They came about in response to political pressure to deregulate wall street. That's why power rests in the hands of a private entity like the FASB and that's also why the safe harbor provisions, as they're called, specifically protect private sector from litigation!

In fact, if you read Denning's other articles it's quite clear that he is critical of deregulation and the impact it's had on our private sector financial meltdowns:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...11/11/22/5086/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...-has-run-amok/

He attributes the financial meltdown to, among other things,:
The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998.

Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument.

The SEC loosened capital requirements

The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.


Sorry, but he hardly seems like someone arguing for less government regulation. Anyone familiar with the history and intent of those two provisions would understand that they were written in to provide cover for private sector shenanigans. The corrective action isn't to deregulate the industry even more

I was referring to the Wikipedia article on FASB, which is a fairly good common reference point.

If you had comprehended the article I linked which you claim to have read, it would be obvious that the author proposed eliminating some very specific regulations.

Your diatribe about "deregulation" is misplaced.

[ParsedOut]

I was referring to the Wikipedia article on FASB, which is a fairly good common reference point.

If you had comprehended the article I linked which you claim to have read, it would be obvious that the author proposed eliminating some very specific regulations.

Your diatribe about "deregulation" is misplaced.

He has a way of "missing the point" quite often around here. My guess is it's due to his superior intellect getting in the way of simple reading comprehension.

[mulletman]

Good video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

[The Dark Side of Will]

I didn't realize it was a controversial assertion that we have millions of children going hungry in this country.

Go fuck the condescension.

USDA conducts a survey every year about food security in the US.
Here is their survey for 2013:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1183208/err-155.pdf

You can skip to pages 9-15, tables 1B-3 if you'd prefer to get to the raw numbers.

Thanks. I hadn't see that info before.

[smooth]

Go fuck the condescension.

If you had comprehended the article I linked which you claim to have read, it would be obvious that the author proposed eliminating some very specific regulations.

[ParsedOut]

:drink:

[The Dark Side of Will]

Don't like your own brew? ;)

[einhander]

Thanks. I hadn't see that info before.

Shocking.

[smooth]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

[Dozyproductions]

The town is protected by its $15 min wage bubble. If the micro would turn macro, inflation would negate any 'posterity' brought about by the raise. It's simple economics. If you're a person who thinks the gubment printing more money out of nothing isn't going to solve anything then you can't think that this is a good idea for any nation wide implementation.