It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Undertough
Excuse me that was not my point at all to brag. I was trying to qualify my remarks. This is totally off topic. I am writer so therefore I know the rules of grammar. I am not on here trying to write an essay or a story. I am just sharing my thoughts and ideas. You totally missed point of my post. My point is education does not always make a difference. Shesh!
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Undertough
I think you pretty much just demolished the "create more jobs" argument in that post, nice to see some good ol fashioned logic here
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ldyserenity
Isn't this the same outcome as minimum wage?
No, the outcome will be decrease in umemployment and economic growth. When it comes to preventing worker slavery then yes, the outcome of NIT would be the same, but without the mentioned negatives of minimum wage.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by aching_knuckles
And where do they get this idea to pay such low wages.
I honestly think if the government had never stepped in people would be getting paid much more on the hour.
Whose more likely in touch with the needs of the people, a boss, or a government official? I would say 10 bucks an hour would probably be about where minimum was if the government hadn't planted the idea of 7.25 or whatever.
People would also be more inclined to ask for raises and complain as they wouldn't be going into a job "knowing the pay" even if it was expected to be a low paying job they wouldn't have these already dashed hopes and would be more likely to speak up.
When someone applies for a job knowing it's minimum wage and that minimum wage is set they are resigned to that before they even start. You have someone get in and then hear for the first time that the pay is low and they aren't basing your pay off of any past experience or education I guarantee people would be more likely to speak up and/or walk out.edit on 3-8-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
Either the NIT is going to supplement the lost incomes to low paying jobs or it will decrease unemployment. I am confused about the math that is creating new jobs.
Ummm...so I guess this came from an alternate universe or something then? Apple iPhone Patent a HUGEblow to smartphone makers (or some such thing) And once again my nerd is showing...I'll get that.
Update: Other patent experts disagree with this notion. For a roundup of objections to this story, click here.
Apple was just awarded a long sought-after U.S. patent for its iPhone that some intellectual property experts believe is so broad it could lead to big problems for makers of rival smartphones. But a closer look at the actual patent belies that interpretation, say others who have been critical of PCMag's original reporting on this story.
Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by ren1999
We can't end all of those things or we would have a poverty rate of 50% and a homeless rate of like 30%. Right now our poverty rate is 15% and the homeless rate is about 10%?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ldyserenity
Ummm...so I guess this came from an alternate universe or something then? Apple iPhone Patent a HUGEblow to smartphone makers (or some such thing) And once again my nerd is showing...I'll get that.
Hmmmm, I wonder if I am supposed to believe this update from the article you linked magically appeared after you posted:
Update: Other patent experts disagree with this notion. For a roundup of objections to this story, click here.
Here is the link to that counterpoint - or what you smugly call an "alternative universe" - and the opening paragraph:
Apple was just awarded a long sought-after U.S. patent for its iPhone that some intellectual property experts believe is so broad it could lead to big problems for makers of rival smartphones. But a closer look at the actual patent belies that interpretation, say others who have been critical of PCMag's original reporting on this story.
Your nerd may be showing, but it is hard to see with all that egg on your face.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Im done with this game of self aggrandizing mental masturbation. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will always remember you as someone who ran from questions, even as you insulted others.
It is a false memory, sport. I have not run from any questions, you ignored my answers.
Originally posted by Undertough
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have heard of Laissez faire captilism Ayn Rand was a big propent of that. That is a french term. I am afriand of the majority who will not pay good wages. I don't really support laissez faire capitilism myself because I believe if you just let things run its natural course there could be negative concequences.
Really? Do you think if nature runs its natural course there will be negative consequences?
We already tried it and there were.
You really think this time it would be entirely different?
Originally posted by Undertough
Help me understand how this works in the real world.
If they repeal the min. wage and a company can pay its workers say $2.00 and hour then they can hire more people, right?
So more companies can hire more people and more people will be employed, right?
But who the hell is going to be able to survive at any job that pays that little? They are going to need to work 120 hours a week and no job is going to offer that so they are going to need 4 jobs. So what good does it do to create more jobs if those jobs require the employees to take on more of those jobs anyway?
If I have one job at $8/hr and the company lowers pay to $2/hr so they can hire 3 more people, they save no money but all 4 of us have to go out and find 3 more jobs each thus eating up any and all newly created jobs. So the end result is just people working longer for less.
Please correct me.
Originally posted by Undertough
McDonalds can pay its employees anything above minimum wage it wants. Are you really suggesting that if the minimum wage were abolished, then McDonalds would pay its employees more? Perhaps I misread this?