Nothing shown in either of your all's links have shown proof that MW does or doesn't increase or decrease employment.

By the way, you are still in the GOATrump thread.

You just got done arguing how we need to raise the price of all goods and services. Maybe right now isn't the best time to say your party is best for the middle class.

Excellent point! Some news:

House oversight committee: Flynn probably broke the law by failing to disclose foreign payments

Trumpkins might finally get their wish - a major figure from the 2016 presidential campaign could actually get locked up!

no, the wage increases do not translate 100% into price increases. even if the price appreciation was actually big, the consumers on the other side of the checkout counter will perform their demand-side invisible-hand magic and buy a bit less, but still more than before the MW/price increases. this varies across many products, elastic vs inelastic, as well as consumer's savings/credits, so it's obviously not as dire as you make it seem. if market forces work at MW=$7.50, then they should also work at MW=$15.

additionally, the minimum wage workers are paying for the living costs of X% of the population, while those who earn at least some high percentile pay for the living costs of Y%. the status quo is that few of the X% can accumulate any savings, while Y% are able to do so.

in our hypothetical experiment, let's increase the MW upto a point that it allows X% to save, and Y% do not change their spending habits significantly. the price adjustment means that Y% are saving marginally less. that's literally the theoretical MW/cost balance which allows people to earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than depend on charity and/or bootstraps.

Judge blocks Trump's order withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities

LOLOL

The Orange Clown's memoirs already beginning to take shape.

"The Art of Not Closing The Deal" by Donald J. Trump

The Chinese company that makes Ivanka's clothing line subjects workers to grueling workweeks, below-minimum-wage pay

lol "Buy American, Hire American"

I'm not sure which is worse: complaining about cheap labor over seas like the company is somehow mistreating those workers or people saying "buy American".

Uhhh according to the article China has minimum wage laws and the company isn't paying all their workers what the law says they should, pretty sure that qualifies! Maybe not to mickey because he believes minimum wage laws are an affront to humanity, but to normal people who think laws should be followed.

I wonder if Trump's "Buy American, Hire American" policy will ever convince his own daughter and White House assistant to do that?

God damn it. Sometimes the damn Federal judges do get out of line. I will admit I haven't read anything about this. This is my one knee jerk reaction. I get one per month, right?

I just can't stand this concept of sanctuary cities (propaganda term - they're just refusing to obey the law, and probably a major contributor to this immigration mess we are in), so I was really hoping this would sail through.

Without having read about it, I'll just say, we shall see. I am predicting either, this gets crushed at the circuit court level or supremes or something similar gets through quickly if it does get upheld at the circuit level or supremes.

Just a funny juxtaposition of these points.

The only reason those people for so cheap is because it is the best opportunity for them. It isn't like they'd be better off if the company left town.

I hope trump (or every other president) who has said buy American don't influence more buyers than they already do.

The argument from cities is, you can't force us to be enforcement arms for the federal government, 10th amendment bitches.

I would assume that's an argument conservatives would be sympathetic to on literally any other issue, but if liberals make it to avoid deporting people, all of a sudden conservatives find a raging hard-on for the power of the federal government.

If they were breaking the law, why wouldn't the federal government just sue them and get a judge to enforce compliance?

This seems more like the way the government used to (iirc, I was young) enforce a national speed limit, or the way they (I believe) still do enforce a national drinking age, by using some specific pool of funds as bait for states to comply with what the government wants. idk what would allow the federal government to just withhold all money destined for certain locales because of one thing they don't like, when previous agreements likely didn't stipulate that local police forces also ship people off to DHS when DHS wants or whatever.

Don't be silly, they also get a raging hardon when the federal government needs to kick in the doors of drug dealers.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated in 2014 that 500,000 jobs would be lost if national minimum wage was raised from $7.25 to $10.10.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

The CBO model predicted 6.6M jobs lost by an increase to $15/hour. "So, to get the middle unemployment outcome [6.6M jobs lost] they use exactly the same model that the CBO uses when it advises Congress."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#3d4fdf3d2b46

Another study mentioned in that Forbes article said 16M jobs would be lost by an increase to $15.

Mickey is exactly right that the jobs lost is based on how high you raise the minimum wage.

Where is this minimum wage thread of which you speak?

I'll take read of that article you cited, samsonh.

This seems relevant, when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act went to SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

From my armchair reading, seems pretty clear cut that of the 5 point test mentioned in that article, Trump's sanctuary city EO violates #2 (unlike the NMDAA, it is ambiguous, as it allows DHS to decide who or what is a "sanctuary jurisdiction") and #5 (Rehnquist allowed the NMDAA because it affected a small portion of funding; clearly the threat of all federal funding being cut off would not be treated the same). Maybe even #1 too depending on what they meant by that.

I didn't take the time to investigate rithotz.com, the source of that "article," but there didn't appear to be much there to comment on.

And re: constitutionality, I found this Atlantic article too:

If you read on he talks about the cases more. Printz is a pro-gun case saying that the Clinton administration couldn't direct local officials to build and send them a gun registry!

Is there any way to read the bolded besides "there are too many goddamn Messicans"?

I don't usually do Twitter threads but this one linked in alpha is pretty lol:



Trump administration brags about his 30 EOs so far. More than FDR! (9! Sad!) Too bad his team is incapable of even counting executive orders without ****ting the bed...







lol, so incompetent they can't even brag about the **** they've been failing at correctly. Maybe this was the same staffer that googled "what is the holocaust"?

?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/execu....php?year=1933

There's something weird about that list where there are 99 EOs. The ones that match with the list with 9 EOs seem to have links to descriptions and the others seem to link to page does not exist.

I feel bad like this post is not resisting fascism. Sorry.

Here's a fact about Trump though: he's the worst President in US history.

Well, yes there is actually.

You don't know what a 'sanctuary city' is.

And, you have the entirety of the depth and breadth of the world's knowledge at your fingertips yet you said, F That Noise, I ain't learning **** today.

Trump2020: I have the entirety of the depth and breadth of the world's knowledge at my fingertips yet I'm saying, F That Noise, I ain't learning s--t today

OK I'll admit that one isn't as catchy as my others.