Wow, you're working to get a bunch of females and people of color laid off when their employers have to close down their marginal locations.

Are you getting a grant from the Koch brothers?

lol abseeker.

"females"

Yeah I was wondering why rjoefish used female instead of women in the post I quoted, but he's the big campaign honcho, so I defer to his preference. Perhaps "women" is an offensive term now.

Excellent example of praxeology.

We already know what happens when the minimum wage is increased.

Female workers(fine) vs. "females"(creepy), man, don't think you get to play this game.

Keep on watching those Youtubes, though. That Koch brothers joke just slayed because, you know, the Koch brothers are prominent opponents of minimum wage increases. But because you're so smart, because you've watched the Youtubes the sheeple don't know about... you know the truth:

The policies that liberal poor people want are bad for poor people(actual economists disagree because they are pawns of the state), while the policies that conservative rich people want are good for poor people(again, actual economists will deny this because of statism)! It's so simple!

"Female" is a very normal adjective.

"Females" is a noun that is almost exclusively the province of massive *******s.

Holy Throwback Thursday Batman. BILL FILLMATH.

Man remember when 2+2 was awesome. We were all making 'sick' money with just a starting hand chart and a dell 30 inch and there was a new fantastic BBV thread every day. Good times...

30 inch?!

Pshhh

2001-FP for life.

The Koch brothers support raising the minimum wage cause they can afford raising the minimum wage while their competition can not. Big businesses do not want to compete with smaller businesses. Most of the jobs their company offers aren't anywhere close to minimum wage anyway.

It's one thing to ask Koch Industries, Walmart, and McDonalds to raise their minimum wage. It's another to ask a mom and pop store which hires 3-4 part time employees.

Anyway, enough sidetracking. I'm surprised no one posted the video of the Tulsa cop going on the Today show to defend himself. It was lol bad and he even says he had his taser on one side and his gun on the other.

I assume you back laws that will ensure that insurance rates, electricity costs, the price of land, rent on buildings and the cost of stock do not rise either. To protect mom and pop stores who will surely never cope with increasing costs.

OK no we have to address this,

http://afpscorecard.org/#singleAlert%2343

Are you just making this up? THIS, right here, is why your side loses.

Oh... well, I misread your post. I thought you said they supported it. :/

I thought it was weird that they would support a minimum wage considering the candidates and positions they have supported but yeah if they did, that is why they would.

There is a BIG difference when those costs go up because of market forces and when they go up because of govt mandated policies. The former is healthy for the economy, the latter is not.

But bad for mom and pop in either case, which was the tug on the heartstrings you were going for a few posts ago. Maybe mom and pop going tits up is healthy for the economy.

Government policies are the only reason the min wage is so artificially low. If it wasn't for welfare there would have been a rise or a guillotine many years ago.

lol. You realize you just said that if it werent for welfare, no person in the entire US would be working for less than $7.25. Just wanted to restate it so you could hear how stupid it sounds bouncing back at you.

Also its just such a terrible tactical argument anyhow. The set of humans you are able to win over with this argument is an empty one.

lol....that's gold. You weren't even sure about their position but I'm sure what you say about the counter-factual of WHY they would hold the position they don't actually hold is reliable. At least you answered flys questions.....you are totally just making this crap up.

LDO you're preaching to the choir here. And obviously you know the difference between them going "tits up" because of government policies instead of natural market forces.

Natural market forces actually make them more efficient and more wealth is created in the economy as a result. When it is government policies, market distortion are created which negatively impact production.

Also consider the minimum wage doesn't actually cover every worker and folks do make less.

Americans give wal mart 6.2 billion a year, by giving employees welfare, to allow them to pay so little.

If that welfare didn't exist, with it being structured differently that employees couldn't claim food stamps to top up their pay for eg, then wal mart would have to pay it.

People arent willing to sell their labour for less than they need to survive and the so called min wage would have been a true living wage a long time ago. These policies are distorting those natural demand supply forces.

So we shouldn't have a social safety net?