Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech at prayer breakfast

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

Bronson said:
Except Obama to people like you who then attack the character of anyone who questions him

Haven't done anything if the kind. Many reasonable people question him. And I treat them reasonably. So do others. Unreasonable people should expect to be called on it.

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Sure. You can hire slaves cheaper and have more of them. But if we want more teens working, and not adults making a decent living, we can do that. But is that really our goal? We can grow the gap even more between rich and poor, what a friend of mine calls the Mexicanization of America, and he isn't talking about immigration at all.

I'd say, for poor minority neighborhoods, yes it should be. Because teenagers working means teenagers not in jail.

Besides, maximizing employment increases AD, and increases in AD increases wages.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
I'd say, for poor minority neighborhoods, yes it should be. Because teenagers working means teenagers not in jail.

Besides, maximizing employment increases AD, and increases in AD increases wages.

Not sure that is true. Nor am I sure what the effect is of Dad not making a living wage. I would be interested in any objective studies on the matter. However, isn't the increase in minimum wage more thing proposed and not something we've live the past four plus type ear with?

I also note this opinion:

But such dire predictions have never materialized. That's because they're bogus. In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

Peter Dreier: Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for Business (But the Corporate Lobby Doesn't Think So)

I'm interested on that thought as well.

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Not sure that is true. Nor am I sure what the effect is of Dad not making a living wage. I would be interested in any objective studies on the matter. However, isn't the increase in minimum wage more thing proposed and not something we've live the past four plus type ear with?

I also note this opinion:

But such dire predictions have never materialized. That's because they're bogus. In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

Peter Dreier: Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for Business (But the Corporate Lobby Doesn't Think So)

I'm interested on that thought as well.

Usually daddy isn't around, so if anything, little Johnny being able to get a job would help mommy out.

Either way, I'm quite convinced that having employment early on in life helps teach skills that make one able to earn higher wages later on in life.

Also, the study I posted was from the EPI as well. So it seems as if we are seeing conflicting theories from them. I'd like to know how they got the $21B, if that was from actual models taking all things into account, or if they simply added the increase to every minimum wage worker and assumed that all things are created equal. You're quote from the Huntington Post is purposely a vague talking point.

Bronson · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Haven't done anything if the kind. Many reasonable people question him. And I treat them reasonably. So do others. Unreasonable people should expect to be called on it.

So you agree it's not fair to label someone racist for disagreeing with a black man's politics yes?

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Usually daddy isn't around, so if anything, little Johnny being able to get a job would help mommy out.

Either way, I'm quite convinced that having employment early on in life helps teach skills that make one able to earn higher wages later on in life.

Also, the study I posted was from the EPI as well. So it seems as if we are seeing conflicting theories from them. I'd like to know how they got the $21B, if that was from actual models taking all things into account, or if they simply added the increase to every minimum wage worker and assumed that all things are created equal. You're quote from the Huntington Post is purposely a vague talking point.

I also hunk it is mistaken to think we have nothing else for little John. We might try educating th few who MIGHT not get then minimum wage job.

Also, neither bit of information contradicts the other, so both might be true.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

Bronson said:
So you agree it's not fair to label someone racist for disagreeing with a black man's politics yes?

Mere disagreement? Certainly not. However, some silliness like the birther nonsense might rise the question.

Fenton · Feb 24, 2013

Jerry said:
The other day I herd Rush commenting the Obama was looking down in disgrace
at the mention of health savings accounts......Obama was looking down because he was texting. I know that look, when you phone vibrate and you want to be discreet. You can see the right arm retrieve it from his pocket. When Obama was don, he put his phone up on the table.

Yea, texting the NYT's and MSNBC co-ordinates on Dr Carsons residence, and then a quick text to Eric Holder " let's get this brother back on the reservation" by any means necessary.

Fenton · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Mere
disagreement? Certainly not. However, some silliness like the birther nonsense might rise the question.

Well, now we know how to get the progressives to be reverent about prayer.

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I also hunk it is mistaken to think we have nothing else for little John. We might try educating th few who MIGHT not get then minimum wage job.

Also, neither bit of information contradicts the other, so both might be true.

Perhaps, unless one isn't taking the other into account.

But, do consider that if more available employment for poor teenagers means that less of them stay out of jail, that is huge savings from prison costs, and potentially future welfare costs.

Not to mention, it would inject money into the economy of poor neighborhoods. Why? Lower business costs means more businesses can survive, which opens up more employment opportunities. This means that both the small business owner and the employees now can make a wage, even if neither is very much. Wages grow when the demand for labor exceeds the supply of unemployed. So to me, its only common sense that we should be maximizing employment, and over the long term wages will take care of itself. It doesn't work the other way around.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

Fenton said:
Well, now we know how to get the progressives to be reverent about prayer.

Not sure what you mean by that. People of all political stripes pray and belong to religions groups.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Perhaps, unless one isn't taking the other into account.

But, do consider that if more available employment for poor teenagers means that less of them stay out of jail, that is huge savings from prison costs, and potentially future welfare costs.

Not to mention, it would inject money into the economy of poor neighborhoods. Why? Lower business costs means more businesses can survive, which opens up more employment opportunities. This means that both the small business owner and the employees now can make a wage, even if neither is very much. Wages grow when the demand for labor exceeds the supply of unemployed. So to me, its only common sense that we should be maximizing employment, and over the long term wages will take care of itself. It doesn't work the other way around.

That is assuming one means the other. Knew a few young men who worked minimum wage jobs but found crime more lucrative.

Cost and spending go hand in hand. If no one can buy, costs mean far less. Nor is there evidence wages take care of themselves. Our history is full of underpaying.

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
That is assuming one means the other. Knew a few young men who worked minimum wage jobs but found crime more lucrative.

Cost and spending go hand in hand. If no one can buy, costs mean far less. Nor is there evidence wages take care of themselves. Our history is full of underpaying.

Yet, when one looks at everything as a whole, wages rose over time even before the strong labor unions.
Employers pay what it costs to replace a worker. And if we have full employment, finding a worker to replace another is much more harder, and therefore wages go up.

My point is this. Full employment is more important than wages. Increasing wages doesn't lead to full employment; but full employment does lead to increases in wages.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Yet, when one looks at everything as a whole, wages rose over time even before the strong labor unions.
Employers pay what it costs to replace a worker. And if we have full employment, finding a worker to replace another is much more harder, and therefore wages go up.

My point is this. Full employment is more important than wages. Increasing wages doesn't lead to full employment; but full employment does lead to increases in wages.

I'll have to check that, but I see employers going to more part time and less full time, for example, fighting unions, and doing everything they can to pat less. And no, full employment where people work fr less than a living wage is not desirable, let alone more desirable. And neither absolute you suggest is likely true. If business can employ more for peanuts, they will, raising nothing.

Bonzai · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Yet, when one looks at everything as a whole, wages rose over time even before the strong labor unions.
Employers pay what it costs to replace a worker. And if we have full employment, finding a worker to replace another is much more harder, and therefore wages go up.

My point is this. Full employment is more important than wages. Increasing wages doesn't lead to full employment; but full employment does lead to increases in wages.

That was until employers discovered "illegals"------You know, those people they could whine about "liberals" letting into the country and who they fall all over themselves to hire ?......................

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

Bonzai said:
That was until employers discovered "illegals"------You know, those people they could whine about "liberals" letting into the country and who they fall all over themselves to hire ?......................

Well, before them there was slavery, children, share cropping, and minorities.

Bonzai · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Well, before them there was slavery, children, share cropping, and minorities.

Correct. I was just pointing out the newest venue for labor exploitation......................

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I'll have to check that, but I see employers going to more part time and less full time, for example, fighting unions, and doing everything they can to pat less. And no, full employment where people work fr less than a living wage is not desirable, let alone more desirable. And neither absolute you suggest is likely true. If business can employ more for peanuts, they will, raising nothing.

It wasn't always fighting to pay them less. One of the worst strikes, the Homestead Strike, happened because the union wanted double the 30% increase in wages that Andrew Carnegie had offered. So Carnegie allowed his number two to attempt to bust the union while he was away in Europe.

American History - Wikimedia Foundation - Google Books

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Bonzai said:
That was until employers discovered "illegals"------You know, those people they could whine about "liberals" letting into the country and who they fall all over themselves to hire ?......................

Well, the guy who wanted to crack down on those hiring practices lost the election.

Bonzai · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Well, the guy who wanted to crack down on those hiring practices lost the election.

I doubt the sincerity. Off topic, have you seen Atlas Shrugged II ?...........................

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2013

ReformCollege said:
It wasn't always fighting to pay them less. One of the worst strikes, the Homestead Strike, happened because the union wanted double the 30% increase in wages that Andrew Carnegie had offered. So Carnegie allowed his number two to attempt to bust the union while he was away in Europe.

American History - Wikimedia Foundation - Google Books

You mean this:

Carnegie's mighty steel industry was not immune to the downturn. In 1890, the price of rolled-steel products started to decline, dropping from $35 a gross ton to $22 early in 1892. In the face of depressed steel prices, Henry C. Frick, general manager of the Homestead plant that Carnegie largely owned, was determined to cut wages and break the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, one of the strongest craft unions in the country.

Behind the scenes, Carnegie supported Frick's plans. In the spring of 1892, Carnegie had Frick produce as much armor plate as possible before the union's contract expired at the end of June. If the union failed to accept Frick's terms, Carnegie instructed him to shut down the plant and wait until the workers buckled. "We... approve of anything you do," Carnegie wrote from England in words he would later come to regret. "We are with you to the end."

With Carnegie's carte blanche support, Frick moved to slash wages.

American Experience . The Richest Man in the World: Andrew Carnegie . People & Events | The Homestead Strike | PBS

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Boo Radley said:
You mean this:

Carnegie's mighty steel industry was not immune to the downturn. In 1890, the price of rolled-steel products started to decline, dropping from $35 a gross ton to $22 early in 1892. In the face of depressed steel prices, Henry C. Frick, general manager of the Homestead plant that Carnegie largely owned, was determined to cut wages and break the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, one of the strongest craft unions in the country.

Behind the scenes, Carnegie supported Frick's plans. In the spring of 1892, Carnegie had Frick produce as much armor plate as possible before the union's contract expired at the end of June. If the union failed to accept Frick's terms, Carnegie instructed him to shut down the plant and wait until the workers buckled. "We... approve of anything you do," Carnegie wrote from England in words he would later come to regret. "We are with you to the end."

With Carnegie's carte blanche support, Frick moved to slash wages.

American Experience . The Richest Man in the World: Andrew Carnegie . People & Events | The Homestead Strike | PBS

Carnegie is well known for increasing his profits by decreasing prices. It very well could be that his profits went up 60% and the price also fell 35 to 22. So both might be correct.

Carnegie I believe was not anti-union. Frick convinced Carnegie to allow him to break up the union, but I believe he was quoted as saying that he didn't want to see any blood shed over the incident. It is possible that he was convinced because the union refused his offered 30% increase. I'm not saying your source is wrong, but I don't see any proof that both sources aren't right on the issue.

ReformCollege · Feb 24, 2013

Bonzai said:
I doubt the sincerity. Off topic, have you seen Atlas Shrugged II ?...........................

Well, Republican states like Arizona are the ones with a reputation for trying to restrict illegal immigrants and are the ones calling for more border security and deportations.

j-mac · Feb 25, 2013

Okay, we are a little far into the weeds here. Listen, the bottom line is that Dr. Carson outlined an alternative view to Obama's agenda, and what was the fall out for that? He (Dr. Carson) was ripped in the liberal media.

Nothing new here, a conservative, or free market African American speaks out, and is immediately attacked.

Travis007 · Feb 25, 2013

I love Dr Ben Carson... God Bless him..