• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

Correct. But it shows clearly that 33% of folks searching "smartphone" bought either an iPhone 4 for $549 or an iPhone 5 for $649. So you're either misinformed or lying about the price of an iPhone 5 at Walmart.

Oh, damn! You've caught me. I even had WalMart put those phones on display at those prices to cover it up.
You do know the difference between the contract price and the full price, don't you? And, how would I be lying if those people bought an iPhone 4 or 5? And that covers your mistake on the price of the Samsung S4 in what way?
I think you should have used the iPods as an example, since they usually sell for more than competitor's equivalents. Of course, you still would have to correct the rest of your post, but it would have been one less thing wrong.
 
This makes no sense. Demand at every price point will, over time, equal the supply at that price point.

For the moment I shall assume that you are so brilliant compared to us mere mortals that we just cannot fathom your statements.

Pure supply-side (Field of Dreams) nonsense. Making a product does not create demand for it, resulting in a customer with money materializing out of thin air.

The market is what it is, and businesses vie for a share of it; they do not grow it in any way other than paying their workers more. In short, every business depends on one of two things, or often both: what other companies pay their workers; what government buys.

If businesses could create markets simply by opening a business, they'd flock to virgin wealth-creating nirvanas like Sierra Leone. But they of course do not create wealth, and only expand into markets with customer-prospects who have money to spend that they hope to get a piece of before some other company does.
 
I'm guessing that, in the liberal bizzaro mind, other ways to grow the economy are unemployment payments, welfare, Santa Clause, and the Tooth Fairy. Oh, brother. That's why we've had 4+ years of malaise.
 
I'm guessing that, in the liberal bizzaro mind, other ways to grow the economy are unemployment payments, welfare, Santa Clause, and the Tooth Fairy. Oh, brother. That's why we've had 4+ years of malaise.

Yes.

UE payments: put money in people's hands which they spend into the economy, which is a form of redistribution aiding the vital redistributive effect.

Welfare: ditto

Santa Clause: way more economically vital than the Pagan come Christian take on it. The retail sector depends on it like nothing else.

Tooth fairy: could be, if the child spends the money instead of the parent hoarding it; if merely one spending it vice the other, then economically, it's moot. Zero sum gain.
 
Doesn't a "laborer" set their wage, in effect, when they decide to accept a job at a certain rate or not? Of course they do.


Why bother asking a question if you answer yourself? Seems a little unbalanced to me. The answer is no.

When 3.6 million people are going after 100k jobs, no one has the luxury of "deciding" to take a job or not. If your delusion were actual, you wouldn't have tens of thousands of former middle management and skilled workers taking part-time, low wage jobs.

The contractor has a pool of potential customers to choose from... Job seekers do not have a pool of job offers to choose from. So the profit only motivated companies have every incentive to force labor wages down.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the assistance from some politician. The left always seems to forget the consequences of their actions. That "assistance" will also eliminate jobs for others. Not such great assistance after all.

Christ... political memory in this country is only as long as the convenience of the argument. The minimum wage has been raised many times over the years, and each time, this tired old fear inducing argument is trotted out. The rise in minimum wage has never been a significant factor in unemployment. Either you are ignorant and don't know this, or you assume others are and won't call you on it. The jobs being "proposed" were never there to be lost or eliminated. Yet tens of thousands will gain the ability to earn enough to save so that they can create opportunities for themselves and their children, contribute more to the consumer economy, and save, "conserve" for their future and retirement.

Also, I will bet you a Walmart greeters annual wages that Walmart builds the stores anyway if not immediately, then within five years.

As you can see at the start of the thread, WalMart has gone elsewhere, as they respond to foolish political decisions that influence the market.

I don't call raising the ability for thousands to go from assistance and subsistence towards middle class a foolish decision.

If you're inferring I'm on the left... your talking-head worship has clouded your judgement. I'm a traditional conservative... not this talking point, new fangled BS that passes for conservatism today. The root of conservative is... CONSERVE... to protect the future with values based in morals learned in the past.

Your response is typical of everything that's wrong with today's fraudulent conservatism. They go on and on about how this country was founded on christian principles, and that they are the custodians and champions of those principles. They harp on and on about how human life is the most precious of all things. Does that end with birth? Life... is time. This is NOT a commodity. It is the most valuable (though arguably the most wasted) thing each of us has, regardless of status or social standing.. it's sacred in a sense.

The moral and ethical conservatism that was handed down to me from g.grandfather, g.father and father is that there is a moral sense of pride in paying your employees well, not the least you can get away with under the law... in providing for their retirement, healthcare and families. These ethics produce strong companies and diehard loyal employees.

There is a deep contradiction between modern conservative rhetoric and it's claimed christian morals and ethics. Treating employees a little more than beasts of burden is anathema to values such as strengthening family, creating upward mobility and being a good citizen of the community.

One of the tyrannies we sought to escape in the 800 path to the establishment of rights is freedom from serfdom.
 
Seems to me that if the Bill is passed, it should be thrown out as being one of those rare and seldom heard about anymore Bills of Attainder
 
Pure supply-side (Field of Dreams) nonsense. Making a product does not create demand for it, resulting in a customer with money materializing out of thin air.

The market is what it is, and businesses vie for a share of it; they do not grow it in any way other than paying their workers more. In short, every business depends on one of two things, or often both: what other companies pay their workers; what government buys.

If businesses could create markets simply by opening a business, they'd flock to virgin wealth-creating nirvanas like Sierra Leone. But they of course do not create wealth, and only expand into markets with customer-prospects who have money to spend that they hope to get a piece of before some other company does.
It is not the product by itself that creates the demand. It is supplying a range of products to cover a variety of price points. I might not buy one at 100 dollars but will buy two at $75.

It seems you are only partially educated.
 
Yes.

UE payments: put money in people's hands which they spend into the economy, which is a form of redistribution aiding the vital redistributive effect.

Welfare: ditto

Santa Clause: way more economically vital than the Pagan come Christian take on it. The retail sector depends on it like nothing else.

Tooth fairy: could be, if the child spends the money instead of the parent hoarding it; if merely one spending it vice the other, then economically, it's moot. Zero sum gain.
Have you never read Bastiat?

LOL.
 
If you're inferring I'm on the left... your talking-head worship has clouded your judgement. I'm a traditional conservative... not this talking point, new fangled BS that passes for conservatism today. The root of conservative is... CONSERVE... to protect the future with values based in morals learned in the past.

Your response is typical of everything that's wrong with today's fraudulent conservatism. They go on and on about how this country was founded on christian principles, and that they are the custodians and champions of those principles. They harp on and on about how human life is the most precious of all things. Does that end with birth? Life... is time. This is NOT a commodity. It is the most valuable (though arguably the most wasted) thing each of us has, regardless of status or social standing.. it's sacred in a sense.

The moral and ethical conservatism that was handed down to me from g.grandfather, g.father and father is that there is a moral sense of pride in paying your employees well, not the least you can get away with under the law... in providing for their retirement, healthcare and families. These ethics produce strong companies and diehard loyal employees.

There is a deep contradiction between modern conservative rhetoric and it's claimed christian morals and ethics. Treating employees a little more than beasts of burden is anathema to values such as strengthening family, creating upward mobility and being a good citizen of the community.

One of the tyrannies we sought to escape in the 800 path to the establishment of rights is freedom from serfdom.
I am not intending to be contentious but it does not appear that you are a traditional conservative in any way that I would recognize it. It seems you are more of a statist.

Conservatism, as I recognize it, means supporting ethical government (meaning the governed give consent) that is limited in what it is allowed to do by a written, adhered to Constitution.

Perhaps you should stick to the label you provided, "Other".
 
I am not intending to be contentious but it does not appear that you are a traditional conservative in any way that I would recognize it. It seems you are more of a statist.

Conservatism, as I recognize it, means supporting ethical government (meaning the governed give consent) that is limited in what it is allowed to do by a written, adhered to Constitution.

Perhaps you should stick to the label you provided, "Other".

Minimum wage, nor wages in general are not covered in the constitution. This, as far as I can see, is a local issue. Correct? Do I really need to spell the rest out?

I am willing to bet that the 50% of the population being pushed out of the middle class, or already out of it, or never were in it, would give their consent quite readily. You may not...
 
Minimum wage, nor wages in general are not covered in the constitution. This, as far as I can see, is a local issue. Correct? Do I really need to spell the rest out?
Yes. Please do. Governments have no business interference in our economic affairs, one way or another. It is not part of governments role or charter. That gets me back to conservatism.

I am willing to bet that the 50% of the population being pushed out of the middle class, or already out of it, or never were in it, would give their consent quite readily. You may not...
Government is the cause of that. We are over taxed, over regulated and ruled without our consent. Your beliefs are not classical conservatism. They are thinly veiled progressivism.
 
Who, in this federal government, is an ultra-conservative? Conservatives believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions. Is an ultra-conservative someone who really, really believes it?

I was referring to corporate decision-makers who put the bottom-line profits of their companies ahead of what's good for the country. There's not many 'Made in the USA' labels on WalMart shelves.
 
Earlier I wrote, "Who, in this federal government, is an ultra-conservative? Conservatives believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions. Is an ultra-conservative someone who really, really believes it?"

I was referring to corporate decision-makers who put the bottom-line profits of their companies ahead of what's good for the country. There's not many 'Made in the USA' labels on WalMart shelves.
So you did not answer my question.

That is okay.

Businesses have an obligation to their owners and shareholders. Governments have an obligation to perform strictly in accordance with written constitutions (or charters). If government had not regulated so many businesses right out of the country we would still be making things here.

It is time for us to stand our ground against the non-stop encroachment of government into every facet of our lives. It is time to begin the fight to return this nation to the rule of law under a followed Constitution.
 
It is not the product by itself that creates the demand. It is supplying a range of products to cover a variety of price points. I might not buy one at 100 dollars but will buy two at $75.

It seems you are only partially educated.

Whether you purchase one, two or twelve of something for $75,demand ($75) increases exactly the same.
 
Since your negative reply concerned reading Bastiat, then I suspect Fred was intended.

I hate to assume. Perhaps the poster was speaking of The Law, but it's not clear that that was what he/she was referring to in his/her cheesy dodge. So if whining about everything as "plunder " is where the retard was going with that, why not just say that?
 
I hate to assume. Perhaps the poster was speaking of The Law, but it's not clear that that was what he/she was referring to in his/her cheesy dodge. So if whining about everything as "plunder " is where the retard was going with that, why not just say that?

"Retard" is a pejorative term not used in polite society.
 
Yes. Please do. Governments have no business interference in our economic affairs, one way or another. It is not part of governments role or charter. That gets me back to conservatism.

Over taxed? agreed. No business in economic affairs? Wrong. First, you are again blurring the line between federal charter and local/state. If you continue to fail to understand the difference, you will loose this debate. First, the federal gov't is charged with creating and regulating our monetary supply... is that not economic? Second, the federal gov't is charged with regulating interstate commerce. Is that not economic? Outside of that, those things enumerated in the constitution, all other facets fall under the direction of local and state. Your view is myopic opinion and nothing more. Preserving this construct IS conservative. Trying to alter it is PROGRESSIVE. I would say you are ignorant your own thin veil.

Government is the cause of that. We are over taxed, over regulated and ruled without our consent. Your beliefs are not classical conservatism. They are thinly veiled progressivism.

Right, because over regulation caused every financial meltdown in our history... oh wait... reverse that. Modern conservatives have been sold a false bill of goods in thinking ANY regulation is bad. It's not.

The foundations of the republican party were conservative (keeping the lessons and wisdom of the past) progressive (using that wisdom to advance social, financial and gov't).
 
Over taxed? agreed. No business in economic affairs?
Are we feeling pedantic today? Okay. Promoting the general welfare by establishing general rules for us all to live by is acceptable. One-hundred thousand pages of regulations covering every aspect of our existence is tyranny. The key word to consider is interference.

Wrong. First, you are again blurring the line between federal charter and local/state. If you continue to fail to understand the difference, you will loose this debate.
Nonsense. Other than broad, general rules to promote business no part of government has the right or the obligation to impose itself on businesses. It is clear that that with all of your School-Ma'arm charm that no general sweeping statements will do. We have gone well beyond any reasonable level of interference at every level from local through the states and especially at the federal level.

First, the federal gov't is charged with creating and regulating our monetary supply... is that not economic?
If it is promoting the general welfare it fits. When it goes beyond to propping up regimes to influence the outcome of elections it has moved toward tyranny.

Second, the federal gov't is charged with regulating interstate commerce. Is that not economic?
Again, when done for promoting the general welfare and to prevent the states from predatory behavior toward one another the federal government is within its rights. When it uses this power to regulate every facet of our lives then the federal government has gone way too far and the federal government needs to butt out.

Outside of that, those things enumerated in the constitution, all other facets fall under the direction of local and state.
This is why every level of government must be constrained by written and adhered to constitutions or charters. Governments do not have free reign to do whatever they want to to us. When they come to believe they do they must be corrected. When that is no longer possible the tyrants must be overthrown.

Your view is myopic opinion and nothing more. Preserving this construct IS conservative. Trying to alter it is PROGRESSIVE. I would say you are ignorant your own thin veil.
You are quite simply wrong. Preserving a tyrannical status quoe is not conservative. It is tyrannical. It is statist. Returning to limited government is conservative. Perhaps you are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Tyranny, statism, liberalism, progressivism all fit your intent.

Right, because over regulation caused every financial meltdown in our history... oh wait... reverse that. Modern conservatives have been sold a false bill of goods in thinking ANY regulation is bad. It's not.
Why do you feel the need to make so many false statements? Are you insecure? Our government first causes the problem and then rides in to fix it setting the stage for even worse conditions in the future.

The foundations of the republican party were conservative (keeping the lessons and wisdom of the past) progressive (using that wisdom to advance social, financial and gov't).
Mush.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom