Why is 2014 cherry picked?
I was just using 2014 as an example because Conservatives warned, at the time, that those wage increases would lead to job loss, when the exact opposite occurred. Those 13 states all had higher job growth rates than the 37 states that didn't raise wages. These are facts.
Nine of those states raise the minimum every year. What if 2013 was a drop for them, and they caught back up in 2014?
They raise it according to inflation. And those nine states all saw better job growth than the ones who didn't raise wages at all. That's the point.
We have 2016 numbers now, so I hope you understand my suspicions. A single years doesn't mean squat. That is the 5 or 10 years trend?
What do the 2016 numbers have to do with it? And what are those numbers. Did the 13 states that raised their minimum wage in 2014 still have stronger job growth in the two years following vs. states that didn't? Why yes, they did. This game of "it's too early to tell" is one Conservatives play when they know their position is BS. Like Brownback, who claimed that his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline" into the KS economy. Here we are, almost 5 years later, and we're still waiting for that adrenaline to kick in. So no, I reject you moving the goalposts. You guys are the ones who scream that the sky is falling whenever anyone talks of a minimum wage increase. And as always, you guys are wrong.
For you, because they are the villains the pundits tell you to hate. Their dogma is filled with cherry picked examples for you to use. Sure, some truth is said, and they are not a good place to work. So? What is it with this silly notion that anyone is entitled to an easy life?
If you're not even going to debate with me, why respond? All this does is make you look like you have to get the last word in because of whatever internal thing you got going on in your own head. It doesn't seem like you really understand what "cherry picking" means. I am not leaning on pundits for my position, I'm leaning on the facts. The facts show that Walmart costs US taxpayers as much as $6B/year in welfare because they pay such low wages. But you could substitute many companies for Walmart, and you'd see the same thing. I don't know why you think anyone is entitled to an easy life. It seems to me that life didn't turn out the way you thought it would, and you have resentment about that because you were promised an American Dream and it turned out to not be that at all. If you want to hear about whiny, lazy, self-entitled brats, look no further than the "me" generation that brought us tropes like "trickle down" and "greed is good". You know what happened to Michael Douglas' character at the end of that movie?
Because Walmart is a very old argument.
Well, *I've* only been making this argument for a few months. So if you've heard it before, why haven't you bothered to reconcile it? Instead you regurgitate words in the hopes that the conversation will just fatigue and you don't have to be held responsible for what you say, think, or do. And that's childish, dude. Walmart made $14B in profit last year. Walmart workers cost taxpayers $6B. So please explain to me how we aren't subsidizing 43% of Walmart's profits by providing welfare to their low-wage workers?
They would cost more if they didn't have a job.
So they should be thankful that Walmart leeches off the taxpayers, and forces their low-wage workers into welfare where people like you stigmatize them for it? Now that's some circular reasoning if I've ever heard it...
I only do that with people ignorant on a topic
No, it seems like you do it to people who are doggedly on you to accept responsibility for what you say, think, believe, and do.
