FAO Americans - michelle bachmann

R22QI.jpg
 
These politicians that are all rich, don't have a clue about everyday life for poorer folks.

I don't even know how people can afford to live on the minimum wage, in the UK or the US.
As for Maggy, She may have snatched our milk, but don't mess with our Islands.
 
[TW]Fox;19466610 said:
Your experience of what, being 7 years old when she was forced out of power?
Click to expand...

While it's nice you've looked at my profile to check my age the comment I was responding to was about the impressions and opinions gained from speaking to people in their 40s or above about Mrs Thatcher's time in power. It has nothing to do with my personal opinions of the Iron Lady, nor indeed have I expressed any in this thread.

But since you're asking I have queried people about Mrs Thatcher's time as PM subsequent to being 7 years old and the opinions have been varied but largely negative, that may have something to do with location though as I understand that for some people she was the next best thing after loaves coming pre-cut.
 
She has not got a hope in hell of being the next republican candidate let alone the next President.

She is the Baby Palin, as she is referred to in the US press.
 
but that CO2 comment isn't that far from the truth (in the context of global warming, which btw is now global cooling...)
 
''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." Michelle Bachmann.

She must have a huge supply of tin foil.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Or that you were just asking people who would naturally confirm your bias.
Click to expand...

It may have been confirmation bias and thank you for the link in case I didn't know what it is. However why do you not equally highlight it to the chap whose post I was responding to? It isn't only people that you disagree with who may be subject to it.

It should have been obvious but since it appears it was not, the point was that it depends who you ask so was merely a counterpoint to cm1179's comment which he appears to have accepted fine.

Hatter The Mad said:
Why, then, do all major UK parties accept the necessity of the Thatcherite period and broadly support its underlying economics?
Click to expand...

Would this be an appeal to authority by any chance? It's also a non-sequitur while we're at it. Experience of speaking to (multiple) people and their opinions on someone/something does not necessarily equate to it agreeing with any popular viewpoint or indeed one coming from figures of authority.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
The minimum wage in this country came in at the expense of 100,000s of jobs.
Click to expand...

Source? I've read a fair bit on the topic in the past and I've not seen anything which corresponds to your claim. Surely if the NMW had such a devastating impact as your figure suggests, why has it been rated upwards numerous times since?
 
Floogie said:
Source? I've read a fair bit on the topic in the past and I've not seen anything which corresponds to your claim. Surely if the NMW had such a devastating impact as your figure suggests, why has it been rated upwards numerous times since?
Click to expand...
I should have explained better. It wasn't devastating in our case, but more so hampering. In the UK rather than destroying huge numbers of existing jobs, it slowed down the growth of them.

So looking at it very simplistically, the net result is we have fewer but perhaps better paid jobs... but is this negated by the fact the economy has grown at a slower pace because there were fewer with regular incomes, or has it concentrated the wealth in particular localities, has it hampered the growth of small companies (etc, etc).

Whether or not it destroys jobs is contentious - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences

How bad the net result of having fewer jobs but possibly high paid jobs is also contentious.

Personally I think I'd like to see a reduced or no minimum wage and a fair, more simple universal welfare payment to 'top up' incomes to appropriate levels (like a negative income tax).
 
Last edited:
Hatter The Mad said:
Personally I think I'd like to see a reduced or no minimum wage and a fair, more simple universal welfare payment to 'top up' incomes to appropriate levels (like a negative income tax).
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that there are many bosses who would employ people and pay them £3 per hour if the welfare payments topped their wages up to £6. So you would end up with the government funding just used to make extra profits.

You may as well pay every employer £7500 per annum for every new employee they take on.........
 
Greebo said:
The only problem with that is that there are many bosses who would employ people and pay them £3 per hour if the welfare payments topped their wages up to £6. So you would end up with the government funding just used to make extra profits.
Click to expand...
Ultimately the bosses would pay the market price based on supply and demand for work.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Ultimately the bosses would pay the market price based on supply and demand for work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right . . . . In an idealistic world perhaps. Plenty of places pay less than the going rate for shiftwork / hourly rate, and people still go there. They are not long term workers, but these companies have enough people coming and going that they still get the work done, and undercut the competitors. Making themselves more money. Why would they then pay people more?
 
PhillyDee said:
Yeah, right . . . . In an idealistic world perhaps. Plenty of places pay less than the going rate for shiftwork / hourly rate, and people still go there. They are not long term workers, but these companies have enough people coming and going that they still get the work done, and undercut the competitors. Making themselves more money. Why would they then pay people more?
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is... they're paying the market price for the labour? It doesn't matter what the attrition is - if it didn't pay enough, no one would work there. If it paid too much, no one would leave.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
So what you're saying is... they're paying the market price for the labour? It doesn't matter what the attrition is - if it didn't pay enough, no one would work there. If it paid too much, no one would leave.
Click to expand...

yeah but under your system they'd actually lower their pay and let the government pick up the slack, so the wage stays the same but now the taxpayer is paying it.
 
Tefal said:
yeah but under your system they'd actually lower their pay and let the government pick up the slack, so the wage stays the same but now the taxpayer is paying it.
Click to expand...

This. Because Hatter the Mad's idea has the wages topped up, there would be no market value of the job as employer's would pay as little as possible.

It would be just better for the government to just employ millions of people more in the civil service..............oh wait
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom