Minimum Wage

The Minimum Wage Harms the Most Vulnerable

How long will progressives get away with pretending to care about the poor?

|

Crocodile tears are flowing again for low-income people. In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour. A debate is shaping up between those who support the proposal and those who favor keeping the wage where it is today. But there are good grounds—for the sake of the poor—to repeal the minimum wage altogether.

Wages are not set by fiat, even in the U.S. economy, which is severely distorted by government privileges. Wages, rather, are determined by supply and demand. If the price of unskilled labor rises, why wouldn't employers buy less? No employer could long pay a worker more than the value he produced for the firm. That's why economic theory and empirical observation tell us that an enforced minimum wage destroys jobs, degrades the quality of other jobs, and prevents new jobs from being created.

The victims are the most vulnerable people in society: the unskilled. For the most part, these are young people (many from the middle class) without work experience. Few people over 24 make the minimum wage, and those who do usually move up before long. Young people desperately need that first job to learn skills and work habits, and of course income, but "progressive" politicians, whether they know it or not, favor policies that destroy entry-level jobs. Remember, the minimum-wage law doesn't create employment; it forbids jobs that pay too little.

Advocates of the minimum wage ought to explain why they believe competition among employers hasn't already bid up the wages of unskilled workers to reflect their productivity. How can anyone know that a $9 minimum won't throw people out of work or make low-skilled jobs more onerous? No one can know this because only the market process can generate and disclose such information. Nevertheless, "progressives" are willing to gamble with the lives of people who are vulnerable enough as it is.

Years ago, unskilled youth cleaned windshields and checked oil at gas stations, showed people to their seats in movie theaters, and bagged groceries. Many of those kinds of jobs disappeared as the minimum wage rose. Teenage unemployment, especially among blacks, has been a scandal ever since.

If the advocates of the minimum wage really cared about people with low skills and low incomes, they'd support elimination of the myriad government barriers to entrepreneurship and small-business formation, which keep people down. These include occupational licensing, restrictions on street peddling, and zoning, all of which make it tougher for people living on the edge to start up modest businesses and hire people in a similar predicament.

It's no coincidence that these government barriers to self-employment exist: Established firms, which are always well-connected to the governing elite, dislike the free-wheeling competition that would grow out of a laissez-faire approach. It threatens their dominance.

The failure to move against these poverty-sustaining interventions indicates either that the self-styled champions of the poor are ignorant of economics or that they are poseurs. Let's not forget that the biggest boosters of the minimum wage are the leaders of organized labor, whose members' incomes are far above the minimum. Before we assume the motive is humanitarian, let's recall that such legislation was first proposed years ago by people who wanted to exclude their competition—particularly blacks and women—from the marketplace.

Economist Russ Roberts points to another bad consequence of the minimum wage: It "encourages exploitation" of workers by creating a "reserve army of the unemployed," since a legislated minimum creates a labor surplus. Roberts writes,

Before the minimum wage, a cruel, selfish employer might have had to mentor his employees or train them or be nice to them despite his nature. Now he won't have to. He can still get workers to work for him. Even more cruelly, the minimum wage encourages workers to exploit themselves. They work harder and put up with more abuse from the boss because the minimum wage reduces the alternatives that are available.

Is this how unskilled workers should be treated? How long will so-called progressives get away with pretending they care about the poor when they continue to support measures that encourage their exploitation and continued poverty?

This article originally appeared at The Futre of Freedom Foundation.

NEXT: Receptionist Mistakes Fresh Prince Theme Song for Threat; School Goes Into Lockdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …but “progressive” politicians, whether they know it or not, favor policies that destroy entry-level jobs.

    Oh, they know it. This isn’t about protecting workers, this is about further securing the low information voter base that work low wage jobs.

    1. It’s also about keeping the union vote.

      1. “We’ve already established *that*, Madam. Now we’re merely haggling over the price.”

      2. It’s also about getting people addicted to government aid at an early age.

      3. The union vote is shrinking. It’s about getting the union money.

        Also, every person they can forcibly keep from employment is likely to vote their way in hopes that handouts will increase.

        -jcr

        1. Indeed, it’s been many years since the unions had anything to do with the interests of workers – if, in fact, they ever did.

          The unions today are nothing more than a fundraising arm of the Democratic Party.

          1. Kind of like the legacy media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic party.

          2. The unions today are nothing more than a fundraising arm of the Democratic Party.

            Its a money laundering scheme is what it is. That’s why they have taken over the public sector. That way they can funnel money from the tax payer to the union government workers who in turn pay union dues which are used to get elected. A bigger, more bloated government means more government workers making higher wages and paying ever increasing union dues. The cycle continues until these fuckers kill the golden goose just like they did to every other industry that was ever unionized.

          3. The unions today are nothing more than a fundraising arm of the Democratic Party.

            No, they’re also an organized crime operation that rob workers for the benefit of mobsters.

            -jcr

    2. Then Republicans should take advantage of the low-information voters’s low information….

      They should offer a counterproposal to Obama’s $9/hr, with an even higher wage floor, say $9.50, but exempt people under 25, and allow employers to pay $8.00/hr for the first 6 months and $8.50 under one year. The low-information voter doesn’t know the vast majority of people working at the minimum wage are young people or people just starting at a job. They think it’s 40 year-olds trying to support their families. Then they could go around saying how much they “care” (even more than the Democrats!), while not screwing with the labor market.

      1. But Republicans are stupid.

      2. What do you have against graduate students? They get out in the real word for the first time around the age of twenty six to twenty eight with a massive debt accumulated and fewer useful skills than a fifteen year old runaway with a pretty mouth.

        1. depends on what their degree is in. if they truly have fewer useful skills than a fifteen year old,then they made poor decisions and should suffer the consequences. most probably do come out with useful skills. and make much higher than min wage

      3. Eh, the Dems would just sell the initially lower payments as part of some evil Republican plot to undermine the minimum wage increase. Because they’re Republicans, meaning they must have evil intentions.

        1. But it won’t sell, and if it doesn’t sell it’ll backfire. Low-information isn’t stupid (it’s rational). Nobody cares if somebody makes less for 6 months, so emotional appeals to pity will flatline. Republicans can just say they want a higher wage floor, but their idea prevents unemployment (it will), which shows they care even more than Obama.

          1. Those in favor of the minimum wage will simply argue that with a two-tier minimum wage evul KKKorporaishunz will lay off high wage older employes in order to hire lower wage younger employees.

            1. which is why they do that now, right? of course, if they do that right now, those older employees would already be laid off.

      4. only if the Republicans really wanted to be a wing of the Democrat party.

    3. Well, it’s like the “feminist” (I use it in quotes here because Jezebel and feministing and the like shouldn’t get to own a word just because they are so stupid, though at this point it is a bit like the word “liberal”) solution to the wage gap: Make it easier for females to sue their employers.

      Which in turns means less women hired, which in turns means that the wage gap grows, which in turn call for laws making it even easier to sue.

      And all the while, with less women getting job despite working hard, getting degrees, etc. it becomes easier to convince women as a group that some horrible oppressive societal force (in this case “patriarchy”) is holding them down and that they must support the feminists and the laws they propose.

      And you can sub in any racial minority or economically disadvantaged group you want. And when you look at it like this, it is hard to believe that every feminist, or every race hustler, or every proverty activist (what are they called?) is just having the wooled pulled over their eyes by “intentions”. Some have to know.

      1. And when you look at it like this, it is hard to believe that every feminist, or every race hustler, or every proverty activist (what are they called?) is just having the wooled pulled over their eyes by “intentions”.

        Of course not, the dynamic is ideological Marxist elitists at the top manipulating useful idiots at the bottom, to position themselves as the ruling class. So ideological liberals just have to get better at the game than they are. Democracy is a business, and the low-information voters are the raw materials. Whoever exploits them in the most useful way wins. You can’t be idealistic about it, because they’re not going to be.

        1. Exactly. The stagnatists love to pretend to be progressive despite the fact that the actual outcomes of their policies are as regressive as it gets.

    4. I posted this elsewhere but I think it’s worth reminding since this comment taken from Huffpo is what we’re up against. It was in response to a business owner who had concerns about minimum wages:

      “You just made a great point that you ARE greedy, don’t care about poor people (nor understand what it’s like to be in that position), that you think McCarthyism was a good thing, and that bragging about your business owner credentials means anything to the average person. Those days are done pal, go back to your boardroom and brag there. The average American doesn’t like people like you. Wake up dude, owning a business isn’t that impressive, it’s more of a liability these days (and don’t spew out more numbers without citing sources to try to show us how smart you are, anybody can do that), . Helping the greater good is what the American people want, which you obviously do not care about.”

      What I don’t get is business owners who SUPPORT forced higher taxes and wages. I’ve read some who assert “if you can’t handle the increases then you shouldn’t be in business.”

      I’m in business and simply don’t understand this.

      1. Rufus, you made that up. No way someone actually wrote that. You stole that out of Atlas Shrugged didnt you? I dont remember it specifically, but it is so much a parody of the looter’s thinking that that has to be it.

        Ok, my sarcasm isnt helping me and I am about to break into tears.

        Goddammit, we are fucked.

        1. One could hope that most Huffpo commenters who hold such opinions will eventually grow up.

          However, there’s also the growing boomer demographic which views it SS checks and Medicare as earned entitlements, and which will resist any attempt to upset their status quo.

          Combine the greedy geezer demographic with the clueless youth demographic, add in the terminally clueless fraction of those between 25 and 50, and, yes, the whole concept of limited government is well and truly screwed by the democratic process.

      2. You just made a great point that you ARE greedy…

        Holy fuckity fuck! Was the guy’s moniker James Taggart by any chance?

        1. I sat there reading it stunned as others encouraged this crap.

          I wanted to help out the guy but really, at some point you just have to bail and leave it alone.

          I wish SB, I wish I came up with that.

          1. I’ve posted in the comments on about a dozen different sites, and HuffPos commentariat is easily the most brain-dead. It’s one giant echo chamber for progressives to scream hyperbole and mentally masturbate each other.

      3. What a disgusting comment. A few years ago I got the chance to show some Britons around the US for the first time, and one of the things they remarked on as being different was that people resented the successful so much less here. Well, maybe it’s just me, but sometimes I really get the feeling that a culture of envy has really come into vogue.

        ” that bragging about your business owner credentials means anything to the average person. Those days are done pal, go back to your boardroom and brag there. The average American doesn’t like people like you. Wake up dude, owning a business isn’t that impressive,”

        I can just see the mental image this guy has of some 10-employee small business that also has a marble-tabled boardroom where the execs are all smoking cigars, drinking champagne and eating caviar. Yeah. Sure.

        What I don’t get is business owners who SUPPORT forced higher taxes and wages. I’ve read some who assert “if you can’t handle the increases then you shouldn’t be in business.”

        I’m in business and simply don’t understand this.

        Oh, trust me, this is totally understandable. Have your cake and eat it too by earning adulation from useful idiots by taking anti-capitalist stances while raking in the dough rent-seeking and raising the barrier to entry for new businesses.

        1. France has a culture of envy.

          1. France created the most advanced culture the world has ever known. So maybe they’re onto something.

            1. You can have both advanced culture and braindead economic policies that cause 20%+ unemployment. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is this the ideal mix of culture and policies.

              “Most advanced”?

              1. High unemployment is less worrisome if a strong social safety net is in place.

                1. Low unemployment with private charity is WAAY better than high unemployment plus the government running “strong social safety nets” to try to ameliorate the consequences of their bad policies.

                2. Ah, yes.. The welfare faeries will take care of everyone, no need to worry about the production lost because people are idled by brain-dead minimum wage laws.

                  Maybe if people like you get your way we can all live at the same squalid level that the Cubans settle for.

                  -jcr

                3. Re: Tony,

                  High unemployment is less worrisome if a strong social safety net is in place.

                  That is, if you have enough fools sustaining it.

                  The problem starts when you run out of fools, Tony – precisely what happened in Greece and is going to happen in France.

                4. A strong social safety net backed by a govt that’s not swimming in red ink is less worrisome than… ah, fuck it. You know what I’m saying.

                5. high unemployment is less worrisome for if you can use the government to steal from those who are not unemployed.

                  Seriously, unemployment insurance just perpetuates unemployment. for instance, i work at a union shop and we have had a layoff going for several months now. guys who are laid off know that if things turn around they will have their job back, but instead of going out and finding another job with better job security, they just collect unemployment (which often is more than they make when business is slow) and go on vacation or sit on their porch and drink beer. You’re telling me that those people deserve to be subsidized by me while i continue to work hard?

            2. Tony| 3.3.13 @ 3:56PM |#
              “France created the most advanced culture the world has ever known”

              Yeah, shithead, for ignorant, lazy turds like you.

              1. Yes it’s only ignorant lazy turds who enjoy the best food and fashion. Clearly American corporate-style McDonaldsification is improving France. Yay capitalism.

                1. Tony| 3.3.13 @ 4:51PM |#
                  “Yes it’s only ignorant lazy turds who enjoy the best food and fashion.”

                  Yes, lazy turd, sorta like Louis Nth? Helping the downtrodden, right, shithead?

                2. The “best food and fashion”?

                  Tony, the Chinese were cooking the best food in the world when the French were still swinging from trees by their tails. The only reason people believe the french know anything about cooking is that they tend to get compared to the brits.

                  As for fashion, the Italians have them beat, hands down, and that’s been the case ever since they were Romans and Gauls.

                  -jcr

                  1. To Tony, the ‘best food’ is food cooked coercively for the greater good, and the best fashion is whatever your ration card will buy.

                  2. Don’t forget, it was the Italians who taught the French a lot too in cooking. The court of Catherine de Medici – L’Italienne – introduced pastry, and other foods that were to become hall marks of French cuisine. In fact, the Italians were using utensils and table cloths (which elicited sneers from the French) long before French haute cuisine.

                    I once had a German political science professor who was a philosopher proclaim in class, “Italy is a first rate civilization of extreme excellence.”

                    So yes, China and Italy ahead of France in my view. Nothing against France, outstanding culture in its own right.

                    But Tony shows his utter ignorance (and arrogance) again. His social safety net argument is bull shit. French social issues are in a state of chaos and youth unemployment so severe social safety nets will do absolutely nothing to calm people.

                    At some point, pride has to return to the people I reckon.

                    1. Don’t forget, it was the Italians who taught the French a lot too in cooking.

                      You know, one other thing I will never understand is why French cheeses are so vile. There are countries all around them that make excellent cheese, from Italian mozzarella to dutch gouda, and the French are eating runny blue mold!

                      -jcr

                3. Tony is beyond parody. France has done nothing of value for world culture since the Eiffel Tower and mid-60s French New Wave cinema.

                  They’re like the rest of Europe. They expect us to be impressed by cool shit they did in 1847. France is hardly the nation of Alexis De Tocqueville anymore, Tony.

                  1. Quick, Tony. What’s the most common second language in the world? Because probably the best indicator of cultural importance is whose language the rest of the world chooses to learn. It tells you which country other nations feel the need to communicate with.

                    The answer? English by far. That’s because America and England have actually been culturally and economically important on a world wide scale. The only people who care about French culture are pretentious, Eurocentric goons.

                    1. Irish| 3.3.13 @ 6:07PM |#
                      “Quick, Tony.”
                      Now, cut that out, Irish! Not fair!

                    2. I think Britain (including Scotland) is arguably the single most influential country in history. And that’s saying a lot with Ancient Greece, Rome/Italy and China in the picture as well as Germany, France, and the USA.

                4. Tony| 3.3.13 @ 4:51PM |#
                  “Yes it’s only ignorant lazy turds who enjoy the best food and fashion. Clearly American corporate-style McDonaldsification is improving France. Yay capitalism.”

                  Shithead seems to have left the building, but this deserves comment.
                  OK, raise your hand: Who has been to France and *hasn’t* stood in a line to get a Mikey Ds after getting tired of, oh the French interpretation of “lunch sandwich”?
                  Strange that the folks in that line seems to speak French, isn’t it?

                  1. I’ve been to France, and did not go to McDonalds. Fortunately, there’s no shortage of Indian, Moroccan, Chinese, and Italian food in Paris.

                    -jcr

            3. American culture has long since surpassed the French.

              1. But Zeb, American culture actually gives people things that people want, like cheap food and goods that are useful to their day to day lives. France culture has produced high fashion that only a fringe group of 0.005% of the population could possibly care about.

                Clearly producing things that only rich people can enjoy is the epitome of culture. Yet again, Tony proves that he, and progressives like him, have a deep rooted and unyielding hatred of poor people.

            4. Re: Tony,

              France created the most advanced culture the world has ever known.

              No, it had the hippest aristocracy in the world, but when it came to most things, France was pretty backward. Which is why Germany kicked their collective arses in 1870 and 1940.

            5. Yeah. Try starting a business in Senegal. No one wants to hire anybody because you can’t fire anybody. Not to mention you have to bribe all the local and regional politicians.

            6. Huh? Most advanced? Based on what exactly? The Tony Index? I spend a lot of time studying history. I mean a shit load; even visit France and Italy often. Bagged me a degree in it as well and I can’t bring myself to say that.

              Italy, Germany and Britain are EQUAL to the task in Europe.

              1. And for the record, because they’re ‘advanced’ doesn’t mean they know something the rest of us don’t.

                I highly doubt it. Pay closer attention to France. Major, MAJOR economic and societal issues.

                1. Tony played you guys like he made you and he knows your circuitry inside and out. He wanted to see you rag on the French. It wasn’t a French guy coming to the forum and bragging on his culture and putting down yours. It was Tony.

                  I have a business associate I haven’t seen in years but we still e-mail regularly. I would describe him as being unassuming, unpretentious, and too sophisticated to be anti-American. How representative is he I don’t know. He did take a two year job here and that is how we met, but still, don’t give in to Tony when he pulls that shit. Just ignore his ignorant ass.

                  1. I don’t see it as ragging on the French. We’re ragging on his assertion about the French. French history speaks for itself; although what philosopher (politician?) once said, “French history and Italian women were over rated?”

        2. I know that’s all that my boss and I do. You know, besides beating the orphans while our manservants polish out monocles.

          1. got a groupon for baby seal clubbing in a couple weeks. care to partake?

      4. What I don’t get is business owners who SUPPORT forced higher taxes and wages. I’ve read some who assert “if you can’t handle the increases then you shouldn’t be in business.”

        If your business can handle the payroll hike, but your competition can’t, it makes perfect sense to get the government to put your competition out of business.

      5. those who assert “if you can’t handle the increases then you shouldn’t be in business” just told you why they support forced higher taxes and wages.

        It will also force competitors out of business. They know they can handle it and they know others can’t. They don’t want other businesses underbidding them, but they can’t force those other businesses to shut down themselves, so they use the govt as a tool to force unsustainable overheads on their competitors.

  2. How can anyone know that a $9 minimum won’t throw people out of work or make low-skilled jobs more onerous?

    That’s the point – it’s not about knowing if an idea is good, raising the minimum is an article of faith among liberals, just like a tenet of any other religion.

    1. article of faith among liberals

      I’ve thought long and hard about this. It’s not just min wage but pretty much all facets of left wing economic policy. On the face of it, one would have to say they are EITHER stupid or evil.

      Lefty politicians either cannot grasp simple concepts OR they can and are knowingly promoting concepts that actually hurt people to seize and maintain power. I’m not sure which is worse.

      The lefty voter is a different matter, as I cannot imagine they would intentionally vote for something not in their best interest. They seem incapable of grasping anything beyond first order consequences, e.g. if the minimum wage earner is struggling, increase his wage. They cannot grasp that doing so has the second order consequence of eliminating entry level jobs. How can they not?

      They must be either unwilling or unable. They are either too lazy to think about the causal relationships created by an action or they are just too fucking stupid to realize second order consequences exist. As far as I know, there is no scientific data to show a lower intelligence level of left vs right, so I wonder if whatever makes people leftys also inhibits their ability to foresee second order consequences?

      1. I would go with 90, 95% stupid being exploited by the evil 10% who miss the loss of noble privilege and the divine right of kings.

      2. FdA I have been saying this since captain zero ran in 08. My attempts to explain this to lefties, almost verbatim the way you just did, meets with blank stares.

        I am gonna say that Goldwater is right on the money with regards to this.

      3. I mostly agree, but I don’t think this is specific to progressives. You could just as easily be talking about drug prohibition or overseas military intervention.

        I think it’s more accurate to say that people in general are bad at foreseeing second order consequences. I assume most politicians know better, but you don’t win votes with nuance and complexity.

      4. I seriously doubt that IQ is normally distributed among the left. My own anecdotal experience is that quite a few highly intelligent people subscribe to the left’s agenda. Intelligent leftists break down into two categories: 1) those who can achieve more by political means than they can by economic means, and 2) those who have a deep understanding of Marxist or another leftist theory and actually believe it. Group 2 is much smaller than Group 1.

        The vast majority of leftists in my observation neither understand or care about theory, but believe that government has the responsibility to assume the role that daddy, mommy, and Santa Claus did in their childhood. And, if daddy, mommy, or Santa Claus weren’t particularly nice during their childhood, government needs to make up for that, too.

        I strongly suspect that the distribution of IQ among leftists is bimodal, but must admit that this just conjecture based upon anecdotal experience.

        1. On the face of it, one would have to say they are EITHER stupid or evil.

          Why can’t they be both?

        2. A peer of mine is in group 2. Smartest guy I know in engineering but is a hardcore progressive. I have chats with him and try to explain the idea of individuals vs “society”. It is such an alien concept to him.

          He once told me that nobody should earn more than $200,000/year because that is a lot of money and nobody needs anymore. I was at a loss for words.

          1. Nuked, I know people like that too.

            It often follows or precedes, “how big does your house have to be?” and “why do you need an expensive car?’

            Presumptuous and projecting pieces of shits.

            It’s none of your business THAT’S WHY!

      5. For progs, I think it is more about using emotions rather than logic to arrive at policies. You can be quite smart and still arrive at horrendous outcomes if you operate like that.

    2. “How can anyone know that a $9 minimum won’t throw people out of work or make low-skilled jobs more onerous?”

      If only we could look back at history and see what effect….

      Where is that slimy thieving dipshit Tony to tell us that we are all wealth apologists?

  3. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with those punches.

    http://www.GoAnon.da.bz

  4. Ah, minimum wage. The opposite end of the “people should only make X profits” fiscal policy.

    I mean, why not a $40/hr minimum wage? If you’re going to be economically illiterate, you might as well go full retard.

    1. Why not have a country of millionaires? Everyone should get a $100,000 bonus based on how many decades they’ve managed to stay alive. Ten years old, get $100,000, Twenty years old, get $200,000. Thirty years old, get $300,000. Forty years old, get $400,000. And so on…

      1. “…since we decided to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have all of course become immensely rich. But we have run into a small inflation problem…”

        It was funny when I thought it couldn’t happen in reality.

        1. I’m pretty sure there was an episode of Duck Tales where Scrooge ran into a similar problem. If a cartoon sold this to 7 year olds a decade ago, yet 20- and 30- somethings now can’t figure it out, we’re in some deep shit.

          1. Duck Tales is probably funded by the Kochtopus.

      2. Why not have a country of millionaires?

        Why are you such a chincy bastard?! I think that we should have a country of billionaires. I have literally read Leftists claiming that the idea that money was limited was a myth and that the government can print up as much as they want.

        Think how stimulated the economy would be if the government mailed every man, woman and child in the country a check for $1,000,000,000!!!

        1. Cheap ass…..

          Why not 1,000,000,000,000 and HSR/UHC for every one!?!?!

        2. I have in my possession of the 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar bill. That’s inflation.

        3. Zimbabwe was a country of quintillionaires, but all that wealth didn’t make them happy..

          -jcr

  5. Either the minimum wage is high enough to throw people out of work and retard job creation or it is below the wage floor determined by market forces and is relatively moot.

    What I see is that the minimum wage advocated is a tacit admission of what today’s dollar is worth. In the mid ’80’s minimum wage was around $3, then $9 is equivalent in 2013. That’s how badly the government has debauched the currency in about thirty years.

    1. I have a simplistic observation. Wages have more or less stagnated but people aren’t necessarily earning less.

      In Canada the lower income earners pay less taxes(progressive taxes that is) and in the States sounds as though half the country doesn’t even pay taxes.

      So can it be it’s the cost of everything else that’s gone up? Notably taxes and other areas where the government is involved? I mean all this ethanol garbage is driving food prices up, no? That gives the impression people can’t make ends meet.

      1. Well, the stat is that 47% of Americans pay no net income taxes. So any number of them do send a chunk of their monthly income to the feds- they just get it all back in refunds.

        I think that’s why the fact that close to half of all Americans pay no net income tax hasn’t stuck. Most people look at that and go, “Bullshit, I pay plenty!” And they still do pay state and local, sales, and payroll taxes, and if they have automatic withholding, every month they see that 200 bucks or whatever was taken out of their paycheck and so even though they get it back, they FEEL like they’ve paid taxes.

  6. I got into a “discussion” on another forum, asking a simple question: if politicians brag, and everyone agrees, that raising the prices of imports discourages imports, and raising the prices of sinful goods reduces their consumption, what makes labor behave just the opposite, where raising its cost increases its consumption? And if it does, where does the figure $9.00 come from, why not $10 or $15 or $50?

    There were the usual capitalist pig responses, but all the semi-serious ones, every single one, were comparisons to the poverty line, or prevailing union wage, or median family wage. At first it was frustrating to not get any answers to that basic question, but then it became funnier and funnier, almost as if my repeated quotings of that basic question were invisible. Some got mad, saying I didn’t want to argue policy, and I responded that they were arguing wishes without any consideration as to whether their desired policy would help or harm their alleged constituents, which resulted in more name calling.

    One response finally quoted a bunch of Marxist crap claiming to prove that labor behaves the opposite of products in the market, but he never responded to the related question of why $10 or $15 or $50 wouldn’t do even more good and solve the recession and unemployment in one fell swoop.

    1. What people don’t get is if cost of doing business goes up that cost associated with the increase gets passed on to the consumer through higher prices.

      Sure, make the minimum wage $9. If I charge $30 at my daycare, I’ll charge $32 the next. I ain’t paying for it. My cost structure is set. I have to take care of my employees – that is, the sanctity of my business.

      But these days that makes me evil.

      Moreover, the same people (liberals) who incoherently make the case for higher min. wages, then complain about higher prices business charge.

      Hence, we’re greedy.

      Apparently, we just have to listen to what they say.

      That’s what makes THEM evil ignoramasuses. Or is it ignorami?

    2. You can’t treat labor as a commodity, man. Those are people we’re talking about. /hippie

  7. Holy shit.

    Gene Sperling is making the rounds, weeping piteously about the vicious, sweeping, massive frenzy of budget-slashing.

    Oh, the HUMANITY!

    1. You’re going to regret mocking him.

  8. Why do we need to raise the minimum wage when there’s no price inflation?

    1. Hey, uhm, you know… let me be clear… Let me say this about that… I would like to be clear… your shoe’s untied!

      *runs out of room*

    2. THAT is an outstanding question. Seriously, one of the best I’ve seen in a while.

      Good luck in getting a Chony Krugnuts or Shrieking Idiot to answer that one!

      1. Fuck you.

        I oppose the minimum wage altogether.

        1. Careful, assbeads, let’s keep it civil.

    3. “Why do we need to raise the minimum wage when there’s no price inflation?”

      To buy votes and pander to our base silly.

    4. Very astute question.

    5. Duh, to CAUSE inflation which we need to inflate away our trillions of debt.

  9. “…we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions…”

    Who said this?
    Van Jones? Anita Dunn? Nanny Pelosi? Katrina Vanden Hueval?

    1. Mike Godwin?

    2. “unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property”

      Why is it that the people who always slam materialism as being shallow are the same people who are hell bent on spreading material goods around “fairly”.

    3. I love that quote. I use it as the anti-Godwin.

    4. Der Fuhrer.

  10. Fuck you, ABC. Fuck Dennis Rodman, fuck George Stephanouplos, and fuck Kim Jong Un.

    1. Rodman comparing Kim Jong Un to Clinton was gold.

      1. Kim Jong Un fucks fat chicks? That’s news to me. I would think that the baby god dictator would be able to get a higher class of groupie than that.

        -jcr

        1. There must be a limited supply of fat people in Korea.

          1. Correction: *North* Korea.

    2. I’d love to see the look on his face when his best friend for life gets tired of him and asks Dennis to stand on the X mark on the other side of the field.

      1. …a little to the left… a little bit more to the left…

        1. I just watched that again a few days ago.

  11. What the Fuck is up with Rodman being on This Week talking about how awesome it was hangin’ with Kim Jung Un.

    Sure his a bloodthirsty dicatate but he likes basketball and throws killer partaees and he’s a great guy.

    I don’t know who is the bigger useful idiot, Rodman or Stephanopoulus.

    1. Um, its not Dennis Rodman. I mean, I love the dude from his Bulls days, but he is a goddamn ridiculous human being.

      Also, I don’t expect intelligent social cometary from Dennis Rodman 1.0, unlike Rodman 2.0

      1. Bulls days? Oh, you mean the MTV days…

    2. Re: VG Zaytsev,

      What the Fuck is up with Rodman being on This Week talking about how awesome it was hangin’ with Kim Jung Un.

      I am not surprised, Vasili. About 6 years ago I was listening to an mp3 recording of some radio show from some University in New Orleans (if memory serves) where black commentators were talking with Dr. Walter Block about free market economics and how it reduces racism and not the government. It wasn’t a bad back-and-forth (pretty cordial for that kind of forum) but the best part came when Walter mentioned North Korea as an example of a failed centrally-planned economic model and one of the black commentators retorted with “but North Korea is a great place! They have a higher standard of life than here!”

      And the guy was being serious.

      1. My brother took Block’s class. Apparently he witnessed exchanges like that all the damn time.

    3. he’s prepping for winning the Celebrity Apprentice.

  12. Rodman comparing Kim Jong Un to Clinton was gold.

    I didn’t get that far.

    1. I couldn’t take my eyes of off that train wreck of an ‘interview’.

      Stepho asked him what about the prison camps and Rodman said (I’m paraphrasing) that we have those in our country too and anyway he doesn’t condone that sort of thing but Jong Un is his friend. And you shouldn’t judge him only by a thing like running concentration camps just like it would be wrong to judge Clinton only on the basis of getting BJs in the oval office.

      1. Awesome! Never change,Dennis, never change.

        1. Seriously, South Park HAS to pull a parody on that idiot in North Korea. Add Stepsnuffaloppogus in there while they’re at it. I DEMAND it!

          This is just too surreal.

          Media is evil when it panders to this nonsense.

          1. It would really work as the B-plot of the episode. Like, cutaway to a few scenes of Dennis’ insane adventures in the magical land of North Korea.

            1. Heh.

              Where he meets Sean Penn.

              1. I think Dennis Rodman should be an honorary Film Actors Guild member.

            2. At some point there should be a wedding between Rodman and Sean Penn.

          2. I don’t think its possible to ‘parody’ something as surreal and moronic as this whole episode…

            But if anybody can do it…its the South Park guys. *waits for next episode*

      2. Stepho asked him what about the prison camps and Rodman said (I’m paraphrasing) that we have those in our country too

        Hope and change!

  13. Wages, rather, are determined by supply and demand.

    Even more importantly, I’d say, wages are determined by marginal return.
    Unless you’re the government, you don’t pay somebody nine bucks per hour to do a job which nets you a return of less than that. That’s what price signals do.

    1. Price signals are racist.

  14. Before the minimum wage, a cruel, selfish employer might have had to mentor his employees or train them or be nice to them despite his nature. Now he won’t have to.

    Whut?

  15. How long will so-called progressives get away with pretending to care about the poor?

    They’ve been getting away it for 80 years now, so I’m going to say “for the forseeable future”.

    But the leftists’ willingness to exploit the peasants of Mexico as America’s de facto indentured servant class should definitely have undercut that absurd claim a long time ago.

    1. My favorite is “they’re exporting jobs!” My response is always along the lines of “so, you think it’s a bad thing that wages are rising 25% per year in China? You’d rather they go back to barely surviving on subsistence farming so that a bunch or RICH WHITE AMERICANS can keep der jerbz?”

      1. Yep, that’s my preferred response, especially since I think a lot of the malaise in Europe and the US has to do with globalization*. It sucks that wages have ‘stagnated’ in the US and it’s hard for a college grad to get a job (while, at the same time, ‘Capital’ earns greater profits), but I’m not gonna cry if that’s the cost of a billion people in Asia climbing out of poverty.

        *I particularly like Anthony de Jasay’s take on it. This is his most recent essay arguing the case. As he says, “the sharp divergence of wages and profits in the recent past is at worst not unfair. At best, it should be welcomed as a giant advance against world misery, hunger and hopelessness.”

  16. Moreover, the same people (liberals) who incoherently make the case for higher min. wages, then complain about higher prices business charge.

    Hence, we’re greedy.

    Suck it up. Everybody knows your vast, bloated profitz are based on stealing the labor of your employees. You can absorb those extra costs and still maintain your evil one-percenter lifestyle.

    1. TLPB, yeah. We’re out to rape and pillage. One guy once told me – when I tried to explain to him paying $3600 PER MONTH in payroll taxes defers so many things I can do for the business – “why, don’t you want to take care of the workers who help you become successfu?” as if I was exploiting them 1850s style.

      What an asshole. The best way to take care of my employees is by offering a great work environment with eventual benefits. I’m a good boss. I gave sick days when I really couldn’t afford it and, when the kids of my workers are sick I send them home to take care of them GUILT FREE. Family first even though I’m in a business that’s regulated so I have to be careful.

      I do my best because my values are in proper place. When I say $3600 could be used better – ie RRSP plan, health benefits etc. – I know what I’m talking about.

      But those presumptuous leftist fuckheads want it all including my blood.

      I have to explain until my debt load is loosened they have to wait for perks. Payroll taxes only defer what they want. I’ll get there. Until then, I pay lunches, get gift cards etc.

      Quite frankly, when I present it to them that way, they would prefer I take care of their stuff rather than forking over their money to the government.

      Alas, it’s where we’re at and we have to deal with it. After all, “I didn’t build my business since we’re all in this together.”

      /Damien fit.

      1. “why, don’t you want to take care of the workers who help you become successfu?”

        Because they can’t take care of ourselves, greedy bossman! And that extra $3600 a month would of course go straight to your yacht, and not improving or expanding your workplace.

        1. …and certainly not to hiring any more workers.

          -jcr

          1. Exactly, I find myself in a “if only I could use that money to give a raise or two, hire a helping hand and a carpenter because there’s always little things to be done!”

            Instead, I’m painting and doing the laundry. The girls I’m obliged to pay over $17 hr because of government wage ladders means I can’t play around with the margins on the top end and the lower-end workers get screwed – it’s the only way I can maintain the integrity of my margins.

            Or else it comes out of my pocket. But to the leftist moron I don’t have loans to pay back to the banks, pay rent and a mortgage and most importantly not pay myself back for my casho outlay.

  17. In other news bullshitting bloggers don’t like being called out on their bullshit by those pesky reader comment sections.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03……html?_r=0

    1. And of course Krugman is the example we should all look to because he definitely doesn’t want his readers to see alternative viewpoints to his asshattery.

    2. IN the beginning, the technology gods created the Internet and saw that it was good. Here, at last, was a public sphere with unlimited potential for reasoned debate and the thoughtful exchange of ideas, an enlightening conversational bridge across the many geographic,

      Wait, I haven’t read further yet, but let me guess, this is the opening shot in a diatribe about how that reasoned debate and thoughtful exchange is null and void when people don’t agree with you.

      1. It’s more that comment sections are bad because people say cunt and dumb people reading the comments might change their mind and disagree with the enlightened viewpoint of the article.

    3. While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly ? and perhaps ironically ? in the area of science news.

      The science is settled!

      1. Remember when leftists were all about a scientific, planned economy?

        Those people were Romans compared to the idiot Visigoths running the show now.

        1. Actually, the Romans were the idiots when the Visigoths kicked their asses, and that’s why they lost.

          The decline of Rome has striking parallels to our current situation.

          -jcr

    4. Almost wish I had an account so that I might leave a comment.

      Almost.

    5. The authors must be living under a rock if they think reasoned debate goes on anywhere besides reader comments.

    6. I’m shocked, shocked that a legacy media vanguard put out a piece bemoaning comment sections.

      1. Just read that NYT article. All I can say is they can suck my dick. Elitist, paternalistic bull shit posing as intellectualism. What a piece of shit rag the NYT has become.

        Oh, poor babies, can’t challenge fucking Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, oh, protect our masters.

        Fuck off. They can dish out, they should be able to take heat.

        Enough swear words for you?

        I often find many thoughtful comments and links in comments threads. Often, there are people as reasoned as the authors and sometimes they call out when the writer is being full of shit.

        It all balances out. Once you’re able to siphon through the bad and good comments, it makes for a better reading experience. After all, are we not all literate?

        Judging from where the NYT sits, the answer is no.

        Assholes.

          1. My first +1. I’ll always remember you VG. I may even frame this and put it over my bed. My wife may not like it but she can suck it too.

    7. T Clark New England

      The note under your “Write a Comment” box says it all – “Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.” There are standards, but they are inclusive. Failure to moderate undermines the value of all comments. It also undermines the website’s credibility. The vilist comments pages I’ve read are on the “Reason” webpage. I laugh at the irony everytime I go there.

  18. Nothing liberals do makes sense.

    In liberal land raising the price of gasoline will save the planet from evil carbon but raising the price of labor (wages) will have no effect; that increasing the price of tobacco will curb demand but raising taxes on job creators is good for the economy.

    Evan Sayet put it best:

    “Democrats are not just wrong on some issues; it’s quite literally every issue. And it’s not just wrong; it’s as wrong as wrong can be; it’s 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful… (Given the choice) the Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.”

    There is nothing good about liberalism. Everything, everything liberals do is wrong-headed and stupid and counterproductive. Everything liberals touch turns to sh*t. And we all suffer the consequences as the contagion of leftist ideology infects more and more of our society.

    1. In liberal land raising the price of gasoline will save the planet from evil carbon but raising the price of labor (wages) will have no effect; that increasing the price of tobacco will curb demand but raising taxes on job creators is good for the economy.

      Because, raising the cost of gas gets you less of it. Raising the cost of cigarettes gets you less of it. Raising the cost of labor gets you more of it.

      Why you can’t see this simple logic is beyond my ability to make things clear for you.

      1. The simple logic is that raising the min wage creates more clients for the State.

        Those who retain their jobs with the higher min wage celebrates the good fortune bestowed by the State, and thereby becomes a client.

        Those who lose their jobs become welfare clients of the State.

        Creating more clients advances the power of the State. Simple as that.

    2. When all of your basic premises are wrong it doesn’t matter how logical you are in reaching your conclusions. You will always be wrong. Liberalism is a perfect example of that.

      1. Interesting observation. Would explain Keynesianism.

        That gives me something to think about.

        1. I would highly recommend “The Open Society and It’s Enemies: Volumes One & Two” by Karl Popper. You may want to read a basic Political Phylosophy primer first but as long as googles nearby to reference. Unless your already versed in that.

          1. thx

    3. In liberal land raising the price of gasoline will save the planet from evil carbon but raising the price of labor (wages) will have no effect; that increasing the price of tobacco will curb demand but raising taxes on job creators is good for the economy.

      The simple answer only highlights their economic ignorance. They see it as somehow unfair or evil that labor is not any different than any other sort of resource. That labor should be different. Because fairness and stuff.

    4. Liberals don’t see labor as a commodity and wages as the price of labor so rules of supply & demand don’t apply. Most people don’t see it this way either. Few make the connection between demand for labor and the price labor receives, they just look at the price and ignore any underlying value.

  19. What makes anyone think that a group of people that think nothing of writing gun control laws when they know nothing about guns would hesitate to write economic control laws when they know nothing about economics.

    1. Never underestimat the government’s ability to ban or regulate something through sheer force of will.

    2. Talking to Progressives about economics is like talking to religious fundamentalists about evolution.

  20. Straight from teh OMFGWTF file.

    IN her introduction to a compelling new study, “The Arab Spring and Climate Change,” released Thursday, the Princeton scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter notes that crime shows often rely on the concept of a “stressor.” A stressor, she explains, is a “sudden change in circumstances or environment that interacts with a complicated psychological profile in a way that leads a previously quiescent person to become violent.” The stressor is never the only explanation for the crime, but it is inevitably an important factor in a complex set of variables that lead to a disaster. “The Arab Spring and Climate Change” doesn’t claim that climate change caused the recent wave of Arab revolutions, but, taken together, the essays make a strong case that the interplay between climate change, food prices (particularly wheat) and politics is a hidden stressor that helped to fuel the revolutions and will continue to make consolidating them into stable democracies much more difficult.

    1. It’s the US agricultural policy, stupid.

      We massively raise the price of corn, which makes people eat other grains, like wheat, in turn raising their price.

    2. “The interplay between climate change, food prices (particularly wheat) and politics is a hidden stressor.”

      Talking about the spike in wheat prices that preceded the Arab Spring makes sense. There were riots around North Africa over food prices just before the Arab Spring started.

      But I can couple anything with the rise in wheat prices–if that’s a real “stressor”–and make a case for it as being a contributing factor.

      The interplay between climate change [the Canucks losing the Stanley Cup] and food prices (particularly wheat) is a hidden stressor.

      There’s nothing “hidden” or novel about a spike in food prices making people in the third world riot–and if she wants to blame that spike on climate change, then she’s gonna have to accept it as evidence that climate change is bunk every time the price drops, temporarily, too.

    3. “IN her introduction to a compelling new study, “The Arab Spring and Climate Change,” ….”

      See….. right there….that is where I threw up a little in my mouth.

  21. Then (fuck you, character limits):

    Jointly produced by the Center for American Progress, the Stimson Center and the Center for Climate and Security, this collection of essays opens with the Oxford University geographer Troy Sternberg, who demonstrates how in 2010-11, in tandem with the Arab awakenings, “a once-in-a-century winter drought in China” ? combined, at the same time, with record-breaking heat waves or floods in other key wheat-growing countries (Ukraine, Russia, Canada and Australia) ? “contributed to global wheat shortages and skyrocketing bread prices” in wheat-importing states, most of which are in the Arab world.

    “Now, I’m not saying Global warming caused all this social unrest…
    but I’m not saying it DIDN”T.”

    1. The funny thing is I’ve always said there always seems to be the most social unrest in the hottest climates so maybe all they need is central air conditioning:) Jihad today Muhammod? No thanks Muhammod, I’m staying in the A/C and watching Jersy Shore. Yell, Death to the Infidels once for me.

      1. It’s still our fault. We buy all that oil from them at ridiculously high prices, preventing them from being able to afford the basic necessity of central air conditioning. Our economic hegemony extends even into their homes!

        1. +1 sarcasm

    2. Economists think Global Warming will have a positive effect or at worst a tiny negative effect (< 1% GDP) by 2100….

      http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf

  22. When all of your basic premises are wrong

    Garbage in…

  23. I would hardly call these kids “the most vulnerable” in society. They get to be on their parents healthcare for a while, and the government will spare no expense to herd them to a nearest college where they get to be detached from reality for 4,8 years.

    Let’s face it, minimum wage hike is going to happen. Young people won’t be marching on the streets screaming “Raising minimum wage hurts our chances of landing entry level jobs”. On the contrary, living wage is an exciting concept to the future of America.

    1. Let’s face it, minimum wage hike is going to happen.

      Not so sure the US House will roll over and play dead for that.

      1. Minimum wage hike is as dead as the new AWB.

  24. How can anyone know that a $9 minimum won’t throw people out of work or make low-skilled jobs more onerous?

    People get blinded by moralistic cries for fairness. They’re the first ones to consider the commoditizing of labor icky.

    Minimum Wage and Vacuum Cleaners

    1. Nice post, OM.

  25. If the GOP were smart(they obviously are not), they would come out and say that this min wage increase that the dems are supporting is just ridiculous. Let’s do the math.

    If the current min is 7.75, and we raise it to 9, then a worker working 40 hours a week will see an after tax increase in their pay of about 40 dollars. Ok, what the hell is that going to buy? Not even a full tank of gas or a week of groceries for one child or adult.

    So the GOP should say, let’s get real Mr. President, if you are serious about lifting people out of poverty, then let’s make the minimum $20 an hour, effective immediately. Now you are also increasing revenue because you’ve put these folks into an income bracket that pays taxes.

    But let’s not stop there. Let’s set the number of people that a business has to hire at a minimum by their annual earning. Say, if the business is generating $100,000 a year, that business is mandated to employ a minimum of 3 people at $20 an hour. Otherwise they will be declared greedy bastards and shut down. Also, everyone gets an automatic 5% a year raise to keep up with inflation.

    Jobs are a human right. Greedy businesses need to get in line and play fair.

    Also, the poor that are still without a job, whatever assistance they are getting, let’s double it.

    If the Dems disagree with any of this, the GOP paints them as greedy heartless monsters who hate the poor.

    Stop being such a bunch of pussies, GOP, and let’s get the party started.

    1. Also, this deficit thing, we have to get it under control. So let’s do it. We can’t cut spending, that’s heartless. So let’s generate some real revenue.

      Effective immediately, top tax rate of 90%, bottom rate of 30%. Also, a VAT tax on everything manufactured in the US, and a 100% tariff on all imported goods. Let’s double property taxes, let’s triple the sales tax. Now we’re talking. Let’s pay off this debt.

      1. Godddamn, you are really getting into some political Poe’s Law territory, here. You should start a blog.

        1. No time, I am too busy starting a new religion.

        2. Oh, and about the Poes law thing. You see, I have come to a realization. I know some don’t agree with me, but I still believe that I am right.

          At this point, the free shit rule cannot be overcome by any means, except for one. The free shit rule is that no one can win a national level election(POTUS) at this point, unless they promise the most free shit.

          There is only one way to stop this. Vote a straight Democrat ticket, and give super majorities to them in both houses, to go along with the Democratic President. Then, the GOP members of Congress should vote not present on everything that the Dems want. Yep, let them have everything that they want, period, and even encourage them to spend more, tax more, go insane level nanny state and pass thousands of new laws to ban every fucking thing under the sun.

          Then the leviathan will finally come crashing down under it’s own monstrous weight. That is when we can get real change started, not until then. Until then, it will only a slow and painful death by a thousand cuts. Fuck.that.shit. Let’s put the pedal to the metal and go hurling off that cliff in a blaze of glory. Because there is no other way out, except for the slow and painful one.

          1. Not a bad plan to show the Dem’s policies are failures, but it presumes the GOPers want to do that.
            I doubt it; they want to get what the Dem’s are currently getting; increased power, skim from lobbyists, patronage, etc.
            So there is no way the GOPers are gonna kill that opportunity. They just want their chance at it.

  26. Wages, rather, are determined by supply and demand.

    Of course you would say that, Sheldon RICHman.

    1. This is why the government should set all prices. Greedy corporations are raping the poor.

      We need to give the government absolute power over all business transactions.

      Just look at Cuba, best healthcare system in the world. And look at Venezuela, what Chavez was doing before the CIA gave him cancer, so that he couldn’t finish his great work and show up the USA with his great achievements.

  27. OT

    Is naming winter storms not the most stupid, gayest concept ever devised to gin up concern over nothing?

    Here comes winter storm youranus. derp

    1. Yes, undoubtedly this was devised by homosexuals. It seems like a very important thing to be angry about, too.

      1. See 5 below. Context…how does it work? Lighten up Francis.

        gay [gey]
        adjective, gay?er, gay?est.
        1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex; homosexual: a gay couple.
        2. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
        3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.
        4. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid, intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber, lackluster; conservative.
        5. Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is really gay.

    2. It’s the assholes at Weather Channel trying to make themselves relevant.

      1. Ted S.| 3.3.13 @ 6:23PM |#
        “It’s the assholes at Weather Channel trying to make themselves relevant.”
        Needs scare-quotes on “relevant”.

        1. my mom loves watching The Weather network
          not sure why we sprung for a room with a view.

  28. Terrorists your game is through because now you have to answer to America Chad! Fuck yeah!

  29. So the liberals on Facebook have all of this buyer’s remorse about Obama. They are so pissed off about the sequester. And the funny thing is that they are angry that Obama isn’t bullying and yelling his feat and forcing the evil Republicans to go their way. And they just can’t wait to vote for Hillary in 2016, because you know just because they totally have fucked up the country by voting for Obama doesn’t mean they can’t do more damage in the future.

    1. I’m happy with the sequester. Obama has now got an all-time record amount of spending cuts signed, about $2 trillion (over 10 years).

      You know who never cut a dime? (Can’t say his name here).

      1. Perhaps you can explain to us how the debt increased $4T in eight years under BOOOOOSH and $6.5T under your savior in four?

        Can you please splain it to me dipshit?

        linky

        1. Bush left Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit. If Obama did NOTHING that is $5.2 trillion of new debt in one term.

          1. What?

            Let me get this straight. Because BOOOSH spends $1.3T in an ill conceived stimulous and bailout, it must automatically be spent in subsequent years? It becomes the new baseline so it’s BOOOSH’S fault that the debt has increased $6T in his time in office? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

            God you are a disgusting, mendacious cunt.

            1. TARP was never in the budget, you dumb hick. Bush managed to accumulatea $1.3 trillion deficit without it.

              1. Hey, dipshit, tell us how much your fave suck managed.

              2. Ahhh! I get it now. Because Bush overspent by $1.3T in his last year, Obama had no choice but to overspend by at least the same amount in all subsequent years.

                No way he could fix anything the christfag bushpig overspent on. Unpossible. You’re right assfuck. He’s not responsible for one dime of the $6.5T in additional debt since he took office.

                I’m now a wiser man.

                1. Well, I’m sorta sorry I left out
                  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  You picked up on that better than I did.

                  1. Jesus Christ, five years later they still talk about Bush.

                    One guy at Huffpo blamed it on 30 years of bad economic policies when defending Obama. Why stop at 30. Go back to FDR. Wait, Jackson. Wait, when the Hinterland still belonged to Canada and the Hudson Bay Company.

                    Would you blame a sports team poor success record to past GM’s and coach’s? You could up to a point. New management has to clean up, change the philosophy, bring in ‘his’ men etc. They give themselves a timeline.

                    After that, fuck you. If you fail it’s YOUR baby.

                    How is this any different with Obama? He got to set the narrative, pretty much passed what he wanted to legislate, has his own team etc. and we still have to fucking hear about Bush?

                    Fuck you.

    1. I get the ex-pat thing, I really do, but Britain? Meu Deus, that is about the most retarded nanny state this side of Australia.

      1. Yeah, I don’t know why you would leave America for Britain.

        The one caveat is that I suppose I can see it if you’re already settled in Britain with a job and SO and hence have no plans to leave — why keep paying U.S. income tax?

  30. Democratic pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell eviscerate the president.

    1. You meant “Fox News paid ratfuckers”.

        1. John, that NEVER gets old. Too perfect.

          *giggle my ass off.

          1. Shreek is like our own little monkey complete with throwing shit and jerking off all of the time.

        2. Why aren’t you out stumping for Santorum? He is close to a lock but you never know.

          1. http://wn.com/screaming_monkey

            Santorum, Christfag!!1 Christfag!!!

            1. You forgot, Rethuglicans! Glen Beckistan!, Palin!, Rush Limpballs!, Dickless Cheney!, Kochtopus!

              Damnit, if you’re going to do this, do it right.

              1. You forgot to call Rush “King of the rednecks”. :-p

            2. I really think that Shrieking Idiot may be Weigel. I’ve never seen anybody else who loves to use rhe term “ratfucker.”

              1. He’s either going to get a radio talk show or start a prison ministry. That’s was successful conservative ratfuckers do for their second acts

                – David Weigel

                Holy shit. I think you figured it out. He’s clearly Weigel.

      1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

        You meant “Fox News paid ratfuckers”.

        And yet you don’t carry water for Obama, right Buttwipe???

    2. “”Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the Border Patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?”

      Jesus, did Obama really vomit that marxist shit? I am stunned. Why arent crowds dragging his sorry ass out of the WH and hanging him from a lampost?

      What the fuck happened to this country? I dont see this ending well.

  31. Raising the minimum wage won’t “throw people out of work.”

    It chills new hires, though, so fewer positions are created. It’s not that people lose old jobs, it’s that people can’t find new jobs.

    When you talk to progressives/liberals/democrats and tell them that people are going to lose their jobs, it sounds like the-sky-is-falling Koch libertarian alarmism and they won’t take you seriously. Frankly, because it is that kind of talking point.

    Also, I hate discussions about how employers pay the value of the labor. It’s true that they literally can’t pay MORE than the value of the labor, but when you phrase it a certain way, it sounds as though all employers are paying all employees the maximum value of their labor, and that’s just not the case. That wouldn’t be a profitable business, either. If your employees generated $5000 a month in value and you paid them $5000 a month, you’d never make a dime.
    Also, if you factor in payroll taxes (not that we should have those, but we do) and benefits, you’d actually be losing a lot of money.

    So, in part due to taxation, no employee earns the value of their labor. It’s an impossibility, except maybe in the public sector where they can spend more than they take in, which is obviously a sustainable business model…

    1. Ok, we have already proven that capitalism has failed. The science is settled. We need BIG government solutions.

      If only Obama wasn’t so timid and would stop letting the Rethugs protect the rich, we could have real solutions.

  32. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…..e94q9LxwsN

    Nanny Bloomburg looks older and crazier every time I see him.

    1. He recently made a public statement that people should not be permitted to work from home.

      Then he said that he will continue to work from home.

      Do as I say, not as I do.

    2. He’s getting booed for not giving out enough free shit. God damn it.

  33. Barack Obama’s warning about the catastrophic sequester interspersed with a screaming goat.

    1. Sure that isn’t Shreek?

    2. But the sequester was HIS idea!

      You fools have been punked again. Everyone hurt by the sequester will now blame the GOP.

      1. http://wn.com/screaming_monkey

        Bushpig!!! Christfag!!!

        Everyone hurt by sequester is already a low information low IQ, dependent Obama voter, as if there is any other kind.

      2. We have been punked because….we are the GOP?

        Pointer- Dont post when you are stoned.

  34. Anyone else having problems with Chrome closing unexpectedly, without a crash report?

    1. In Googleistan, Chrome browses you!

    2. nope

    3. No, but I don’t use Chrome.

      H&R is still a nasty memory hog in Opera, however. (On the bright side, it’s not as bad as Huffington Post.)

      1. Only 2 problems that I ever have here at H&R.

        In IE, I have to keep clicking that torn paper icon in the right of the URL bar to keep the headers from being fucked up.

        Also, sure everyone is aware of this already, but if you don’t click the box to stay logged in, when you login, you will get logged off and lose your comment in a very short amount of time, that happens to me in both Firefox and IE. I never use Chrome.

        1. I get logged off in both IE and Safari very quickly on the computers on campus. But I’ve never had that problem with Firefox. I regularly turn my computer on and off and I’m still logged in.

          1. I don’t get logged out with Opera, either.

  35. Men Are Pigs, ch 996521

    Watching the Oscars last night meant sitting through a series of crudely sexist antics led by a scrubby, self-satisfied Seth MacFarlane. That would be tedious enough. But the evening’s misogyny involved a specific hostility to women in the workplace, which raises broader questions than whether the Academy can possibly get Tina Fey and Amy Poehler to host next year. It was unattractive and sour, and started with a number called “We Saw Your Boobs.”

    “We Saw Your Boobs” was as a song-and-dance routine in which MacFarlane and some grinning guys named actresses in the audience and the movies in which their breasts were visible. That’s about it. What made it worse was that most of the movies mentioned, if not all (“Gia”), were pretty great?”Silkwood,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Monster’s Ball,” “Monster,” “The Accused,” “Iris”?and not exactly teen-exploitation pictures. The women were not showing their bodies to amuse Seth MacFarlane but, rather, to do their job. Or did they just think they were doing serious work? You girls think you’re making art, the Academy, through MacFarlane, seemed to say, but all we?and the “we” was resolutely male?really see is that we got you to undress.

    1. What made it worse was that most of the movies mentioned, if not all (“Gia”), were pretty great?”Silkwood,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Monster’s Ball,” “Monster,” “The Accused,” “Iris”?and not exactly teen-exploitation pictures. The women were not showing their bodies to amuse Seth MacFarlane but, rather, to do their job.

      No one would ever use tits to get ahead in entertainment! And if they did use tits to get ahead, it was only because some evil male made them do it!

      1. Even thinking about tits is equal to rape.

      2. Anne Hathaway gets naked better than the others in that crowd.

  36. And the latest gun violence tragedy in America:

    Armed citizen stops attempted robbery at liquor store in Topeka, no shots fired

    On Saturday afternoon, March 2, a man attempted to rob Charlie’s Liquor on S.W. Huntoon in Topeka, Kansas. According to a report by The Topeka Capitol Journal, the would-be robber entered the store with a large knife and demanded money. However, instead of handing over the cash, the owner of the liquor store, who was behind the counter at the time, pulled out a gun instead.

    The store owner ordered the attempted robber outside and to sit down on the ground. He then called police and kept the robber on the ground at gunpoint until police arrived. The owner stated that the robber was very compliant once he had the gun aimed at him. He knew “he wasn’t going anywhere.”

    The would-be robber, who was identified as 27-year-old Joseph Vincent Eldringhoff of Topeka, was arrested for suspicion of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, and is being held without bond.

    This evil capitalist, peddling evil liquor and cigarettes to the community and driving up the cost of healthcare, threatened an impoverished man with an deadly mckilly assault weapon.

    The insolence!

    1. This evil capitalist, peddling evil liquor and cigarettes to the community and driving up the cost of healthcare, threatened an impoverished man with an deadly mckilly assault weapon.

      I agree 100%, this dangerous vigilante gun clinger needs to be brought to justice. The correct response would have been to not resist, give up his stuff, and ask if the robber would like assistance taking the stuff to his car.

    2. AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED!

      Oh, wait….

  37. Watching the Oscars last night meant sitting through a series of crudely sexist antics led by a scrubby, self-satisfied Seth MacFarlane

    Next year they should have Adam Carolla as host.

    Isn’t it funny that the wiminz folk who complain most loudly about things like that, are the ones who no one would ever want to see naked?

    1. They do have a host problem. Letterman sucked on his one chance. Carolla has zero chance. They keep trying comedians.

      Howard Stern would be good but that won’t happen.

      1. It’s gonna be either George Stephanopoulos or Jimmy Kimmel next year.

  38. Grillo

    Not sure how much this has been covered here, but damn, even a clown in Italy can figure out that debt is a problem, while our highest elected officials here in the USA cannot. It’s beyond sad how far down the drain we have went.

    1. First comment from the site:

      Why shouldn’t Italy have one comedian, hell, we’ve got a whole government full of comedians here in the U.S. At least Italy’s comedian seems to give a damn about his country, which is more than can be said about ours.

      Yep

      1. We are all Pagliacci

        1. We’re all a Seattle area pizzeria?

      2. Beppo leans left but you have to applaud him for his efforts to clean up Italy.

        1. Is there anyone in Eurotardia who does not lean left so hard that they are falling over?

  39. You know who else harmed “the most vulnerable”….

    1. White males?

      1. Jesus Christ, H – looking upthread, you are on FIRE! En fuego! Burnin’ up teh interwebs!

        Now stop it, before someone drones you.

        1. I missed the AM and PM links for like 3 days straight.

          Anyway, I always wear my cloaked hoodie when I am commenting, drones can’t see me.

          1. Blast! Foiled…

            *resumes lurking*

          2. I didn’t notice you weren’t around. Welcome back.

            1. No one ever notices when I’m not around, everyone hates me! Now I have to go to the fridge and get another beer, see what you guys have done?! You are making me an alcoholic!

              1. If you’re going to be an alcoholic, at least get there with some real alcohol. I recommend some 1800 Silver Select. It’s so good that after three shots Barack Obama’s speeches start to make sense.

                1. So Obama’s speeches are kind of like the chubby girl at a bar? Once you get 6 or 7 shots in you, you don’t realize what a mistake you’re making?

                  1. Sort of, yes. Except Obama’s speeches want to do to you what STEVE SMITH won’t be doing to hikers in Yellowstone this week instead of taking you home and riding the D.

                2. It’s so good that after three shots Barack Obama’s speeches start to make sense.

                  I ain’t buyin it. Just like wanting to fuck Hillary, there is not enough alcohol in the world, no matter how legendary, that will make that work. Just ask Willy.

                  1. The corollary to Rule 34 is that there has to be somebody on Earth who finds Hillary sexy.

  40. Sequestergeddonpocalypse!

    The delayed opening has not gone over well with local tourism industry leaders, who are searching for outside funding to cover plowing costs and honor the spring opening dates that many families have already planned their vacations around.

    One priority for Wyoming leaders may be plowing an 8-mile section of highway between Pilot Creek in Park County, Wyo. and Cooke City, Montana. Clearing that road would offer an alternate early route into the park for visitors on the east side of the park.

    A two-week delay in Yellowstone’s opening means Cody will miss out on more than 150,000 visitors spending an estimated $2.3 million, according to figures released by the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce. Similar shortfalls in four other gateway towns around the park could easily put total losses at over $10 million.

    Famine is inevitable.

    1. Notice they say ‘losses of $10 million’ as if that 10 million will simply be stuffed under mattresses now that it won’t be spent in Cody. That other money will be spent on other things, but since when has the media cared about honesty?

      1. When the state gov’t workers were furloughed on Fridays, the Chron did interviews of various restaurants and service operations in Sacto. Surprise! Business was down on Fridays! Natch, the Chron said “the furloughs are costing the economy!”
        Was is ignorance or mendacity?

        1. Why can’t it be both?

          1. Only ’cause I didn’t think of it as the most likely circumstance.
            The Chron is malodorously left.

  41. Only one article this Sunday? My God the sequester is worse than we could possibly imagine!

    1. Really, who the hell do these Reason writers think they are, not working on a Sunday? Lazy bastards.

      1. But they don’t even have to work on Sunday! They could write posts Friday and release them Sunday!

        What is this, communist Russia?

        1. Yes, but then we would accuse them of being lazy bastards for not keeping us up on the latest news. WTF, Reason? We saw that link on Drudge 2 days ago! So, I think the only logical conclusion, is that they are lazy bastards.

          1. Wait.. that sounded sexist, there are wiminz folk writing for Reason. Lazy bastards and bitches. That’s better.. no wait… what’s the gender neutral term that I should be using here?

            1. I believe what you’re looking for is ‘Lazy offensive gendered pronouns.’

              1. Yes, that, so what is the gender neutral word for bitch/bastard? I need to know this cause my workplace is very sensitive about these things. Next time I tell one of my superiors to ‘go fuck yourself, you @@$!!’ I need to use the PC word.

                1. How about ‘fuckwit.’ I don’t believe fuckwit is meant for one gender or the other.

                  1. That has possibilities… I will need to try it out to see how it feels…

                    1. I think BITCHEZ goes both ways.

                2. I thought “bastard” was gender neutral: an illegitimate descendant.

        2. In Soviet Russia, articles read you.

    2. Why can’t they sequester Chip Bok and Henry Payne instead?

  42. as if that 10 million will simply be stuffed under mattresses

    Worse, it will disappear in a puff of smoke, away to Money Heaven.

    Stolen from its rightful owners.

    1. Well, I mean, do you really want to be shaking things when you’re down in a mine?

  43. Why can’t they sequester Chip Bok and Henry Payne instead?

    Haven’t you noticed? The people who can get new jobs jump ship, and the ones who can’t cling tenaciously to the rail as the ship slowly disappears from view beneath the water.

    1. Bok could definitely get a job elsewhere. I mean, at supermarkets they have to label things, right? Sounds like he’d be perfect.

      1. He could paint murals and make signs at Trader Joe’s.

        1. I wonder what Chris Matthews will do when MSNBC viewership finally falls below 0 viewers?

          I see him in a tailor shop in DC, measuring crotches.

          1. I see him more as an Obama administration court eunuch.

  44. Oh, look, another call for sensible disarmament.

    By MICHAEL W. COTTER U.S. Attorney for Montana

    Many guns rights advocates argue that the Second Amendment grants an absolute right to bear the arms of their choice without reservation or restriction. This argument finds no support in our constitutional history. Not one of our constitutional rights may be exercised with impunity. All rights must be exercised responsibly. There is no rational basis or legal authority for the proposition that the right to bear any and all weapons in any and all designated places is intended to be absolute.
    —-

    More steps can and should be taken to ensure that our communities, both in Montana and across the nation, are safer by making sure that the guns do not fall into the hands of those who will misuse them. I support President Barack Obama’s call for a ban on assault weapons and requiring universal background checks for anyone buying a gun. The ban on military-style assault weapons, which was previously in effect until 2004, needs to be restored and magazine capacity needs to be limited to 10 rounds.

    Your rights have generously been granted to you by the State, and may be revoked or modified at any time, as it suits us.

    1. If the citizens of Montana know what is best for them, they will do all they can to keep Commiefornians from continuing to move there and taking their failed big government ideology with them.

    2. “All rights must be exercised responsibly.”
      This person is speaking words which the person does not understand.

      1. He understands exactly what he is saying. This asshole is cut from the same mold as Bloomberg, O’Malley, Cuomo, and other statist jerkoffs. IOW, you peons shouldn’t pose a real threat to me and my corruption. Now do as I say.

    3. There is no rational basis or legal authority for the proposition that the right to bear any and all weapons in any and all designated places is intended to be absolute.

      If drive my APC with the roof-mounted 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun around, and harm absolutely no one in doing so, why should it be unlawful?

      1. The second amendment is exactly as absolute as the first: there is no first or second amendment right on private property. That is, if “responsible” conclusions about the second amendment are to be honestly drawn from the same principles of the first. You do not have the right to carry guns or conduct labor protests on Wal-Mart’s property. The dishonest conclusion is to say you can hold labor protests but not possess firearms on your own property.

      2. Or, you can not use speech or firearms in a way that causes harm to others (honest comparison), vs. you can not use speech in a way that causes harm to others and you can not have firearms because they may cause harm to others (dishonest comparison).

    4. I think “sensible disarmament” needs to be in sneer quotes.

  45. This is such a boring Sunday at H&R. Time to give it up for a little while and play some more Dragonage 2. A good game despite the shitty reviews it received. As long as you accept that the combat is not modern W-S-A-D free style, like Skyrim, and instead is the old turn based party style of combat. Once you learn that, it’s really very entertaining.

  46. Another finely polished, gem-like turd from our U S Attorney:

    Similarly, the Fourth Amendment provides that the right to be free from “unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated.” However, such searches are permitted under exigent circumstances. For instance if a law enforcement officer’s safety is endangered or contraband is in plain view, a warrantless search may be legal.

    “Ninety nine out of one hundred public servants agree: OFFICER SAFETY is paramount, because fuck you, prole!”

    1. the right to be free from “unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated.” However, such searches are permitted

      The man is saying “A. However, not A.”

      1. under Terry v. Ohio., a “pat frisk” (which is not an evidentiary search, but a protective frisk for weapons. It is more limited in scope than a conventional search) is a REASONABLE search under the 4th amendment, given

        1) Reasonable suspicion
        AND
        2) articulable facts and circumstances that warrant alarm on the part of the officer that the person may be armed and dangerous.

        Whether one likes it or not, under the Terry doctrine, pat frisks pursuant to Terry stops ARE de jure ‘reasonable’ under the 4th amendment.

        I say that as somebody who has made hundreds of Terry stops and scores of pat frisks (a subset of Terry stops justified a frisk).

        Officer safety is a catch-phrase for ivory tower ninnies who will never face the realities of street violence and armed criminals.

        1. That’s a lot of words just to agree with PB.

  47. French food is the best. That’s why restaurants serving snails and frogs are everywhere in America, and you can’t find a fine Italian place or a taco truck anywhere.

    1. Ever heard of French bistros? And the people cooking at a fine Italian place or taco truck are likely to be trained in the French style.

  48. Man, I think I might stick around for the conclusion of this “Bible” show. Kind of interested to see how it all turns out.

    1. The Jews lose?

      1. But the Irish win. Damn those scapegoating bastards!

  49. Gary Busey is insane.

    1. He apparently will do any show with celebrity in the title, probably assuming that it conveys some relevance (other than used-to-be) to his status.

      Call me when he is on Celebrity Suicide.

  50. Is there anything worth reading in this thread that doesn’t involve responding to sockpuppets or a HuffPo comment? My time is far too valuable to waste on either.

    1. no

        1. Yeah, it’s just not the same without your constant whining and complaining.

          1. COSMOTARIAN!??!?!?!?

            I made up for SIV’s usual contribution.

            1. You forgot to insinuate that Tony is Gillespie in disguise.

    2. SIV| 3.3.13 @ 9:27PM |#
      “Is there anything worth reading in this thread that doesn’t involve responding to sockpuppets or a HuffPo comment?”
      Yes. You would have to presume some of the ‘counter-commenters’ have something to say.

  51. Kind of interested to see how it all turns out.

    Santa Claus defeats the Maritans.

  52. the Martians, too. He’s a badass.

  53. Today’s Top Gear was a work of art.

  54. You laughed at Sam Waterston selling Robot Insurance.

  55. I dont see how anyone can live on less than $14 an hour.

    http://www.Anon-Web.da.bz

  56. Another cynical take on the minimum wage:

    The wage is below the market rate in expensive East Coast cities, but well above it in places like Texas and Alabama.

    Thus raising the national minimum wage causes more unemployment for poor people in the mostly Republican South. Thus bolstering the number of people on the dole (natural Democratic voters), and the story line that Red states are hypocritical because they receive more money in federal benefits than they pay in taxes.

    In other words, the more they can wreck the economies of Red states from the Federal level, the better it is for Democrats all around.

  57. Denis Leary
    ?@denisleary
    Pretty sure my tits are bigger. pic.twitter.com/XxBs0zpvJO

  58. upto I saw the paycheck ov $5455, I accept that…my… sister was like they say realey taking home money in their spare time from their laptop.. there neighbor haz done this 4 only about twentey months and by now paid for the mortgage on there cottage and purchased a great Alfa Romeo. read more at, jump15.com

  59. If you think Amy`s story is inconceivable,, in the last-month my sister in-law basically brought home $6285 working a eighteen hour week in their apartment and their friend’s step-aunt`s neighbour has done this for nine months and easily made over $6285 part time from a mac. apply the steps at this site… jump15.com

  60. In 1960 Milton Friedman predicted the effect of the minimum wage on “Negroes and especially Negro youth”, So why won’t some black legislator in either the senate or the house, or for that matter, one of those Tea Party nuts, introduce an amendment to any increase in the minimum wage as follows? “the minimum wage law shall apply only to persons 20 years of age or greater. It shall be decreased by 10% for those age 19, 20% for those 18, etc to 50% for those age 15. Will the NAACP back such an amendment? Will the CIO, the UAW, the UMWA? At least it would expose the hypocrisy of those who would oppose it. At best, by being enacted, it would once again provide once again the first rung on the ladder to productive employment

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.