CBO Report: Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500,000 Jobs

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dyna Ryda said:
I wasnt talking about in direct sun light. Just ambient light that might come through the windows. I have put buds out into the sun before, I needed them dry in a hurry, they didn't turn brown, I couldn't notice any difference and the guy they went to didn't notice either. I personally believe, from my experience, light doesn't effect thc. Maybe one day I will send some in for testing. That's prolly the only way to find out.
Click to expand...
probably harsh as shit.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, back in Appendix A of the CBO's report:


CBO min wage est.jpg


In reading the way they made their calculations in more detail, the bulk of losses are going to be amongst teenagers.
Adults, they find, feel effects at 1/3 the magnitude of teens.
So, this implies any discussion of the matter in regards to those lazy, lifelong hamburger-flipping, box-stacking, gov't teet sucking, welfare losers is rather moot.

This is what it all comes down to, for the most part:

.....(pg.25),

which just gets plugged into a 5-factor regression model, from what I gathered.
Meh, too many uncertainties to account for makes it prone to wild estimation.
But it makes for one helluva talking-point, right?

Who will hang the neon sign in the bar for me? WE ARE DOOMED!
I hope Bill O'RLY is on the case. He'll get to the bottom of this!
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Meanwhile, back in Appendix A of the CBO's report:


View attachment 2999946


In reading the way they made their calculations in more detail, the bulk of losses are going to be amongst teenagers.
Adults, they find, feel effects at 1/3 the magnitude of teens.
So, this implies any discussion of the matter in regards to those lazy, lifelong hamburger-flipping, box-stacking, gov't teet sucking, welfare losers is rather moot.

This is what it all comes down to, for the most part:

.....(pg.25),

which just gets plugged into a 5-factor regression model, from what I gathered.
Meh, too many uncertainties to account for makes it prone to wild estimation.
But it makes for one helluva talking-point, right?

Who will hang the neon sign in the bar for me? WE ARE DOOMED!
I hope Bill O'RLY is on the case. He'll get to the bottom of this!
Click to expand...
Basically what you are saying is that the CBO has no idea, never has, never will?

I agree.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
That bud is terrible. No frost and way too much red and very leafy. Not an impressive grow by any stretch. I wouldn't consider that kine. I'd give you $2.25 for what's in that box, because I would feel bad.
Click to expand...
Bro, what's your problem?
Almost every time you post, it's something negative about another member.
If you think the abundance or lack of trichromes determine THC content, you have a lot to learn.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dyna Ryda said:
I think the reason behind the cool dark drying myth is to slow down the drying process. I do that by not trimming until it's dry, usually about 2 weeks hanging. There is a thread in the harvest section, slow drying is better than long curing, it works for me.

Harquief, I'm not a genius, but thanks for the complement.
Click to expand...
"I think" "There's a thread".

What cockswaggle you come here spouting off without a clue. Slow drying is essential because it allows time for the starches in the plant to break down and then curing allows for an even humidity to develop throughout the bud.

Try facts next time rather than hearsay, 15 years...?

Bitch please.
 
B

Bombur

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Meanwhile, back in Appendix A of the CBO's report:


View attachment 2999946


In reading the way they made their calculations in more detail, the bulk of losses are going to be amongst teenagers.
Adults, they find, feel effects at 1/3 the magnitude of teens.
So, this implies any discussion of the matter in regards to those lazy, lifelong hamburger-flipping, box-stacking, gov't teet sucking, welfare losers is rather moot.

This is what it all comes down to, for the most part:

.....(pg.25),

which just gets plugged into a 5-factor regression model, from what I gathered.
Meh, too many uncertainties to account for makes it prone to wild estimation.
But it makes for one helluva talking-point, right?

Who will hang the neon sign in the bar for me? WE ARE DOOMED!
I hope Bill O'RLY is on the case. He'll get to the bottom of this!
Click to expand...
I disagree that they made this estimate for the sake of a "talking point". The CBO has a track record of being nonpartisan and making accurate predictions. Do you believe the minimum wage increase will not cost jobs? Do you believe employers will simply accept lower profits, or possibly that increased wages will lead to higher production? If you're going to try and discredit the CBO's predictions at least offer up your own.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Bombur said:
I disagree that they made this estimate for the sake of a "talking point". The CBO has a track record of being nonpartisan and making accurate predictions.
Click to expand...
I can see how you would extrapolate that meaning, but that was not what I was referencing with "talking-point".
The talking-point comes from those who read the headline and start running with the ball without any consideration for the details. As for my attitude towards the CBO, if you'll scroll back a few posts it should be apparent I have enough respect for them to at least critique their work honestly.
But from the perspective of a scientist, their work is far from solid, hence the emphasis on the uncertainties in my critique.

Do you believe the minimum wage increase will not cost jobs? Do you believe employers will simply accept lower profits, or possibly that increased wages will lead to higher production? If you're going to try and discredit the CBO's predictions at least offer up your own.
Click to expand...
First off, in the case of "discrediting", one does not need to offer an alternative hypothesis, only to show the study can be falsified; that is the basis of peer-review. In this case, the uncertainties are not negligible and the root equation is centered around old literature reviews which measured poverty in environments far different from what we are currently entertaining. And as noted earlier, the bulk of the supposed job losses are going to be felt by teens in their estimate (which I figure to be about 375k based on a back of the envelope calc).

Personally I don't feel min wage is the most effective means of dealing with poverty. I am far more supportive of the idea for Guaranteed income or Negative Income Tax.
Those are direct outlays to the poor which would create the consumer base to keep the economy functioning, while providing income supplements to those at the bottom so they don't have to worry about getting paid diddly-squat. It's the Henry Ford principle on a grand scale which benefits both SMEs and the bottom quintile.

And BTW, it appears I'm not the only one pointing out the uncertainties issue in the report:

[video=youtube;8Ew_9liDjlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ew_9liDjlk[/video]
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The Average Business in the USA employs 16 people and makes a profit of $110,000 a year. To pay 16 employees $2 an hour more will cost $65,000 a year.

Do you think all the businesses in the USA are going to willingly take a 60% haircut?

nope, they are either going to raise prices, or cut quality, portions and service.

Instead of the 20 piece McNuggets that weighs 11.4 oz it will weigh 10 oz.

Instead of a 16 oz drink it will be a 15.2 oz drink.

Only the astute and detail oriented will acknowledge or even see that things are getting worse, the rest will blissfully play on their phones.


But a min wage hike of $2 is panzy ass shit that helps no one in the long run. $1,000 an hour so we can all work as hard as possible to accumulate as much wealth as possible before the dollar no longer has any perceivable value.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Do you think all the businesses in the USA are going to willingly take a 60% haircut?

nope, they are either going to raise prices, or cut quality, portions and service.
Click to expand...
you forgot the part where people have more money to spend and the business owner sells more.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you forgot the part where people have more money to spend and the business owner sells more.
Click to expand...
Only Min wage workers will have more to spend. Its not a raise for everyone, you should know this since all your jobs have been min wage.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Only Min wage workers will have more to spend. Its not a raise for everyone, you should know this since all your jobs have been min wage.
Click to expand...
i have not worked for minimum wage since i was 17 and stoned off my gourd at a mcdonald's register.

you still haven't sobered up from last night, have you? why you hitting the bottle so hard lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top