Bachmann is...

[Gulo Blue]

hmmm...

Ugh. Fine. I'll play your dumb-ass game some more.

Here are some bolded comments from me throughout your post:

I'm talking about what I said you think and assume that you denied thinking and assuming. Specifically I said "You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it."

No. I don't think that and didn't say it.

which is the same as saying buyers (employers) have pricing power for labor.

In a way, but the meaning is just different enough so that it has a different implication when you turn around and question the negative.

Then I said "Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs."

In your response, you denied thinking or assuming either. So, do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power?

Like that.

and if not, then why would any wages go down just because of a reduction in the min wage? Similarly, do you not assume other wages are pegged to the minimum and not the value of the product?

And here we go again.

And I don't mean formally pegged like a discrete currency peg,

Well, then you probably shouldn't have said "pegged", should you? Because I obviously do think there's a complicated relationship, but "pegged" is a very poor word choice for it as it carries a very different meaning.

but pegged in the informal sense that the cause of wages above the min going down as a result of a reduction in the min? If so, of they're not pegged in some way, then why would other wages go down just because some min wage earners may be paid less?

...and there we have it. Convoluted nonsense built from arguing with the negative of a misstated position, which starts with 'p', which rhymes with 'c' which stands for 'cognitive dissonance'.

 

[Spartanmack]

Ugh. Fine. I'll play your dumb-ass game some more.

Here are some bolded comments from me throughout your post:

So you come back at me with a dumbass argument about semantics and say I'm playing a game? The substance of the statements is clear and when worded differently, the substance isn't altered in any meaningful way. There is nothing convoluted about any of what I said. If you want to deny thinking or assuming it because you think the pegged changes everything, go ahead with your Enigo Montoya nonsense, but I'm not going to regress into a stupid argument about semantics.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So you come back at me with a dumbass argument about semantics and say I'm playing a game? The substance of the statements is clear and when worded differently, they're not materially different. There is nothing convoluted about any of what I said. If you want to deny thinking or assuming it because you think the pegged changes everything, go ahead with your Enigo Montoya nonsense, but I'm not going to regress into a stupid argument about semantics.

Fine. If you insist, I guess it's possible you aren't playing a stupid game. I suppose it's possible you're being genuine. But if that's the case, then why can't you respond to what's been actually been said? If the semantics don't change the meaning, why do you need to reword things and then assign the rewording to me?

 

[Michchamp]

Ugh. Fine. I'll play your dumb-ass game some more.

...

Why, Red, I've never seen you so upset.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why, Red, I've never seen you so upset.

You know I'm ragin' at my computer!

 

[Spartanmack]

Fine. If you insist, I guess it's possible you aren't playing a stupid game. I suppose it's possible you're being genuine. But if that's the case, then why can't you respond to what's been actually been said? If the semantics don't change the meaning, why do you need to reword things and then assign the rewording to me?

I assure you I'm not playing games - I thought you were but now it appears there may be a bit of confusion in the mix here. They were genuine questions reworded for the sake of brevity or to avoid being repetitious. From my perspective there are 2 conversations going on here - one with someone who makes good points and consistently adds value to the conversation that I don't always agree with but usually find interesting and second with a bloviating, hateful, pompous dickhead who often makes me feel dumber for having read his inane drivel. It seems the former may have read my posts in that conversation with the same tone that is undeniably in my posts in the conversation with the latter. I mean no disrespect to you, I can't possibly indicate enough disrespect to him.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I assure you I'm not playing games - I thought you were but now it appears there may be a bit of confusion in the mix here. They were genuine questions reworded for the sake of brevity or to avoid being repetitious. From my perspective there are 2 conversations going on here - one with someone who makes good points and consistently adds value to the conversation that I don't always agree with but usually find interesting and second with a bloviating, hateful, pompous dickhead who often makes me feel dumber for having read his inane drivel. It seems the former may have read my posts in that conversation with the same tone that is undeniably in my posts in the conversation with the latter. I mean no disrespect to you, I can't possibly indicate enough disrespect to him.

I don't/didn't feel disrespected. But I did think you were playing word games. First, I said to myself I wouldn't get sucked into the word games. Then, I said to myself "fine, Mack wins, just one more round of word games." Then, I drifted in "The Music Man", which maybe I should have saved for Tinsel, but since they copied it in the Simpson, I thought there was a chance somebody might say something about a monorail.

 

[biggunsbob]

Fuck Yeah pay those fast food workers 12-15 dollars a hour so I can get my damn Dip top Ice cream cone faster....

Freaking two times in a row on back to back Sunday's my wife and I went for a drive and both times after some miles we stopped at McDonalds and waited over 10 minutes each time for our Cones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only that but the second time this girl that looked 2 rocks shy cut in front all of us poor soul's waiting in line and asked loud enough for everyone one to hear "Can I get my check now". The girl behind the counter said something about getting the manager but he was busy and then she walked right in front of this couple in front of us without a "pardon me" or anything.... Me and my wife and the younger other couple had a bonding moment of ESP that started with "So damn rude"....

So anyway by all means pay them more... Maybe they will care about Getting Bob's dip top to him in a timely fashion !!!!!!

 

[Spartanmack]

Fuck Yeah pay those fast food workers 12-15 dollars a hour so I can get my damn Dip top Ice cream cone faster....

Freaking two times in a row on back to back Sunday's my wife and I went for a drive and both times after some miles we stopped at McDonalds and waited over 10 minutes each time for our Cones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only that but the second time this girl that looked 2 rocks shy cut in front all of us poor soul's waiting in line and asked loud enough for everyone one to hear "Can I get my check now". The girl behind the counter said something about getting the manager but he was busy and then she walked right in front of this couple in front of us without a "pardon me" or anything.... Me and my wife and the younger other couple had a bonding moment of ESP that started with "So damn rude"....

So anyway by all means pay them more... Maybe they will care about Getting Bob's dip top to him in a timely fashion !!!!!!

Sounds like a great idea but the more likely outcome is that you will still get the same rude service and it will still take approximately 10 minutes for your cones to arrive (not sure if the net change is a gain or loss - depends on how many folks get laid off and whether the girl cutting the line and demanding her check in the middle of the dinner rush is one of them) but the cones will cost almost 2x.