DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Politics Better Than Her Critics

Since this is your position and you claim it as fact, can you give me a factual example of how a previous raise in the minimum wage has greatly increased inflation? Because while I've heard a lot of posters make such a claim, I've never seen any factual data to back that up. Thanks in advance.

Now see, this really doesn't seem to add up. Are you saying business hires more people now than they actually need to make their products? Because if they can do the same amount of production with fewer people, they're already doing it. Businesses don't hire more people than they need. That's a pure fallacy. Automation has been killing jobs for years and any time a company can replace a person with a machine, they do it. This isn't something new or anything that will be changed by a rise in the minimum wage.



While this is true, to claim that a stagnant minimum wage for a decade isn't a huge impact on those at the bottom of the economic ladder is something those not at the bottom would say.

Its not. My credit union serves a billion dollar corporation - they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs.

They are busier now, than they have been in the last 3 years I have worked for the Credit Union that serves them.

So they did away with the jobs they didn't need and it has nothing to do with a raise in minimum wage. I'd be willing to wager it has something to do with technology they are now using to help streamline and simplify many of their processes.

My daughter is a CPA at Caterpillar World Headquarters. They just installed an entire new software system that accomplished pretty much the same thing.

More complaints filed with the Federal Elections Committee against Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti concerning 'dark money'.

https://www.coolidgereagan.org/crf-v-ocasio-cortez-fec-2

I never equated her to Hitler. I'm pointing out the fact that being on Time cover isn't all that special as someone made it out to be.

No, the people they laid off were here for 20+ years. They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar. I never said this particular scenario had anything to do with the min. wage, I was pointing out that companies do this all the time, when you said they do not.

It doesn't have anything to do with the tech, as I stated, I work for their Credit Union, I have spoke with members of their IT, HR, and Senior Leadership Executives regarding it. Its simply because they figure they can push the same workload on fewer employees. Meaning they had more employees than they originally needed if they haven't been hurt by it. So it would seem your comment was incorrect.

So how exactly does that mean they're cutting down on employees? I mean if they're replacing older workers who made more with younger workers making less, I'm not sure what point you made at all.

"they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs. "

I guess it's easy to create conspiracy theories when your party is neck deep in one.

Its really funny watching these dudes who clearly struggle with women trash AOC because of the things she says, but turn into Ray Charles every time the PRESIDENT says moronic crap like this:

Donald Trump said wind turbines cause cancer. Chuck Grassley called that 'idiotic.'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-said-wind-turbines-212953433.html

But you won’t see BpG post that.

I guess you missed the part where they hired younger people to take over their jobs. Which means the number of employees would increase until such time as those people were ready to take over the position of the older, more expensive employees. It was a huge cost cutting move.

And the oranges of the Mueller investigation.

Claims his dad, who was born in New York, was born in Germany.

I mean, yeah, a congressional district elected a freshman congresswoman who says some of the wall stuff. They use it as a nice deflection that they actually elected someone just as bad or worse as the president.

Ha! this dude loves me. I literally posted that nonsense about Trump in an earlier thread, describing at idiotic or something like that.

I'm not hiding on Trump, Swish and OCD just want me to hack for their side and I will never hack for either side.

AOC = dumbass
Trump = dumbass

Yet I rarely see you post about his nonsense while from all indications it looks like you obsess with the nonsense from the other side. Not to be try to be nasty or anything, but your posting sounds a lot like watching FOX News claim to be fair and balanced. The math doesn't add up.

What is there to say about it that isn't regurgitated ad nausea on this forum? When I start chiming in, it's typically because there is objectively false information being spread. Do you want me to go into a thread where Trump says something objectively false and repeat what has already been said?



Here is the problem, I simply cannot say it enough to satiate the hard lefts on this board. I'm either hacking for their side or I'm a Trumpian. So when I say Trump is objectively a liar the hard lefts will just accuse me of "playing the middle" and "being fake". If I go in and criticize Trump, they will ignore it and then when I defend him on literally not being a Russian spy (which he is certifiably not), I'm a "Trumpanzee".

Why would I subject myself to that on a regular basis? To appease people who will NEVER see anything with any semblance of balance anyway?

Nailed it. He will never admit it, that would bust his cover.

I guess I did miss where they hired younger employees to take over the jobs they cut and the people they laid off.

This is what wilit said, and what I was responding to.

The way I read that, they had a lot of employees, so they cut/laid off older ones and told the younger ones basically 'do more work, cause we're not hiring people to replace the cut/laid off people."

If I'm not understanding what willit said, fine.

Yet they hired the young people to replace the old people. It's not that complicated.

The fact that both sides keep defending their own by comparing them to the lowest points of the other is the reason that the lowest points keep getting lower and lower and lower..

AOC uses Twitter to blast stuff out to get her followers all worked up... some of it is decent, some of it is sensationalized, and some of it is flat out wrong...

but the fact that the right has a problem with that is somewhat hard to understand since Trump basically invented "governing by Twitter"... and his tweets fall into the same 3 categories.

Probably because it’s beyond silly to compare a Freshman Congresswoman who only represents her district to a president who is SUPPOSE to represent everyone in the country.

It would be like you complaining about a player who only represents his team, but then turning a blind eye to Goddell, who represents the entire nfl.

They’ll never come with a good enough argument to claim that’s an acceptable parallel.

There shouldn't need to be a parallel..

AOC is in congress and should be held accountable for the things she says...

Trump is President and should be held accountable for the things he says...

And yet only one seems to be catching any real heat. And it isn’t the president....

Then you are getting your media very selectively..

I see everything Trump says ridiculed all over the place..

Fake news.

AOC catches heat from both sides, while trump only catches heat from one.

I certainly agree that each should be held accountable for what they say. Sadly I think one would have to admit that one yields a lot more power to make the things he says actually come true. I believe how much power the speaker has in their position is certainly a factor in how seriously you need to take their stupidity.

If that's how you read it, fine. MY understanding of what he wrote was this: This company has a lot of employees, old, young, and in between. They just recently got rid of some employees, and they are asking the existing employees to pick up the slack.

He didn't say they hired new ones, younger ones, re replace the ones they got rid of. They were asking the remaining employees to do more.

Does that at least make sense to you, that THAT is how I read it?

I am aware you like to argue.

Companies hire new employees all the time. I simply did not read his words as 'company got rid of hundreds of employees and replaced them with NEW younger employees by hiring new.

They got rid of employees, and are asking/demanding? the remaining employees do more. THAT is how I read it.




Was it a cost cutting move? Well, yeah!

How much weight you choose to give it is entirely up to you... but I think we agree on the primary premise which is to stop justifying one persons stupidity with another persons stupidity.

Here's where I drew my conclusion from....



This would indicate that you had to fist hire and train those younger employees in order to prepare them to fill those jobs. I'm not trying to argue or say you're wrong. All I'm saying is people can read the same words and come to a different conclusion.

We certainly do agree on the primary premise.

Correct. And MY interpretation of what willit said was "huge company, lots of employees, old, young, and in between. And in a cost cutting move, they eliminated some several hundred employees, and are asking the employees that remain, to do more, because those jobs lost aren't being hired for."

It's a funny thing arch. We read the same thing and we arrived two different interpretations from it. I plainly said that. Yet I'm the one who seemed okay with that.

It was you who said I was the one who liked to argue. Hmmmm....

Would you like some Advil for that?

Nah, I'm fine. The fact that you can't even admit I have a point is enough.

I said that we both read the same thing and came to different conclusions. I guess that's not enough for you. Some people need a good pat on the head I guess. Maybe a Scooby Snack I don't know.

Here it is, one last time:

From wiiit:

So if I post the quote I posted earlier does it help anything? No it doesn't.

They hired and trained people to take over those jobs. Or do you think they just gave them to those younger people without training them for the jobs?

You're right. they just hired a bunch of people they didn't need in order to be social warriors and good public servants. That's how business operates.

What part of "current employees" do you not understand?