minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[rocket surgeon]

People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.

This is why we can’t have good old fashioned discussions about some things.  baby dude, your comment took a severe political turn here and warrants a New Years ban hammer.  You don’t think people are chomping at the bit here to counter your post?  We could have put you in the top 5 smarty pants category, but this one gets you a dunce hat.  Now go stick your nose in the corner for a while🤷🏼‍♂️

   I sense no anger in cheeks matter of fact comments.  On the contraire Pierre I heard some disparaging remarks from the vocal majority or pack, in this case...the magna cum loudlies

[rocket surgeon]

States minimum wage laws to take affect today up to $14/hour(district of Columbia) while $12/hour in California and Washington and Massachusetts with a few in the $10 range.  Maryland is going the tba route-must be the ole wet finger in the wind method.  There are many cities and counties developing their own minimum wage over these

https://www.laborlawcenter.com/state-minimum-wage-rates/


One observation seems to be that some of the most highest taxed areas of the country are eager to push this up with a few exceptions of course. Part of this tells me that the corresponding government wants a piece of this-Smells like a mandatory tax increase without using the “t” word.  Raising the minimum wage and “free” stuff appears to be the mantra to get “attention”  now who in the gosh darn heck don’t like “free” stuff? Eyn’a? 😳. What the hell, i might as well propose free Marquette tickets to anyone who wants them

[MU82]

States minimum wage laws to take affect today up to $14/hour(district of Columbia) while $12/hour in California and Washington and Massachusetts with a few in the $10 range.  Maryland is going the tba route-must be the ole wet finger in the wind method.  There are many cities and counties developing their own minimum wage over these

https://www.laborlawcenter.com/state-minimum-wage-rates/


One observation seems to be that some of the most highest taxed areas of the country are eager to push this up with a few exceptions of course. Part of this tells me that the corresponding government wants a piece of this-Smells like a mandatory tax increase without using the “t” word.  Raising the minimum wage and “free” stuff appears to be the mantra to get “attention”  now who in the gosh darn heck don’t like “free” stuff? Eyn’a? 😳. What the hell, i might as well propose free Marquette tickets to anyone who wants them

Pretty cynical. But I'll take the tickets, thanks. PM me and I'll tell you where to send 'em!

[Cheeks]

People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.

Wait, only a month ago Obama was claiming this was his economy...which is it.

Presidents don’t control the economy and highly partisan hacks think they do. 

But thanks for making it political Baby, nothing has changed.

[Pakuni]

LOL.  Hmm, so any climate scientists that already on record of their position before the study, sure hope it doesn't shade their findings.

If a scientist writes an op-ed piece saying he/she believes climate changes causes depression, then two years later launches a study to determine whether climate changes causes depression, then yes, you should question whether the impending findings are influenced by the scientist's predisposition.
Likewise, if an economist writes an op-ed saying a minimum wage hike will lead to job, then launches a study to determine the impacts of a minimum wage increase, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether his predisposition will influence his findings.
This all seems obvious.
Are you now a science denier?

Indeed it is embarrassing....because all you had to do was read this in the summary:

Chicos, I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse here or truly don't get it, so I'll go over this slowly for you and then drop it, assuming that if you can't get it, you never will (or are choosing not to):
- The UCLA study you claimed showed negative effects of minimum wage increases was not a study of the minimum wage. Or minimum wage increases. Or minimum wage workers. It was a study of the negative effects of inconsistent work shifts among retail workers who - you may be shocked to learn - don't all earn minimum wage.
- The study made no examination of the minimum wage or any increase in the minimum wage.
- The only mention of the minimum wage is stating that the benefits of a minimum wage hike were counteracted by workers' inconsistent hours. This is not, as you continue to  claim, an indictment or criticism of minimum wage hikes.
- The study does not, as you falsely claim, say inconsistent hours are a result of minimum wage hikes. That's something you made up. It says inconsistent hours are a result of scheduling software that shifts workers around based on forecasts of when they'll be needed most.
- Lastly, writing your bogus claims  in ALL CAPS makes them no less bogus.

[Cheeks]

Will have to get back to you, still picking my chin off the floor after reading Jill Abramson’s bombshell today about The NY Times ( she was the former managing editor) media bias and the lack of credibility they have brought to journalism as a result of their approach.  Refreshing. 

[Pakuni]

Will have to get back to you, still picking my chin off the floor after reading Jill Abramson’s bombshell today about The NY Times ( she was the former managing editor) media bias and the lack of credibility they have brought to journalism as a result of their approach.  Refreshing.

She wrote that the NYT (which fired her) doesn't like Trump.
That's a bombshell to you?




Liberal rags like the National Review, The Economist and Weekly Standard (RIP) also dislike Trump.

[Cheeks]

She wrote that the NYT (which fired her) doesn't like Trump.
That's a bombshell to you?




Liberal rags like the National Review, The Economist and Weekly Standard (RIP) also dislike Trump.

That’s not what she wrote, she specifically got into their bias and their approach which is hurting their credibility. 

I don’t like him either, didn’t vote for him, but not 100% of what he does is wrong, and that’s the point.  Yes, Bill Kristol and the Nevers have always been about cheap labor, lots of wars, and their way of life.....and their empire is closing down as a result.  Billy has a junior Utah senator to be his mouthpiece now.

[Pakuni]

That’s not what she wrote, she specifically got into their bias and their approach which is hurting their credibility.   

Yes, it is what she said.
Here's the quote:
“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson wrote in the book, which is set for release on Jan. 19. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

As for hurting their credibility ... she's entitled to her opinion, but the facts say their credibility is hurting to the tune of 4 million subscribers (up from 3 million in 2016) and a 51 percent increase in quarterly profits in 2018. Failing, indeed.

Your explanation of why several conservative publications are also anti-Trump is an ad hominem attack on Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney. Classic Chicos.

[MU82]

I have been especially impressed with the WSJ's coverage. That's definitely a conservative paper, and they have done their job admirably.

[Cheeks]

Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)

[Pakuni]

He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

This may be the most Chicos Chico you ever Chicoed.

Anyhow, about that minimum wage ...

[D'Lo Brown]

Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)

What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.

[jesmu84]

Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)

Uh.. isn't this what nearly every news publication does?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.

In Chico's World,
1) Facts never make it into the NYT, even accidently
2) It is the NYT which is driving the distrust of the entire industry
3) The NYT would not report on a cure for cancer if a failed businessman happened to find it

Reality ceased to be an important thing on that side of the spectrum a long time ago.  Now, whatever you want to believe is real IS real to them.  I really don't know what the long-term cure is for those that invent their own facts and own "reality".

[Babybluejeans]

What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.

Unfortunately this need has consumed my Republican Party, because it works in elections. So it’s anger over solutions. It’s sad and has got to stop.

[rocket surgeon]

  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.  It’s just more dead now than before.  Bernard Goldberg has written a couple of books about it going back to 2001. He spent over 30 years working within the media, most specifically CBS.  He has 14 emmys.  Sharyl attkisson also worked for CBS for over 20 years, pretty much the same type of issues, different perspective.  There are no standards of professionalism within journalism.  It’s a free for all, kinda like art.  If any of the other “professions” were monitored like journalism, we would be in A LOT of trouble.

 

[MU82]

  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.

With all due respect, this is (to steal a phrase) dumb and dangerous.

Also not true.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.  It’s just more dead now than before.  Bernard Goldberg has written a couple of books about it going back to 2001. He spent over 30 years working within the media, most specifically CBS.  He has 14 emmys.  Sharyl attkisson also worked for CBS for over 20 years, pretty much the same type of issues, different perspective.  There are no standards of professionalism within journalism.  It’s a free for all, kinda like art.  If any of the other “professions” were monitored like journalism, we would be in A LOT of trouble.

If you believe this, why to do you lap up the statements from right-wing media like it is the nectar of the gods and regurgitate it without any critical thinking about its veracity?

[Pakuni]

If you believe this, why to do you lap up the statements from right-wing media like it is the nectar of the gods and regurgitate it without any critical thinking about its veracity?

In all fairness, if you got your news and information from the same sources as rocket, you too would believe journalism is dead.

[D'Lo Brown]

Reality ceased to be an important thing on that side of the spectrum a long time ago.  Now, whatever you want to believe is real IS real to them.  I really don't know what the long-term cure is for those that invent their own facts and own "reality".

Same cure that cures all of us, I'm afraid.

[rocket surgeon]

  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff

[dgies9156]

OK, this thread has been hijacked into a discussion of the media, and OK, a very interesting topic, which is why I'll bite. Full disclosure: I'm an ex-newspaper reporter and magazine reporter who left the field years ago for greener (and I do mean greener) pastures.

1) Anyone who thinks the allegations of "media bias" are new and news doesn't understand journalism. Advocacy journalism with its inherent bias has been around since, oh, about the time someone put a chisel to a rock to share an idea. Throughout history, those with the printing press controlled what was said and how it was said. In the 20th century, William Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to advocate a run for president (which did not work).

2) The 1970s and even early 1980s were a golden age of journalism. Thousands and thousands of "Watergate Babies" went into the field. Investigative reporting was the flavor of the day and most newspapers/television stations that investigated local and regional matters were good at it. But it cost a great deal of money to run an I-team and, not surprisingly, people want to talk about these stories more than they want to read about them.

3) The most aggregious example conservatives cite of media bias is the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. Sure, the media slobbered over President Obama. But conservatives who complain fail to understand why they slobbered. President Obama was a great story. Hundreds of years from now, sociologists and others will be studying how American society went from making African-Americans legal outcasts to electing an African-American President.  The writers get immortality, or as close to it as you can get.

4) To the specific issue of covering the minimum wage, most folks I know in the business tend to be great writers and very liberally educated (in the academic sense).  But few people I know who went into journalism did so to cover economics, business and finance. These three issues underpin just about everything that happens in American life. As a consequence, the writing we see tends to be emotional and anecdotal rather than focused on economic reality. Greed sells. Supply and demand, automation and capital seeking the highest return does not.

5) The biggest problem the media has is barriers to entry. In the old days (until the 1990s), these barriers were huge. Now they're non-existent and just about any blogger can put an opinion out that may or may not catch on. This is what objective journalism is competing against. If there's a reason objective journalism has morphed into advocacy journalism, it's because this is what the world wants. And few people can sniff money better than publishers. That's why we debate the facts. They get obscured amid advocacy. As we used to say about a business publication in Chicago, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good conclusion!"

No doubt the mainstream media has its problems covering a lot of things. Budgets are tighter, news is more shallow and targeted and frankly, there's a real question of what does the public want to pay for. Even when a publication is behind a pay wall, the paywall nowhere near makes up for the lost circulation and advertising revenue of days gone by.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff

Huh?

So many people believe, like you, that journalism is dead.  I wonder were you might have gotten that opinion?  And if you truly believe that, why do you continue to repeat what you saw and heard on Fox and its like?  Is their "journalism" NOT dead?

And do tell, which of your opinions are causing threats to you and your family's safety??

[GGGG]

  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff

Yeah.  You're so oppressed.  Gimme a break...