acesfull86
Well-known member
It would have to be perfectly inelastic for quantity demanded to not decrease by some level (except for rare instances/products). And low-skilled labor is going to be a heck of a lot more elastic than high-skilled labor.
Why are libertarians not more pumped about Rand Paul?
- Thread starter weso1
- Start date
It would have to be perfectly inelastic for quantity demanded to not decrease by some level (except for rare instances/products). And low-skilled labor is going to be a heck of a lot more elastic than high-skilled labor.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
You know back in my younger days, when I first started college (1977) I took the first Principles of Management course and right there in chapter 1 it said "If you take care of your people, your people will take care of you". Then from the 1980's until now it became "F*ck your people, use them until the are of no value to you any more, pay them the absolute lowest penny you can, fire them or outsource their jobs to India so that you can make a few more bucks, but whatever you do remember to pay upper management and especially your CEOs and CFOs top dollar, even more than top dollar, but treat your people like sh*t and pay them accordingly and believe every BS story that comes along about how "I would have paid my people better and treated them better, but I was afraid for my $25Million/year job with a buttload of stock options and other perks. I REALLY hope those asshats try that lame assed line come judgement day and I hope I"m lucky enough to see it. I know I"m going to have a lot to answer for too, but I think a bunch of those guys might need asbestos underwear more than I do someday.
57Brave
Well-known member
That on a legal pad with two columns is 3 wins and one loss.
Do the math - .750 wins in any sport at any level
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
We should also remember that even though Ford was a genius and visionary for his time, the fact that (and the reason behind it) he almost bankrupted his own company because of bigotry.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I'm sure you would agree that there are plenty of insane/moronic/corrupt/evil/worthless Congressmen whose constituents continually elect them year after year. This is not that big a feather in Paul's cap.
sturg33
I
I would agree for most congressmen. But I'm always told that Paul is terrible because he won't vote for any goodies to his people. They could have easily given him the boot for someone more compassionate.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I really doubt this is something people are always telling you. Why would anyone say makes him terrible? "Earmarks" is red meat that everyone hates. And just because he doesn't "vote" for any goodies for his people, doesn't mean he doesn't get them. He inserts them into bills he can safely vote against, knowing full well the bill will still pass.
I have no problem with Paul's position and actions on earmarks, but your statement is bizarrely misinformed for someone who considers Paul his dream girlfriend.
sturg33
I
What are you talking about? 57 was just ranting how Paul would vote against hurricane relief... that directly impacts the people he represents. I'm just saying, if it was such a huge deal to those people, why keep voting for him?
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
57 isn't "people." He is one person, who says things that may or may not have any bearing on reality. And this certainly isn't something he is always telling you.
Ron Paul requests and gets plenty of earmarks for his constituents, including hurricane relief. Your question makes no sense. Paul attaches the requests to bills he knows will pass even if he votes against them, so he can brag about voting against earmarks while still getting them for his district.
sturg33
I
It is the congress' duty to appropriate the funds via earmarks. That doesn't mean it should be approved
acesfull86
Well-known member
I think it's asinine, to be brutally honest. I believe Zito explained it correctly...Ford was factoring in high turnover as a cost of labor...paying his employees more actually reduced his labor costs because it stemmed turnover.
I believe the quote above is a good example of the arrogance we see from the left. Even if it was true in a particular situation, isn't an individual business in a hell of a lot better position to determine whether paying its employees more makes sense for its bottom line than a bunch of politicians in Washington essentially saying "trust us, this is for your own good?" The left should stick to pulling at heartstrings (of the ignorant) and bemoan folks not being paid a "living wage." Not try to convince us of the ridiculous claim that a legislated minimum price will somehow lead to MORE profits because those new costs will all somehow be funneled back into their businesses.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Ron had much better support from independents and would have siphoned off some disgruntled democrat voters. The only way he gets less votes than Romney got is if a lot of republican voters refused to vote for him and given the Republican voters seething hatred of Obama I doubt that would have happened. The FEMA thing wouldnt have lost him many votes if at all. I think people would rather a candidate who is straight forward and tells you what he believes regardless of whats the polls say than another shady politician who tells people what they want to hear and tries to give a PC answer to every question. Plus he would have eviscerated Obama in any debate. Anyways 0% is no worse than the 0% Romney had. Maybe it wasnt 0%, theres always the off chance Obama got caught with a dead girl or live boy in his bed,
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Hadn't seen that. Thanks for posting. I think 2016 is going to be the election when both sides up the ante on scaring the living bejesus out of the population.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Having spent a lifetime in politics, I wish this were the case but increasingly it isn't. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it usually happens in local or statewide races. Paul Wellstone won twice in Minnesota (and was on his way to winning again when he died in a plane crash) and he was way to the left of the state on a ton of issues. Somehow the Presidency is different. I was a big Paul Tsongas fan, but his Presidential bid evaporated into the ether when he was honest about the budget situation.
sturg33
I
Agreed - I think he gets basically all of the republican vote, plus a heck of a lot more independents, democrats, and especially young voters. Romney had no chance from the get go
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Rand would have to branch out from his real views to win any republican primary, much the same way Romney did. I don't think it's a stretch to say Romney was a lot more "in the middle" than he appeared, because you won't win a republican primary being more moderate: you have to appeal to your voters. Romney would've fared better in the real election, IMO, if he didn't have to dumb himself down for primaries beforehand.
I guess I'm saying, Rand probably still holds beliefs and ideas that are closer to libertarian than he's letting on. But he ain't winning the republican nomination with those.
His foreign policy would scare off a lot of republican voters.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yeah, get used to it. The Republican primary is going to be a contest to see who can propose the biggest defense increases. Everyone is going to pile on Randy there.
The general is going to be a competition between an R promising that if you elect the D, ISIS/Iran/Generic Enemy of the Week is going to come to the US and behead the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders on national TV. Meanwhile, the D is going to be working hard to convince the electorate that s/he is slightly more bloodthirsty than Vlad the Impaler.