Democrats

Halifax2TheMax · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Maybe Californians eat healthier and because of their higher minimum wage more people can afford grocery store food and not have to feed their kids happy meals 14Xs a week? But it’s definitely the higher minimum wage.

Tim Simmons · July 28

As usual, I'm sure there is a confluence of reasons, but anything to attack the Dems.

mrussel1 · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

mrussel1 · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

Because the fiction is Newsom is going to be painted with “want fries with that.” You both ignored the fact that more jobs were created in one month than were lost for food service workers and then tried to blame it on the state’s minimum wage rate. Talk about fiction.

But hey, I hear there are a lot of produce picking jobs available and that Dems really need to explain and apologize for the Brandon deep state covering up his mental decline and that JD Byryder is leading in the polls. I also heard that all those fast food workers were white and it was really DEI that lost them their jobs. Fucking joke.

The point of that study was fast food employment is declining 3.2% there while it’s INCREASING IN OTHER STATES.

Why don’t you share the math on your .009? And why do you need to look at skin color when discussing employment related topics? Are you an ICE agent? Or just enjoy racism?

There are 18.6MM employed people in CA. 18,000/18.6M is .000968. It's that simple. I'm not sure how you couldn't get there yourself. Maybe that was the weird AI formula you were trying when you came up with 33k%.

Lerxst1992 · July 28

Tim Simmons said:

As usual, I'm sure there is a confluence of reasons, but anything to attack the Dems.

THE NEBR RESEARCH LITERALLY SAYS THERE IS A CORRELATION FROM THE WAGE LAW TO CA EMPLOYMENT LOSS.

SO…are you contending that the NEBR is biased against liberals? Do you know anything about them? Here you go…

….

“ Founded in New York City in 1920 and today headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the NBER is a network of more than 1,800 academic economists. These researchers are leaders in the field: 41 current or former NBER affiliates have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and 13 have chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Six present and past board members have also been awarded a Nobel in Economics.

“The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization. It focuses on conducting and disseminating economic research without taking specific policy stances. While it strives to be objective and avoid political alignment, its research can be used to support various viewpoints, and it is not inherently associated with either a liberal or conservative ideology.

Halifax2TheMax · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

Because the fiction is Newsom is going to be painted with “want fries with that.” You both ignored the fact that more jobs were created in one month than were lost for food service workers and then tried to blame it on the state’s minimum wage rate. Talk about fiction.

But hey, I hear there are a lot of produce picking jobs available and that Dems really need to explain and apologize for the Brandon deep state covering up his mental decline and that JD Byryder is leading in the polls. I also heard that all those fast food workers were white and it was really DEI that lost them their jobs. Fucking joke.

The point of that study was fast food employment is declining 3.2% there while it’s INCREASING IN OTHER STATES.

Why don’t you share the math on your .009? And why do you need to look at skin color when discussing employment related topics? Are you an ICE agent? Or just enjoy racism?

I shared my math when I mentioned the total employment in Cali, genius. Guess you don’t do maths but you do complain about DEI taking away jobs from white males so I figured your AI was spot on, despite the lack of links to any evidence.

Lerxst1992 · July 28

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Tim Simmons · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

As usual, I'm sure there is a confluence of reasons, but anything to attack the Dems.

THE NEBR RESEARCH LITERALLY SAYS THERE IS A CORRELATION FROM THE WAGE LAW TO CA EMPLOYMENT LOSS.

SO…are you contending that the NEBR is biased against liberals? Do you know anything about them? Here you go…

….

“ Founded in New York City in 1920 and today headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the NBER is a network of more than 1,800 academic economists. These researchers are leaders in the field: 41 current or former NBER affiliates have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and 13 have chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Six present and past board members have also been awarded a Nobel in Economics.

“The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization. It focuses on conducting and disseminating economic research without taking specific policy stances. While it strives to be objective and avoid political alignment, its research can be used to support various viewpoints, and it is not inherently associated with either a liberal or conservative ideology.

I’m saying correlation does not equal causation. No doubt it’s impactful. Other people have posited ideas that could be impacting it and it’s most likely all of the above

Halifax2TheMax · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

mrussel1 · July 28

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

mrussel1 · July 28

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

He didn't "change the topic", he made a different argument. This isn't difficult to understand. H2M's points are perfectly legitimate. Plus, if you go to their website, it's pretty clear that this study was completed by three grad students, and the scope was limited. IT WAS NOT DONE BY NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS or even professors. They certainly didn't investigate the standard of living increase for the 97% to determine if this was a good tradeoff, nor evaluate automation, nor evaluate the upward mobility (or downward mobility) of the 3% of the sector (which happens to be .09% of the state). You want to argue the merits of not increasing minimum wage, then do it. But you saying H2M doesn't understand "statistics" is not the argument to take.

gimmesometruth27 · July 28

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

He didn't "change the topic", he made a different argument. This isn't difficult to understand. H2M's points are perfectly legitimate. Plus, if you go to their website, it's pretty clear that this study was completed by three grad students, and the scope was limited. IT WAS NOT DONE BY NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS or even professors. They certainly didn't investigate the standard of living increase for the 97% to determine if this was a good tradeoff, nor evaluate automation, nor evaluate the upward mobility (or downward mobility) of the 3% of the sector (which happens to be .09% of the state). You want to argue the merits of not increasing minimum wage, then do it. But you saying H2M doesn't understand "statistics" is not the argument to take.

sounds like the study could have looked at a lot of other things instead of this single narrow scope.

as someone who came from a background at a prestigious research institution, the three graduate students probably did all the work under one prestigious professor that needed to publish or perish at that institution.

i'm not being dismissive. i'm just saying it depends where the grad students are studying and who is the professor overseeing the work.

mrussel1 · July 28

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

He didn't "change the topic", he made a different argument. This isn't difficult to understand. H2M's points are perfectly legitimate. Plus, if you go to their website, it's pretty clear that this study was completed by three grad students, and the scope was limited. IT WAS NOT DONE BY NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS or even professors. They certainly didn't investigate the standard of living increase for the 97% to determine if this was a good tradeoff, nor evaluate automation, nor evaluate the upward mobility (or downward mobility) of the 3% of the sector (which happens to be .09% of the state). You want to argue the merits of not increasing minimum wage, then do it. But you saying H2M doesn't understand "statistics" is not the argument to take.

sounds like the study could have looked at a lot of other things instead of this single narrow scope.

as someone who came from a background at a prestigious research institution, the three graduate students probably did all the work under one prestigious professor that needed to publish or perish at that institution.

i'm not being dismissive. i'm just saying it depends where the grad students are studying and who is the professor overseeing the work.

All three research assistants were from a different school. You are right, the scope is limited and that is intentional because it's likely for a dissertation or some other effort. You can't bite off too much and you need to get it done. It is anything but conclusive on the economic effect of the minimum wage. It answered one question.

Lerxst1992 · July 29

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

Right, his lazy ass commenting, his original one. I found the paper in less than a minute, and looks like you did also.

Jobs added in different industries is not the research sheck presented. It was an attempt by a nonpartisan group to answer a specific question.

you can change the parameters in any debate to shape it how you wish, the only thing proven is that argument is a result of partisan hackery.

Other industries may or may not have anything to do with the minimum wage laws. His argument is pure partisan whataboutism.

Lerxst1992 · July 29

Yes, there are high-paying industries where minimum wage laws have minimal impact. This is because the salaries in these industries are typically well above the minimum wage, often significantly so. Examples include fields like technology, finance, law, and medicine, where specialized skills and advanced degrees are prerequisites for employment.

mrussel1 · July 29

Lerxst1992 said:

Yes, there are high-paying industries where minimum wage laws have minimal impact. This is because the salaries in these industries are typically well above the minimum wage, often significantly so. Examples include fields like technology, finance, law, and medicine, where specialized skills and advanced degrees are prerequisites for employment.

Gee that’s perceptive. You’re saying lawyers are paid above minimum wage? Do you have a study to prove that statement?

gimmesometruth27 · July 29

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Yes, there are high-paying industries where minimum wage laws have minimal impact. This is because the salaries in these industries are typically well above the minimum wage, often significantly so. Examples include fields like technology, finance, law, and medicine, where specialized skills and advanced degrees are prerequisites for employment.

Gee that’s perceptive. You’re saying lawyers are paid above minimum wage? Do you have a study to prove that statement?

medical personnel too? no way.

mrussel1 · July 29

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Yes, there are high-paying industries where minimum wage laws have minimal impact. This is because the salaries in these industries are typically well above the minimum wage, often significantly so. Examples include fields like technology, finance, law, and medicine, where specialized skills and advanced degrees are prerequisites for employment.

Gee that’s perceptive. You’re saying lawyers are paid above minimum wage? Do you have a study to prove that statement?

medical personnel too? no way.

That seemed like AI didn’t it? Brain atrophy is real.

gimmesometruth27 · July 29

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Yes, there are high-paying industries where minimum wage laws have minimal impact. This is because the salaries in these industries are typically well above the minimum wage, often significantly so. Examples include fields like technology, finance, law, and medicine, where specialized skills and advanced degrees are prerequisites for employment.

Gee that’s perceptive. You’re saying lawyers are paid above minimum wage? Do you have a study to prove that statement?

medical personnel too? no way.

That seemed like AI didn’t it? Brain atrophy is real.

it did seem like it, but ai would have bothsidesd it and said something like roofers and contractors and other blue collar workers also make more than the minimum.

Halifax2TheMax · July 29

Ask AI to define “fast food worker.” Anyone know anyone who does the AI?

Democrats

Comments

Categories