Sweetie - I’m not attacking you. YOU keep bringing it up over and over and over, and I keep correcting you. You won’t let it go.
Hogwash. I’m in favor of having a minimum wage. We do have a minimum wage. That is the status quo. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Nonsense. I was quite serious.
Again, we HAVE a minimum wage. How can I be “bemoaning” not having something, when we DO have it? That makes no sense.
YOU are the one bemoaning the fact that low-income workers aren’t “motivated” by piss-poor wages to get high-tech jobs.
You didn’t answer the question. I asked you, then, what you DID mean. You only told us what you didn’t mean.
That’s highly ironic. I have wasted an enormous amount of time responding to your demands that I keep explaining over and over and over what I said. God, how I wish I could spend less time on it. But you just won’t quit with the strawmen.
Look, I already refuted your statement. I’m not going to refute everything you say 3 or 4 times over. Go back and read my response. Enough is enough.
It was very clear. The fault is yours.
Again, you aren’t following the argument. When we’re talking about minimum-wage jobs, and how many workers are available to do them, we aren’t talking about high-tech jobs, because those aren’t minimum-wage jobs. What we’ve “touched on” is irrelevant. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.
No it doesn’t. If there are X unskilled minimum-wage jobs available, and Y unskilled workers available to do those jobs, what does Z, the number of highly-trained tech workers have to do with it? I didn’t say there will always be more people in need of work than jobs in EVERY CATEGORY. There you go again - reading too much into things.
And everybody who does it gets called on it. Like you did.
It was a rhetorical question.
You are the one who has called me a liar and accused me of a logical fallacy which I was not guilty of. I have only kept bringing it up in defense of these untrue allegations you have made.
It was only recently in post #137 that you finally realized your mistake. Still, I note that you haven’t apologized or retracted.
You should’ve titled it “Pandora’s Box”. 
I’m fine with just leaving the MW where it is. You are the one who wants to raise it. That is a change of the status quo.
You made a statement was not only demonstrably false, it was laughable. I pointed this out. Now your doing backflips to try and justify it after the fact in some way to make it clear. Why don’t you just rephrase it to something that makes sense? Instead you insist on blaming me when you word something poorly.
YOUR mistake. I’m through with your childish games. Goodbye.
O.K., I’ll correct one more error of yours before I stop responding to you. I only said the MW should keep up with inflation, which is what it does, more or less. (As proof, compare the MW 40, 30, 20, and 10 years ago with today’s, and note that it increases over time). YOU advocate freezing it, which is NOT the status quo. And in fact, you said the only reason you don’t advocate abolishing it altogether is that you don’t think it could be accomplished politically. So it’s quite disingenous of you to claim that you advocate keeping the status quo, since, if you had your druthers, there wouldn’t be a MW at all. (I know you’re going to deny saying this, but it’s right there on the page for all to see.)
So knock yourself out with your strawmen; I’m through with you.
Good to see the old “I’m taking my ball and going home.” argument put to use.
I’ll respond to your last point. The minimum wage has not been changed in seven years, since 1997. Leaving the minimum wage as it is is indeed the status quo. Raising it would be a change. Leaving things as they are would continue the status quo.
You disagree with me. You think raising the MW would be the status quo. However, it’s worth noting that I’m not calling you a liar or accusing your argument of being a logical fallacy. We simply disagree. You on the other hand, don’t seem capable of recognizing this. You again question my motives, calling me disingenuous, and accuse me of creating strawmen.
It is actually possible for someone to have an opinion that is different from yours and not be a liar. You would do yourself a service if you tried to wrap your mind around that concept and stopped with the lashing out at those who disagree with you.
Bye.
Oh, and just to be throrough I’ll respond to this. Yes, I have stated that in a perfect world I think we could do without a MW at all. However, the world is not perfect and the political reality is that this is never going to happen. If the republicans suggested this they would get massacred in the next election. So, my argument has been consistent: We should keep the MW where it is. It’s not dishonest of me to make this argument, it’s just realistic.