[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: shebang - what's the point?

Jonathan

5/11/2007 3:50:00 PM

Probably best not to call a script by the same name as a unix command.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Luginbuehl [mailto:dinkel@pimprecords.com]
Sent: 11 May 2007 16:42
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: shebang - what's the point?

> So, when it comes down to it, what's the point of the shebang line?

To summarize the to previous replies (Enrique and Greg):

Say you have a script that does some kind of sorting. You rename your

sort.rb file to sort

and give it the shebang line. If it's in the PATH you can simply run it
like:

$ sort testfile.txt

which I think is pretty neat.

As Enrique said before only *NIX environments support that.


Cheers,

Christian Luginbuehl

***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority

This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Visit our websites at:
www.rbs.com
www.rbsgc.com
www.rbsmarkets.com
***********************************************************************************
36 Answers

Christian Luginbuehl

5/11/2007 4:36:00 PM

0

>> Say you have a script that does some kind of sorting. You rename your
>>
>> sort.rb file to sort
>>
>> and give it the shebang line. If it's in the PATH you can simply run it
>> like:
>>
>> $ sort testfile.txt
>>
>> which I think is pretty neat.
>
> Probably best not to call a script by the same name as a unix command.

Very true, my bad! So rename it to 'steroidsort' and (the other thing I
forgot :-() make it executable.


Cheers,

Christian Luginbuehl

islander

2/5/2014 3:31:00 PM

0

On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>
>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>
>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't understand
>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even any
>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be very
>>> well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>
>> I don't think that this is about income inequality. It is essentially
>> about the exploitation of workers who are paid the bare minimum that the
>> law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated altogether, some
>> employers would pay even less, essentially what the market allowed.
>
>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>
>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>
>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly for
>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>
>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together and
>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>
> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>
> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.

Read the first sentence of my response.

Walt Hadley

2/5/2014 8:54:00 PM

0

On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:

>> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:

>>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:

>>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't understand
>>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even any
>>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>>> Does anyone have any idea?

>>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.

Well, duh.

>>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the bare
>>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the market
>>> allowed.
>>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly for
>>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together and
>>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.

>> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.

> Read the first sentence of my response.

I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.

All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
solve the "problem", whatever it is.

Oz

2/5/2014 9:46:00 PM

0

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:43:55 AM UTC-5, Walt Hadley wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>
>
>
> >> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>
>
>
> >> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>
> >> campaign against "income inequality."
>
> >> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>
> >> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>
> >> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't understand
>
> >> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even any
>
> >> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be very
>
> >> well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>
> >> Does anyone have any idea?
>
>
>
> > I don't think that this is about income inequality. It is essentially
>
> > about the exploitation of workers who are paid the bare minimum that the
>
> > law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated altogether, some
>
> > employers would pay even less, essentially what the market allowed.
>
>
>
> > There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>
> > world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>
> > level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>
> > make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>
>
>
> > How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>
> > another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>
> > notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>
> > hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>
> > to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>
> > poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>
>
>
> > Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly for
>
> > businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>
> > simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>
>
>
> > Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together and
>
> > pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>
> > increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>
> > SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>
> > personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>
> > customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>
> > increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>
>
>
> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>
> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>
> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>
>
>
> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.


Ah, my dear Walt, this is a level of thinking way above a Conservative's ability to understand. Wait 'til you get hit with how increasing the minimum wage will stimulate the economy. This will really transport you into an esoteric world of wonderment.

islander

2/7/2014 7:47:00 PM

0

On 2/5/2014 12:54 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:
>
>>> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>
>>>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>
>>>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't
>>>>> understand
>>>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even
>>>>> any
>>>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>>>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>
>>>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.
>
> Well, duh.
>
>>>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the
>>>> bare
>>>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>>>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the
>>>> market
>>>> allowed.
>>>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>>>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>>>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>>>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>>>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>>>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>>>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>>>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>>>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>>>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>>>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly
>>>> for
>>>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>>>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>>>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together
>>>> and
>>>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>>>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>>>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>>>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>>>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>>>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>
>>> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>>> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>>> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>>> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.
>
>> Read the first sentence of my response.
>
> I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
> interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
>
> All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
> point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
> conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
> your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
> to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
> that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
> solve the "problem", whatever it is.

You seem to be under the impression that the minimum wage is the
centerpiece of Obama's campaign against income inequality. It is not.

There is reason to address the minimum wage, as I pointed out, but if
you are thinking that this is all that Obama has in mind in addressing
income inequality, you are probably spending too much time watching Fox
News.

The focus of Obama's programs are to provide opportunity for upward
mobility across the 99%. To the extent that minimum wage is involved,
it is only about those workers who become trapped working at this level.
Contrary to what you claim, there are a lot of workers who never get
the chance to move upward, especially among service workers.

Upward mobility involves much more than what you assume.

El Castor

2/8/2014 12:15:00 AM

0

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:47:23 -0800, islander <none@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 2/5/2014 12:54 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>> On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>>>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>>>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>>>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>>>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>>>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>>>>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>>>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>>
>>>>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.
>>
>> Well, duh.
>>
>>>>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the
>>>>> bare
>>>>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>>>>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the
>>>>> market
>>>>> allowed.
>>>>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>>>>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>>>>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>>>>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>>>>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>>>>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>>>>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>>>>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>>>>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>>>>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>>>>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly
>>>>> for
>>>>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>>>>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>>>>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together
>>>>> and
>>>>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>>>>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>>>>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>>>>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>>>>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>>>>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>>
>>>> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>>>> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>>>> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>>>> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.
>>
>>> Read the first sentence of my response.
>>
>> I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
>> interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
>>
>> All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
>> point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
>> conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
>> your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
>> to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
>> that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
>> solve the "problem", whatever it is.
>
>You seem to be under the impression that the minimum wage is the
>centerpiece of Obama's campaign against income inequality. It is not.
>
>There is reason to address the minimum wage, as I pointed out, but if
>you are thinking that this is all that Obama has in mind in addressing
>income inequality, you are probably spending too much time watching Fox
>News.
>
>The focus of Obama's programs are to provide opportunity for upward
>mobility across the 99%. To the extent that minimum wage is involved,
>it is only about those workers who become trapped working at this level.
> Contrary to what you claim, there are a lot of workers who never get
>the chance to move upward, especially among service workers.
>
>Upward mobility involves much more than what you assume.

So how does the government provide "upward mobility"?

maxwelton

2/8/2014 1:56:00 AM

0

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:54:02 PM UTC-5, Walt Hadley wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:
>
>
>
> >> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>
> >>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>
> >>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>
> >>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>
> >>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>
> >>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't understand
>
> >>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even any
>
> >>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>
> >>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>
> >>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>
>
>
> >>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.
>
>
>
> Well, duh.
>
>
>
> >>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the bare
>
> >>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>
> >>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the market
>
> >>> allowed.
>
> >>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>
> >>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>
> >>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>
> >>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>
> >>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>
> >>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>
> >>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>
> >>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>
> >>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>
> >>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>
> >>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly for
>
> >>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>
> >>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>
> >>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together and
>
> >>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>
> >>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>
> >>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>
> >>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>
> >>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>
> >>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>
>
>
> >> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>
> >> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>
> >> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>
> >> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.
>
>
>
> > Read the first sentence of my response.
>
>
>
> I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
>
> interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
>
>
>
> All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
>
> point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
>
> conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
>
> your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
>
> to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
>
> that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
>
> solve the "problem", whatever it is.

Then think about this; what if there was a maximum
wage?
If minimum wage is raised where do you think that
money would come from?
You need to think about the economy as a system.

mg

2/8/2014 2:58:00 AM

0

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:47:23 -0800, islander <none@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 2/5/2014 12:54 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>> On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>>>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>>>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>>>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>>>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>>>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>>>>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>>>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>>
>>>>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.
>>
>> Well, duh.
>>
>>>>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the
>>>>> bare
>>>>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>>>>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the
>>>>> market
>>>>> allowed.
>>>>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>>>>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>>>>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>>>>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>>>>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>>>>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>>>>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>>>>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>>>>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>>>>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>>>>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly
>>>>> for
>>>>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>>>>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>>>>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together
>>>>> and
>>>>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>>>>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>>>>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>>>>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>>>>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>>>>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>>
>>>> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>>>> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>>>> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>>>> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.
>>
>>> Read the first sentence of my response.
>>
>> I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
>> interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
>>
>> All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
>> point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
>> conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
>> your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
>> to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
>> that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
>> solve the "problem", whatever it is.
>
>You seem to be under the impression that the minimum wage is the
>centerpiece of Obama's campaign against income inequality. It is not.
>
>There is reason to address the minimum wage, as I pointed out, but if
>you are thinking that this is all that Obama has in mind in addressing
>income inequality, you are probably spending too much time watching Fox
>News.
>
>The focus of Obama's programs are to provide opportunity for upward
>mobility across the 99%. To the extent that minimum wage is involved,
>it is only about those workers who become trapped working at this level.
> Contrary to what you claim, there are a lot of workers who never get
>the chance to move upward, especially among service workers.
>
>Upward mobility involves much more than what you assume.

Without looking, my guess is that the best way to provide upward
mobility is by being raised in a stable, two-parent household, and by
education, but I'm only guessing. What sort of things do you suppose
provide upward mobility for U.S. citizens?

islander

2/8/2014 7:18:00 PM

0

On 2/7/2014 5:55 PM, maxwelton@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:54:02 PM UTC-5, Walt Hadley wrote:
>> On 2/5/2014 10:31 AM, islander wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 2/4/2014 10:43 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2014 7:31 PM, islander wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/2014 12:38 PM, Walt Hadley wrote:
>>
>>>>>> President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his
>>
>>>>>> campaign against "income inequality."
>>
>>>>>> I'm trying to get some kind of a handle on just how many people, other
>>
>>>>>> than low-skill entry-level workers, continue to earn only minimum wage
>>
>>>>>> and don't climb any rungs on the career ladder. What I don't understand
>>
>>>>>> is how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or even any
>>
>>>>>> affect on "income inequality", as I understand it (which may not be
>>
>>>>>> very well). He is thinking about the great 99%, right?
>>
>>>>>> Does anyone have any idea?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I don't think that this is about income inequality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, duh.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> It is essentially about the exploitation of workers who are paid the bare
>>
>>>>> minimum that the law requires. If the minimum wage were eliminated
>>
>>>>> altogether, some employers would pay even less, essentially what the market
>>
>>>>> allowed.
>>
>>>>> There is a serious question as to whether or not we want to live in a
>>
>>>>> world where people work full time and still are not above the poverty
>>
>>>>> level. One of our values is that someone who works hard deserves to
>>
>>>>> make a decent living. That is certainly not true today.
>>
>>>>> How many are working for the minimum wage? About 1.6 million and
>>
>>>>> another 2 million are paid even less due to exceptions to the law, most
>>
>>>>> notably food service personnel for whom the minimum wage is $2.13 per
>>
>>>>> hour thanks to Reagan. Obama's proposal is to bring the minimum wage up
>>
>>>>> to $10.10 per hour which would bring a full time worker above the
>>
>>>>> poverty level. Tipped workers would also get a raise to $7.07.
>>
>>>>> Studies have shown that there is no downside to this except possibly for
>>
>>>>> businesses which are operating at the margin or for businesses that
>>
>>>>> simply milk as much labor per dollar out of their workers as possible.
>>
>>>>> Here in Washington State, the workers at SEATAC airport got together and
>>
>>>>> pushed for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. They won the
>>
>>>>> increase at the polls. Who lost in this? Minimum wage workers at
>>
>>>>> SEATAC are primarily workers at the various concessions and cleaning
>>
>>>>> personnel. The costs will likely be passed along to the airline
>>
>>>>> customers, but who cares? The cost of a soft drink will probably
>>
>>>>> increase by a few cents, not even noticed by a traveler.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Well, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question,
>>
>>>> which was how increasing the minimum wage would or could have much or
>>
>>>> even any affect on "income inequality", however that is defined.
>>
>>>> I'm still trying to get a handle on what Obama is talking about.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Read the first sentence of my response.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm well aware of your first sentence. And I repeat, that's all very
>>
>> interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.
>>
>>
>>
>> All you've done is bloviate on a favored progressive liberal talking
>>
>> point, not provide any useful info that would help a questioning
>>
>> conservative learn something about the great "income gap". Except for
>>
>> your first sentence, your whole response is bogative. I'm still trying
>>
>> to suss out what Obama is talking about - all you've done is confirm
>>
>> that he's just blowing smoke again and doesn't have any proposal to
>>
>> solve the "problem", whatever it is.
>
> Then think about this; what if there was a maximum
> wage?
> If minimum wage is raised where do you think that
> money would come from?
> You need to think about the economy as a system.
>
The economy is, in fact, a system. But, it is not a system based on
zero-sum. It has gain. If you are familiar with system theory, then
you understand something about feedback and the effect that it can have
on system performance.

This argument is fundamental to understanding the difference between
demand side and supply side economics. Increasing the supply of money
to people who will spend most of that money produces demand which
provides the motivation to increase capital investment. This is gain
and the economy improves. This has been proven many times in the past
and policies like increasing the minimum wage, providing unemployment
insurance, and increasing public employment all serve to increase demand
and thereby produce gain in the system.

By contrast, the conservatives seem to be doing everything that they can
to make things worse, opposing a minimum wage increase, canceling
unemployment insurance, reducing public employment and even opposing
badly needed infrastructure projects all serve to reduce the amount of
money available for people to spend. No amount of increased motivation
for supply side spending will work without demand.

Where does the money come from? It comes from increased economic activity.

Werner

2/8/2014 8:32:00 PM

0

Evidently the money now comes from printing presses. But when you get a free lunch what does the feedback loop tell you? Feedback loops are in disarray because prices have little relationship to reality. Government distorts the feedback loop. Were the Fed to be eliminated tomorrow we would all learn reality the next day. The feedback loop would tell us Tragedy strikes pretty much everywhere.
http://www.endit.info...
http://www.endit.info/Trag...
http://www.endit.info/Trag...