Minimum wage consequence

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:44:54
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Minimum wage consequence

I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
thing that someone else is supposed to do?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:41:42
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Date: 19 Jan 2007 08:52:37
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

MnMikew wrote:
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:45af8277$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>
> >> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >>>
> >>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
> >>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
> >>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
> >>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
> >>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
> >>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
> >>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
> >>>> starting point in ones employment career.
> >>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
> >> I believe everything you need to know is above.
> >>
> >
> > Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you injected ----
> > Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> > point in ones employment career.
> >
> > I didn't think you could back up that claim.
> There is a reason it's called MINIMUM ya know. Reading and actually
> understanding the numbers may help you with this.

How's about some golf content?

Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
playstation games!

Date: 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1169225557.736492.56310@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:45af8277$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >
>> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> larry wrote:
>> >>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> >>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> >>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government
>> >>>>>> mandates.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my
>> >>>>> Republican
>> >>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>> >>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> >>>> starting point in ones employment career.
>> >>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>> >> I believe everything you need to know is above.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you
>> > injected ----
>> > Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> > starting
>> > point in ones employment career.
>> >
>> > I didn't think you could back up that claim.
>> There is a reason it's called MINIMUM ya know. Reading and actually
>> understanding the numbers may help you with this.
>
> How's about some golf content?
>
> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> playstation games!
>
Well stated Rob.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:46:04
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
>> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
>> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
>> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
>> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
>> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
>> playstation games!

I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
that hit to the bottom line.

Larry

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:26:41
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> >> playstation games!
>
> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> that hit to the bottom line.
>
>
> Larry

Bullshit Larry. Unless you had hired too many to start with, you still
need the same number of employees to get the job done.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:34:09
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <lloydparsons-58086C.14264119012007@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

> In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> > >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> > >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> > >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> > >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> > >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> > >> playstation games!
> >
> > I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> > forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> > work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> > in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> > will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> > that hit to the bottom line.
> >
> >
> > Larry
>
> Bullshit Larry. Unless you had hired too many to start with, you still
> need the same number of employees to get the job done.

Sorry, Lloyd, but you're wrong. Companies don't have an infinite bank
account. They cannot simply pay everyone more because they need the same
number of employees. They sometimes have to make do with fewer employees
than they'd prefer.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:35:50
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <user-D247E0.12340819012007@news.telus.net >,
Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

> In article <lloydparsons-58086C.14264119012007@individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> > > >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> > > >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> > > >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> > > >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> > > >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> > > >> playstation games!
> > >
> > > I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> > > forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> > > work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> > > in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> > > will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> > > that hit to the bottom line.
> > >
> > >
> > > Larry
> >
> > Bullshit Larry. Unless you had hired too many to start with, you still
> > need the same number of employees to get the job done.
>
> Sorry, Lloyd, but you're wrong. Companies don't have an infinite bank
> account. They cannot simply pay everyone more because they need the same
> number of employees. They sometimes have to make do with fewer employees
> than they'd prefer.

Not in service you don't. You either have the service your customers
want or you don't. If you reduce your employee count and service levels
suffer, so does your business.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:49:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:35:50 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> Sorry, Lloyd, but you're wrong. Companies don't have an infinite bank
>> account. They cannot simply pay everyone more because they need the same
>> number of employees. They sometimes have to make do with fewer employees
>> than they'd prefer.
>
>Not in service you don't. You either have the service your customers
>want or you don't. If you reduce your employee count and service levels
>suffer, so does your business.

Yep. But when costs increase enough - service cuts happen. Observe
the real world and compare it to the past, when cheap labor was
ubiquitous.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:08:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:49:47 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>Yep. But when costs increase enough - service cuts happen. Observe
>the real world and compare it to the past, when cheap labor was
>ubiquitous.

The "elasticity" measure in the US says that for every 10% increase in
minimum wage there is a 5% drop in minimum wage jobs.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:41:54
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <lloydparsons-12BA77.14355019012007@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

> In article <user-D247E0.12340819012007@news.telus.net>,
> Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <lloydparsons-58086C.14264119012007@individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> > > > >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> > > > >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> > > > >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> > > > >> playstation games!
> > > >
> > > > I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> > > > forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> > > > work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> > > > in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> > > > will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> > > > that hit to the bottom line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > >
> > > Bullshit Larry. Unless you had hired too many to start with, you still
> > > need the same number of employees to get the job done.
> >
> > Sorry, Lloyd, but you're wrong. Companies don't have an infinite bank
> > account. They cannot simply pay everyone more because they need the same
> > number of employees. They sometimes have to make do with fewer employees
> > than they'd prefer.
>
> Not in service you don't. You either have the service your customers
> want or you don't. If you reduce your employee count and service levels
> suffer, so does your business.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Businesses can't manufacture money to pay for
workers. That they're in a service industry doesn't change that.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 12:54:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:46:04 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
>forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
>work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
>in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
>will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
>that hit to the bottom line.

Certainly it is much harder to find courses offering inexpensive
services such as caddying or club cleaning. So we have fewer poor
kids growing up with a golf background. (No more Trevinos)

What those kids are doing instead isn't obvious. Maybe they are now
skilled at hamburger flipping. Maybe they are gang members. Maybe
they started Computer companies.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:29:29
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <sa82r2l2najqfflbkv31b0v30vtjnldklu@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:46:04 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> >forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> >work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> >in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> >will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> >that hit to the bottom line.
>
> Certainly it is much harder to find courses offering inexpensive
> services such as caddying or club cleaning. So we have fewer poor
> kids growing up with a golf background. (No more Trevinos)
>
> What those kids are doing instead isn't obvious. Maybe they are now
> skilled at hamburger flipping. Maybe they are gang members. Maybe
> they started Computer companies.

So after paying big membership fees to belong to a club that might have
caddiess and such, you don't have enough money to pay those caddies a
decent wage or a big enough tip? ;-)

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:37:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:29:29 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> Certainly it is much harder to find courses offering inexpensive
>> services such as caddying or club cleaning. So we have fewer poor
>> kids growing up with a golf background. (No more Trevinos)
>>
>> What those kids are doing instead isn't obvious. Maybe they are now
>> skilled at hamburger flipping. Maybe they are gang members. Maybe
>> they started Computer companies.
>
>So after paying big membership fees to belong to a club that might have
>caddiess and such, you don't have enough money to pay those caddies a
>decent wage or a big enough tip? ;-)

I just observed what has happened. Maybe they don't have the
exemption that wait staff have to count tips as part of their minimum
wage. Or maybe the poor kids don't live near golf courses anymore.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> >> playstation games!
>
> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> that hit to the bottom line.
>
>
> Larry

So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
all?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 11:04:52
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

>In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
>> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
>> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
>> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
>> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
>> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
>> >> playstation games!
>>
>> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
>> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
>> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
>> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
>> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
>> that hit to the bottom line.
>>
>>
>> Larry
>
>So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
>all?

I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
coming back.

Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
hour they would not have survived!

Larry

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:12:02
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <6752r2dlf5oa1v0bqucrp450f9ushasjuq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> >> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
> >> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> >> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
> >> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> >> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> >> >> playstation games!
> >>
> >> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> >> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> >> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> >> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> >> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> >> that hit to the bottom line.
> >>
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
> >all?
>
> I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
> continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
> employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
> coming back.
>
> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
> hour they would not have survived!
>
> Larry

Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
poverty"), you must have done the research.

Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 11:31:08
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:12:02 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

>In article <6752r2dlf5oa1v0bqucrp450f9ushasjuq@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
>> >> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get one
>> >> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
>> >> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom to
>> >> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
>> >> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
>> >> >> playstation games!
>> >>
>> >> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
>> >> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
>> >> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
>> >> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
>> >> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
>> >> that hit to the bottom line.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
>> >all?
>>
>> I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
>> continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
>> employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
>> coming back.
>>
>> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
>> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
>> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
>> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
>> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
>> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
>> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
>> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
>> hour they would not have survived!
>>
>> Larry
>
>Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
>poverty"), you must have done the research.
>
>Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?

READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
for weeks.

Larry

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:31:08 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>>> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
>>> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
>>> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
>>> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
>>> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
>>> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
>>> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
>>> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
>>> hour they would not have survived!
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
>>poverty"), you must have done the research.
>>
>>Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
>
>READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
>for weeks.
>
>Larry

I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
--
___,
\o

Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:06:14
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:31:08 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
>>>> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
>>>> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
>>>> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
>>>> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
>>>> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
>>>> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
>>>> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
>>>> hour they would not have survived!
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>
>>>Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
>>>poverty"), you must have done the research.
>>>
>>>Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
>>
>>READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
>>for weeks.
>>
>>Larry
>
>I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>you to cite a paper, and date, for us.

http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch36.asp

That took exactly 15 seconds

Larry

Date: 20 Jan 2007 01:25:10
From: Nobody's Business
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <u6n2r2hlno57thhbc37t4f03ibki1bfhcr@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:31:08 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
> >>>> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
> >>>> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
> >>>> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
> >>>> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
> >>>> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
> >>>> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
> >>>> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
> >>>> hour they would not have survived!
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
> >>>poverty"), you must have done the research.
> >>>
> >>>Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
> >>
> >>READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
> >>for weeks.
> >>
> >>Larry
> >
> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>
> http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch36.asp
>
> That took exactly 15 seconds
>
> Larry

Sorry, Larry, but neither the number 85, nor the number 15 appear in
that article.

Let's see the actual quote that you say supports your contention that
"85% are NOT living in poverty"...

Date: 20 Jan 2007 01:24:27
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:54:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>you to cite a paper, and date, for us.

This has been posted before.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5

Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:10:10
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:54:58 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>>either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>>you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>
>This has been posted before.
>
>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5

Yep. but those who apparently LIVE their lives every day all day
looking at the Usenet on their computers don't read or watch
instructive TV (Fox News). They let themselves be brainwashed by
"Newspaper light" like USA Today and TV News courtesy of the DNC,
which is CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC.

Naturally, they know NOTHING that does not reflect poorly on Bush.

Larry

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:10:11
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <je82r2d59u3sn3ud8p6hv0jgpmnb5497ra@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>
> This has been posted before.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5

Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:24:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:10:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

>In article <je82r2d59u3sn3ud8p6hv0jgpmnb5497ra@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>>
>> This has been posted before.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5
>
>Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.

Larry's quote was; "Do some quick research on who actually gets paid
minimum wage--85% are NOT living in poverty-- "

The Heritage testimony says:
"Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an
hour�the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage�only
15 percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
these workers"

That's 85%. Larry was right. Go figure.
--
___,
\o

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:13:01
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:is92r21b6ith954vqu8uf32ks3oj08af34@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:10:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <je82r2d59u3sn3ud8p6hv0jgpmnb5497ra@4ax.com>,
>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>>> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>>> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>>>
>>> This has been posted before.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5
>>
>>Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.
>
> Larry's quote was; "Do some quick research on who actually gets paid
> minimum wage--85% are NOT living in poverty-- "
>
> The Heritage testimony says:
> "Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
> American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an
> hour-the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage-only
> 15 percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
> these workers"
>
> That's 85%. Larry was right. Go figure.
> --
Blind squirrel, meet nut.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 23:50:42
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 19-Jan-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:is92r21b6ith954vqu8uf32ks3oj08af34@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:10:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <je82r2d59u3sn3ud8p6hv0jgpmnb5497ra@4ax.com>,
> >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
> >>> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
> >>> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
> >>>
> >>> This has been posted before.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5
> >>
> >>Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.
> >
> > Larry's quote was; "Do some quick research on who actually gets paid
> > minimum wage--85% are NOT living in poverty-- "
> >
> > The Heritage testimony says:
> > "Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
> > American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an
> > hour-the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage-only
> > 15 percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
> > these workers"
> >
> > That's 85%. Larry was right. Go figure.
> > --
> Blind squirrel, meet nut.

...and in other news, record low temperatures were reported in Hades
today....

me

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:37:03
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:13:01 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message

>> That's 85%. Larry was right. Go figure.
>> --
>Blind squirrel, meet nut.
>
Right. Law of averages.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:28:39
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <is92r21b6ith954vqu8uf32ks3oj08af34@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:10:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <je82r2d59u3sn3ud8p6hv0jgpmnb5497ra@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
> >> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
> >> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
> >>
> >> This has been posted before.
> >>
> >> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5
> >
> >Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.
>
> Larry's quote was; "Do some quick research on who actually gets paid
> minimum wage--85% are NOT living in poverty-- "
>
> The Heritage testimony says:
> "Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
> American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an
> hour�the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage�only
> 15 percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
> these workers"
>
> That's 85%. Larry was right. Go figure.

It had to happen sometime, I guess.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:08:11
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:35:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:08:11 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:

>> >I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>> >either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>> >you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>>
>> This has been posted before.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5
>
>Sorry, I don't see the statistic under discussion in there anywhere.

Did you notice the header of this thread?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:05:30
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:54:58 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:42:43 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I read several papers a day, and don't recall seeing this statistic
>>either. Since you have seen it so many times, it should be easy for
>>you to cite a paper, and date, for us.
>
>This has been posted before.
>
>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5

Thanks. The reason that I haven't see this is because it's a finding
of the Heritage Foundation, not an article from an
independant,non-partisan organization.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:33:53
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:05:30 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>Thanks. The reason that I haven't see this is because it's a finding
>of the Heritage Foundation, not an article from an
>independant,non-partisan organization.

Actually it's a transcript from congressional testimony. The Heritage
Foundation is not aligned with either party, they are a libertarian
organization.

In any case, I don't doubt that their data analysis that only 15% of
people earning $6.65 and under are actually in poverty. I also have
no doubt that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of
minimum wage jobs. You just have to look at the job supply curve to
understand that. Accordingly, I don't see any problem with their
analysis.

Perhaps you should focus on pointing out exactly where you think
they're wrong.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:42:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:33:53 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:05:30 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks. The reason that I haven't see this is because it's a finding
>>of the Heritage Foundation, not an article from an
>>independant,non-partisan organization.
>
>Actually it's a transcript from congressional testimony. The Heritage
>Foundation is not aligned with either party, they are a libertarian
>organization.
>
>In any case, I don't doubt that their data analysis that only 15% of
>people earning $6.65 and under are actually in poverty. I also have
>no doubt that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of
>minimum wage jobs. You just have to look at the job supply curve to
>understand that. Accordingly, I don't see any problem with their
>analysis.
>
>Perhaps you should focus on pointing out exactly where you think
>they're wrong.

Where did I say they're wrong? For the record, they call themselves a
conservative organization.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:47:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:42:22 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>Where did I say they're wrong? For the record, they call themselves a
>conservative organization.

Of course, it's extremely unlikely that a liberal organization would
commission such a study.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:36:24
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <41a2r21fvcbu8sqaqsgltjsrreuboo3vmt@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:05:30 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks. The reason that I haven't see this is because it's a finding
> >of the Heritage Foundation, not an article from an
> >independant,non-partisan organization.
>
> Actually it's a transcript from congressional testimony. The Heritage
> Foundation is not aligned with either party, they are a libertarian
> organization.

Ummmm...

"As conservatives, we believe the values and ideas that motivated our
Founding Fathers are worth conserving. And as policy entrepreneurs, we
believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and
values."

<http://www.heritage.org/About/aboutHeritage.cfm >

They may not be aligned with either official party, but it doesn't make
them without their own biases.

>
> In any case, I don't doubt that their data analysis that only 15% of
> people earning $6.65 and under are actually in poverty. I also have
> no doubt that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of
> minimum wage jobs. You just have to look at the job supply curve to
> understand that. Accordingly, I don't see any problem with their
> analysis.
>
> Perhaps you should focus on pointing out exactly where you think
> they're wrong.

That, certainly, is fair enough.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:41:06
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <l272r25r82g22lsj1m0klktb4801sdvpug@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:12:02 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6752r2dlf5oa1v0bqucrp450f9ushasjuq@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
> >> >> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get
> >> >> >> one
> >> >> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
> >> >> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> >> >> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
> >> >> >> playstation games!
> >> >>
> >> >> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
> >> >> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
> >> >> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
> >> >> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> >> >> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> >> >> that hit to the bottom line.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
> >> >all?
> >>
> >> I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
> >> continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
> >> employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
> >> coming back.
> >>
> >> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
> >> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
> >> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
> >> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
> >> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
> >> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
> >> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
> >> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
> >> hour they would not have survived!
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
> >poverty"), you must have done the research.
> >
> >Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
>
> READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
> for weeks.

Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...

Better yet, give me an actual quote...

Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:04:14
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:41:06 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

>In article <l272r25r82g22lsj1m0klktb4801sdvpug@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:12:02 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6752r2dlf5oa1v0bqucrp450f9ushasjuq@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
>> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise. The
>> >> >> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get
>> >> >> >> one
>> >> >> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid shagging
>> >> >> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the freedom
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
>> >> >> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of more
>> >> >> >> playstation games!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club is
>> >> >> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals who
>> >> >> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will occur
>> >> >> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
>> >> >> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
>> >> >> that hit to the bottom line.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Larry
>> >> >
>> >> >So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
>> >> >all?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
>> >> continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
>> >> employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
>> >> coming back.
>> >>
>> >> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
>> >> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
>> >> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
>> >> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
>> >> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
>> >> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
>> >> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
>> >> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
>> >> hour they would not have survived!
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
>> >poverty"), you must have done the research.
>> >
>> >Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
>>
>> READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
>> for weeks.
>
>Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
>
>Better yet, give me an actual quote...

So who was your servant last year? Find the information yourself so
you learn how to learn.

Larry

Date: 20 Jan 2007 01:22:23
From: Nobody's Business
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <o2n2r25lhufllral2fgpib8dapdgcdkcq6@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:41:06 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <l272r25r82g22lsj1m0klktb4801sdvpug@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:12:02 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6752r2dlf5oa1v0bqucrp450f9ushasjuq@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:52:11 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <r742r2lrjdn9ed467s8d26vfjga29ppb0v@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:28:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Raise the minimum wage and the kid who shags balls gets a raise.
> >> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> >> guy who works in the grill who would have had a raise doesn't get
> >> >> >> >> one
> >> >> >> >> because the golf club has to allocate that money to the kid
> >> >> >> >> shagging
> >> >> >> >> balls in response to government edict rather than having the
> >> >> >> >> freedom
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> choose who to give a raise to. The guy working in the grill is
> >> >> >> >> supporting his family. The kid shagging balls gets a couple of
> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> playstation games!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have been on the various Boards in my club. I know when the club
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> forced to pay more to the dozens and dozens of young guys and gals
> >> >> >> who
> >> >> >> work there, they will simply hire fewer of them. The same will
> >> >> >> occur
> >> >> >> in every restaurant and other employer of minimum wage people. They
> >> >> >> will seek more automation, simply do whatever it takes to minimize
> >> >> >> that hit to the bottom line.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Larry
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So put yourself on the line, Larry: should there be no minimum wage at
> >> >> >all?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think so. If there were no requirement most businesses would
> >> >> continue to pay what they do-- for ket reasons. They need their
> >> >> employees to earn a profit-- and the pay is the only reason they keep
> >> >> coming back.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do some quick research on who actually gets paid minimum wage--85% are
> >> >> NOT living in poverty-- that job is actually just a hobby, etc. A
> >> >> tiny percentage are trying to live on it. Raising minimum wages will
> >> >> NOT help the vast majority of recipients-- but could seriously damage
> >> >> many struggling small businesses--which if they can survive their
> >> >> first years often grow into giants employing hundreds or thousands.
> >> >> Hewlett-Packard and Apple started in modest neighborhood garages.
> >> >> Likely if they had been forced to pay their first employees $7.00 an
> >> >> hour they would not have survived!
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, but since you can state this as a fact ("85% are NOT living in
> >> >poverty"), you must have done the research.
> >> >
> >> >Point me to it... ...what is the source for that statement?
> >>
> >> READ something. That statistic has been in every newspaper and on TV
> >> for weeks.
> >
> >Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
> >
> >Better yet, give me an actual quote...
>
> So who was your servant last year? Find the information yourself so
> you learn how to learn.

Sorry, Larry, but that's not the way things work on Usenet.

You get to provide support for your own arguments

Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:34:20
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:22:23 GMT, Nobody's Business
<noton@yourlife.com > wrote:
>> So who was your servant last year? Find the information yourself so
>> you learn how to learn.
>
>Sorry, Larry, but that's not the way things work on Usenet.
>
>You get to provide support for your own arguments

But I don't want to spend more than a few minutes here now and then!

Wouldn't this forum be more interesting if more people participated
who have a life other than Usenet? You would get to interchange
ideas with folks other than BK and Glfnaz, Baker, and that ilk.

Larry

Date: 20 Jan 2007 10:40:50
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Another effect of onerous goverment mandates is that people simply go
underground.

A friend does the books for several small businesses, some in construction.
When the cost of unemployment insurance and other insupportable costs for
hand-to-mouth operations in low paying industries make it impossible to
survive when those costs are actually paid, the proprietors simply do their
business off the books. In various ways, and not from greed at all: simply
trying to get by. Were they to "do it right," they would go out of
business.

It is a bit like the shell game for property insurance in Florida. By
trying to force insurance companies to lower their rates for coverages that
would obviously bankrupt them in the next major hurricane, the companies
simply leave. OR the state faces the issue with its own pool and
"legislates that all insurance companies reinsure the state." In effect
they attempt by legislation to solve the problem by moving the pea to a
different shell.

The state also has its own insurance pool. So that in the event of another
catastrophic loss OPM pays for your loss (OPM is, of course, the taxpayer,
whom "gummint" conveniently puts on the hook without his consent).

Failure to acknowledge that catastrophic loss is not manageable by
legislation, and that it is simply not possible to protect everyone from
everything seems to be the prevailing attitude.

No one ever said that intelligence was a requirement for public office.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:53:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:40:50 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:

>
>Another effect of onerous goverment mandates is that people simply go
>underground.
>
>A friend does the books for several small businesses, some in construction.
>When the cost of unemployment insurance and other insupportable costs for
>hand-to-mouth operations in low paying industries make it impossible to
>survive when those costs are actually paid, the proprietors simply do their
>business off the books. In various ways, and not from greed at all: simply
>trying to get by. Were they to "do it right," they would go out of
>business.
>
>It is a bit like the shell game for property insurance in Florida. By
>trying to force insurance companies to lower their rates for coverages that
>would obviously bankrupt them in the next major hurricane, the companies
>simply leave. OR the state faces the issue with its own pool and
>"legislates that all insurance companies reinsure the state." In effect
>they attempt by legislation to solve the problem by moving the pea to a
>different shell.
>
>The state also has its own insurance pool. So that in the event of another
>catastrophic loss OPM pays for your loss (OPM is, of course, the taxpayer,
>whom "gummint" conveniently puts on the hook without his consent).
>
>Failure to acknowledge that catastrophic loss is not manageable by
>legislation, and that it is simply not possible to protect everyone from
>everything seems to be the prevailing attitude.
>
>No one ever said that intelligence was a requirement for public office.

Hi George,

And government doesn't have the guts to forbid people to build
mansions too near the coast.

Larry

Date: 20 Jan 2007 17:04:44
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

George Hibbard wrote:

> Snippit...

The proper policy on insurance is to not insure in certain areas at all. You
want to build on the beautiful coastline or in the lovely floodplain, you take
the risk. Why should the rest of us pay for dufi who bulid at the base of a
hill in areas characterized by hillslides? At the very least, insurance
companies should be able to exclude such people...but that would be giving them
freedom, and we can't have that!

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:04:08
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Not me" <user@foobar.com > wrote in message
news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
>
> Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
>
> Better yet, give me an actual quote...

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:09:52
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
> >
> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
> >
> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
>
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?

You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of making
it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:14:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Not me" <user@foobar.com > wrote in message
news:user-FE2351.12095219012007@news.telus.net...
> In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
>> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
>> >
>> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
>> >
>> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
>>
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>
> Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?
>
> You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of making
> it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.

Were we not talking about the percentage of people who make MW? The above
link tells who does. Nothing dishonest.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 21:18:25
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <51cqltF1jm91pU1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
> news:user-FE2351.12095219012007@news.telus.net...
> > In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
> >> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
> >> >
> >> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
> >> >
> >> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
> >>
> >> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
> >
> > Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?
> >
> > You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of making
> > it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.
>
> Were we not talking about the percentage of people who make MW? The above
> link tells who does. Nothing dishonest.

No. We were talking about what percentage of those who make minimum wage
were living in poverty.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:35:26
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote in message
news:alangbaker-24FFA0.13182519012007@news.telus.net...
> In article <51cqltF1jm91pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
>> news:user-FE2351.12095219012007@news.telus.net...
>> > In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
>> >> >
>> >> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>> >
>> > Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?
>> >
>> > You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of making
>> > it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.
>>
>> Were we not talking about the percentage of people who make MW? The above
>> link tells who does. Nothing dishonest.
>
> No. We were talking about what percentage of those who make minimum wage
> were living in poverty.
>
I'm not sure that stat is listed there. Sorry.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 21:49:57
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <51crstF1jtidmU1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-24FFA0.13182519012007@news.telus.net...
> > In article <51cqltF1jm91pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
> >> news:user-FE2351.12095219012007@news.telus.net...
> >> > In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
> >> >
> >> > Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?
> >> >
> >> > You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of making
> >> > it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.
> >>
> >> Were we not talking about the percentage of people who make MW? The above
> >> link tells who does. Nothing dishonest.
> >
> > No. We were talking about what percentage of those who make minimum wage
> > were living in poverty.
> >
> I'm not sure that stat is listed there. Sorry.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have offered it as a source to answer that
question...

...which you snipped.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:04:26
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EEFB32.13495719012007@news.telus.net...
> In article <51crstF1jtidmU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-24FFA0.13182519012007@news.telus.net...
>> > In article <51cqltF1jm91pU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:user-FE2351.12095219012007@news.telus.net...
>> >> > In article <51cmhoF1j29l3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> >> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Not me" <user@foobar.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:user-2354AF.11410619012007@news.telus.net...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Give me the name of a newspaper and the date when it appeared...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Better yet, give me an actual quote...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is it guys like you are so dishonest?
>> >> >
>> >> > You snipped the quote we're talking about for the sole reason of
>> >> > making
>> >> > it seem like you're providing a rebuttal when you are not.
>> >>
>> >> Were we not talking about the percentage of people who make MW? The
>> >> above
>> >> link tells who does. Nothing dishonest.
>> >
>> > No. We were talking about what percentage of those who make minimum
>> > wage
>> > were living in poverty.
>> >
>> I'm not sure that stat is listed there. Sorry.
>
> Then perhaps you shouldn't have offered it as a source to answer that
> question...
>
> ...which you snipped.
>
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:02:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> > news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >>
> >> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>
> >>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
> >>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
> >>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
> >>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
> >>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
> >>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
> >>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
> >>>>
> >>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
> >>> starting point in ones employment career.
> >>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
> > I believe everything you need to know is above.
> >
>
> Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you injected ----
> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> point in ones employment career.
>
> I didn't think you could back up that claim.

Also, people who argue against min. wage increases only view them
through the lens of the current min. wage workforce, i.e., its a
payraise for them. They don't consider future entrants into the
workforce who will earn the min. wage and what is a fair level for them
to start at.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 09:40:04
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169146959.597198.146780@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> > news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >>
>> >> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> larry wrote:
>> >>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> >>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> >>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my
>> >>>> Republican
>> >>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>> >>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>> >>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> >>> starting point in ones employment career.
>> >>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>> > I believe everything you need to know is above.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you
>> injected ----
>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> starting
>> point in ones employment career.
>>
>> I didn't think you could back up that claim.
>
>
> Also, people who argue against min. wage increases only view them
> through the lens of the current min. wage workforce, i.e., its a
> payraise for them. They don't consider future entrants into the
> workforce who will earn the min. wage and what is a fair level for them
> to start at.
>
Yes but who are the majority of the people who earn MW?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:42:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:40:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>Yes but who are the majority of the people who earn MW?
>
Everyone who lives in Dallas year-round. :-)
--
___,
\o

Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:14:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:imp1r29d65n724dkkf72olo7fsvm7rn6pe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:40:04 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes but who are the majority of the people who earn MW?
>>
> Everyone who lives in Dallas year-round. :-)
> --
LOL!

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:56:42
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169140376.082240.206590@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> >> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
> >> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
> >> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> >> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> >> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> >> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> >> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> >> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> >> > $80,000 annually.
> >> >
> >> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> >> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> >> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> >> > passed on to the consumer.
> >> >
> >> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
> >> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
> >> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
> >> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
> >>
> >> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
> >
> > And while you're at it, show us how previous minimum wage increases
> > have had the effects that you allege.
> >
>
> What did I allege? Put it here ----> I was responding to Jack, not you.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 17:02:52
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169146602.499153.282490@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169140376.082240.206590@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> >> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
>> >> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>> >> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
>> >> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
>> >> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent
>> >> > have
>> >> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
>> >> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
>> >> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning
>> >> > over
>> >> > $80,000 annually.
>> >> >
>> >> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
>> >> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down.
>> >> > And
>> >> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
>> >> > passed on to the consumer.
>> >> >
>> >> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>> >> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast
>> >> > food
>> >> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and
>> >> > on
>> >> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>> >>
>> >> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>> >
>> > And while you're at it, show us how previous minimum wage increases
>> > have had the effects that you allege.
>> >
>>
>> What did I allege? Put it here ----> I was responding to Jack, not you.

Good luck with that.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:40:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> $80,000 annually.
>
> So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> passed on to the consumer.

Wow, and I thought that I just crapped a big load!

You can't have it both ways. If all these people working for the
minimum wage are so well off as you imply, then cutting a few jobs
won't hurt them. They'll just have to dip into their trust funds a bit.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 13:46:25
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 18 Jan 2007 09:40:14 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>> This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
>> hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
>> from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
>> a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
>> line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
>> level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
>> $80,000 annually.
>>
>> So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
>> and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
>> everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
>> passed on to the consumer.
>
>Wow, and I thought that I just crapped a big load!
>
>You can't have it both ways. If all these people working for the
>minimum wage are so well off as you imply, then cutting a few jobs
>won't hurt them. They'll just have to dip into their trust funds a bit.

You totally missed the point.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:12:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
> >
> >
> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> > $80,000 annually.
> >
> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> > passed on to the consumer.
> >
> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>
> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

And while you're at it, show us how previous minimum wage increases
have had the effects that you allege.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 13:45:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 18 Jan 2007 09:12:56 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>>
>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>
>And while you're at it, show us how previous minimum wage increases
>have had the effects that you allege.

"The Frisch elasticity of labor supply is defined as the elasticity of
the labor supply with respect to wage leaving constant the ginal
utility of consumption.

The Frisch elasticity in the United States is estimated at one half."

This means that a 10% increase in wages will result in a 5% drop in
labor supply.

Jobs, like any other economic commodity will responsd to supply and
demand. Increase the price of a commodity and you will decrease the
demand.

See also:

Labor Demand Curve.

The labour demand curve is a graph, indicating in a wage/employment
diagram how much work (measured in work hours) firms demand at
different wage rates. The curve is negatively sloping, meaning that
firms want to cut down on employment if work becomes more expensive.

http://www.fgn.unisg.ch/eurmacro/tutor/c13.html

Date: 18 Jan 2007 14:35:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:45:00 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>"The Frisch elasticity of labor supply is defined as the elasticity of
>the labor supply with respect to wage leaving constant the ginal
>utility of consumption.
>
>The Frisch elasticity in the United States is estimated at one half."
>
>This means that a 10% increase in wages will result in a 5% drop in
>labor supply.

My mistake.

Revise that to read drop in job supply. An increase in wages actually
increases labor supply.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:51:02
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169140376.082240.206590@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
>> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>> >
>> >
>> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
>> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
>> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
>> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
>> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
>> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
>> > $80,000 annually.
>> >
>> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
>> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
>> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
>> > passed on to the consumer.
>> >
>> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>>
>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>
> And while you're at it, show us how previous minimum wage increases
> have had the effects that you allege.
>

What did I allege? Put it here ---- >

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:02:56
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
> >
> >
> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> > $80,000 annually.
> >
> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> > passed on to the consumer.
> >
> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>
> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

Why don't you provide real evidence to debunk it...or are you going to
be a rhetorical hypocrit and only demand "evidence" from those you
disagree with?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 13:15:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 18 Jan 2007 09:02:56 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
>> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>> >
>> >
>> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
>> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
>> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
>> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
>> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
>> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
>> > $80,000 annually.
>> >
>> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
>> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
>> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
>> > passed on to the consumer.
>> >
>> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>>
>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

I thought I referenced this in a previous post. Perhaps not. Here it
is again

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm#_ftnref5

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:50:31
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1169139776.644191.71110@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
>> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>> >
>> >
>> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
>> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
>> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
>> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
>> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
>> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
>> > $80,000 annually.
>> >
>> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
>> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
>> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
>> > passed on to the consumer.
>> >
>> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>>
>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>
> Why don't you provide real evidence to debunk it...or are you going to
> be a rhetorical hypocrit and only demand "evidence" from those you
> disagree with?
>

I did not make the statements -- something that must have slipped by you in
your rush to defend.

There are very specific claims made in the post & I've previously asked for
some evidence -- even a link would be helpful -- but no responses have been
given.

Now what was that you were saying about being hypocritical?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:17:44
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:

> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1169139776.644191.71110@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> >> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
> >> > On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
> >> >>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> >> > hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> >> > from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> >> > a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> >> > line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> >> > level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> >> > $80,000 annually.
> >> >
> >> > So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> >> > and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> >> > everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> >> > passed on to the consumer.
> >> >
> >> > One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
> >> > workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
> >> > restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
> >> > the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
> >>
> >> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
> >
> > Why don't you provide real evidence to debunk it...or are you going to
> > be a rhetorical hypocrit and only demand "evidence" from those you
> > disagree with?
> >
>
> I did not make the statements -- something that must have slipped by you in
> your rush to defend.
>
> There are very specific claims made in the post & I've previously asked for
> some evidence -- even a link would be helpful -- but no responses have been
> given.
>
> Now what was that you were saying about being hypocritical?

I say the sky is blue. If you disagree, that's fine with me, but if you want me
to present you with evidence, you must first give me evidence that the sky is
not blue.

If I make a statement you disagree with, and you want to debunk it, you must
first present the evidence that debunks my statement. The reason for this is
quite simple, BTW. We cannot ultimately "know" anything. A rhetorical hypocrit
can simply ask for evidenc till he is blue in the face, but that has no
substance whatsoever. HE has stated why he beleives what he beleives. If you
think his data are wrong it is you who must come up with the evidence he is
wrong.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 04:40:32
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:57:24 -0800, annika1980 wrote:

> larry wrote:
>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>
> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>
> Republicans care nothing about people. They only care about businesses
> and commerce.

Oh yes, let's make it as hard on businesses as we can. That should help
everyone, right? And cut back on all that commerce. Who needs all that
money circulating all over the place? The crazy idea that money in
circulation gives more people opportunities is just an illusion created by
the Evil Republicans who hate everybody but Bill Gates, right?

That's quite a philosophy the addle-brained left has carved out for
itself. Do any of you actually believe it? Just curious.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 18:12:32
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Joe wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >>The_Professor wrote:
> >>
> >>>The_Professor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Joe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>larry wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> SNIP
> >>
> >>I repeat, the small business owner does NOT have a right to a profit.
> >>They do need to build profitable business models though.
> >>
> >>The example given was a restaurant and if a restaurant which can afford
> >>to have 12 minimum wage employees working can't afford an additional
> >>$2,900 a month in operating cost then there is something really broken.
> >>
> >>Its time to look at the keting plan, improve the quality of the food,
> >> change prices, etc. Or maybe the owner needs to assess his/her draw.
> >>
> >>My son-in-law that I mentioned earlier took over the exec chef position
> >>at a local restaurant 6 months ago on a performance contract. The place
> >>was doing OK, making a few bucks for the owner. He fired and replaced
> >>the chef de cuisine and sous chef, upgraded the wait staff, upgraded the
> >>food and wine list, REDUCED prices, changed food suppliers and brought
> >>on a keting consultant. So far they have more than doubled the top
> >>line, the owner is taking more out and the staff is happier. And NOBODY
> >>is making min wage or less, including the dishwasher.
> >>
> >>It is all about knowing how to properly manage the business for real
> >>success. The same principles apply to most any business.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Upgrade food quality, upgrade the quality of the staff that actually
> > contact the public and reduce prices is probably going to work every
> > time. Now add $3K to your labour costs, per month. Also consider the
> > simple fact that the more you have to spend, the more vulnerable you
> > are, because you have to take in more just to cover costs; regardless
> > of any other factor.
> >
> I am not sure of your point above because it is basic economics, gozinta
> has to be greater than gozouta. A business must watch its cost line
> obviously. But a business that is not continuously growing its revenue
> stream will fail. I've encountered a number of businesses where the
> owners state that they don't want to grow and in a few years they are
> gone. There will be the exceptions where you can keep this up for a
> long time but the end result is the same.
>
> Why should I feel concerned about this kind business owner? They have
> decided to fail.
>

It's just my ecological background. The greater the resource
requirements for a species, the more susceptible they are to
fluctuations in resources. Of course you can increase the efficieny of
resource capture and even use, but in the end, if the resource just
isn't there, neither are you. Same is obviously true of a business. If
you need a larger revenue stream to keep running a given type of
business, you are more susceptible to economic fluctuations than
someone who can operate with a lower revenue stream.

I agree that you have to be willing to change, but it is impossible to
continuously grow in real terms; maybe in terms of inflation, but
that's not real.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

MnMikew wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > larry wrote:
> >> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
> >> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
> >> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
> >> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
> >
> > Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
> > boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
> > stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
> > once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
> >
> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> point in ones employment career.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 14:08:50
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>MnMikew wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > larry wrote:
>> >> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> >> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>> >> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> >> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>> >
>> > Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>> > boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>> > stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>> > once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>> >
>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
>> point in ones employment career.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>
>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?

The government should keep its nose out of the business of small
business. The owners will pay people what they are worth-- which is
usually FAR more than minimum wage.

Those who are unhappy with that are free to start their own
businesses--and become employers. Always fun to see what they want
to pay when the tables are turned.

Larry

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:04:41
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169086050.915168.47730@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > larry wrote:
>> >> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> >> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>> >> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> >> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>> >
>> > Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>> > boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>> > stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>> > once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>> >
>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> starting
>> point in ones employment career.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>
> Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
> should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>
What ever the ket determines.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 21:36:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?

This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
$80,000 annually.

So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
passed on to the consumer.

One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:40:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:36:11 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.

Trouble is, there already is a trend to replace full time workers with
part time workers - because of all of the other benefits that cost the
employers of full-time workers.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 14:24:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:40:22 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:36:11 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
>>workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
>>restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
>>the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.
>
>Trouble is, there already is a trend to replace full time workers with
>part time workers - because of all of the other benefits that cost the
>employers of full-time workers.

You may be right. However, I'm sure that most of the businesses that
can avoid paying benefits to full-time workers have already done so,
because providing benefits for low wage jobs can cost more than the
actual wages. I'm not sure that an additional $50 to $80 a week in
wages will have that much effect. However, I'm sure that it will have
some effect.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:59:48
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:dnmtq2pb2fmocdpdnnvu557inuhlsfqslu@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jan 2007 18:07:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Is that an argument against its being raised on occasion? How much
>>should min. wage workers make? $2/hr?
>
>
> This is not the issue. The issue is will this legislation help or
> hurt the poor. Eighty-five percent of the people who will benefit
> from the raise to $6.65 are not in poverty. In fact, 72 percent have
> a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty
> line, and over half belong to families earning double the poverty
> level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over
> $80,000 annually.
>
> So very few poor people are going to benefit from the wage increase
> and many will be hurt as the number of minimum wage jobs go down. And
> everyone from top to bottom will be hurt as the wage increase is
> passed on to the consumer.
>
> One way to improve the legislation is to apply it only to full-time
> workers. This would eliminate the kids working part-time in fast food
> restaurants or checkout and stock clerks at stores after school and on
> the weekends. Most of these kids are not supporting anyone.

Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

Date: 17 Jan 2007 17:32:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

MnMikew wrote:
> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> point in ones employment career.

So is being a slave.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 21:26:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17 Jan 2007 17:32:10 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>MnMikew wrote:
>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
>> point in ones employment career.
>
>So is being a slave.

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs for many poor people and they
use these jobs to move up to better paying jobs either by earning
raises or by using their experience and work record to get another
better job, Anything you do to reduce the number of minimum wage jobs
hurts these people.

In addition, only 15% of the people earning below $6.65 (who would
benefit from the raise in minimum wage) are below the poverty level.

Economists estimate that for every 10% raise in the minimum wage,
there is a 5% drop in minimum wage jobs. Accordingly, this will close
the entry path for some poor workers.

The increase in minimum wage actually hurts the very people that it is
intended to help.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:37:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:26:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs for many poor people and they
>use these jobs to move up to better paying jobs either by earning
>raises or by using their experience and work record to get another
>better job, Anything you do to reduce the number of minimum wage jobs
>hurts these people.

Teens often use these - learning to work, even getting fired without
hurting their career prospects. And they learn to value having their
own money and jobs.

It works in the suburbs - we need it to work in poorer areas of town
as well, but it's harder to make a profit there.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:59:24
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:2pltq2do67bf6m745g6kqvb64dln22cisv@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jan 2007 17:32:10 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>MnMikew wrote:
>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>>> starting
>>> point in ones employment career.
>>
>>So is being a slave.
>
> Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs for many poor people and they
> use these jobs to move up to better paying jobs either by earning
> raises or by using their experience and work record to get another
> better job, Anything you do to reduce the number of minimum wage jobs
> hurts these people.
>
> In addition, only 15% of the people earning below $6.65 (who would
> benefit from the raise in minimum wage) are below the poverty level.
>
> Economists estimate that for every 10% raise in the minimum wage,
> there is a 5% drop in minimum wage jobs. Accordingly, this will close
> the entry path for some poor workers.
>
> The increase in minimum wage actually hurts the very people that it is
> intended to help.

Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:01:28
From:
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
H1B visas, illegal immigrants and
> outsourcing are certainly no friend to the working man/woman.

sure is a friend to the working illegal immigrants

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:55:10
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Joe wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > The_Professor wrote:
> >
> >>Joe wrote:
> >>
> >>>larry wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:03 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>SNIP
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Well, the best way to convert a liberal to conservative is to mug him.
> >>>>As Senator McGovern learned, when you run a business you quickly get
> >>>>real-- and that reality often radically changes a "pie in the sky"
> >>>>idealistic liberalism. If you owned a restaurant with a dozen
> >>>>minimum wage kids working-- and watched all the profits leave in their
> >>>>pockets--with nothing left for you after 15 hour days seven days a
> >>>>week, I would like to hear your opinion of paying them "only" another
> >>>>dollar per hour.
> >>>>
> >>>>There are a million such businesses in the US. Small business is the
> >>>>backbone of the US economy.
> >>>>
> >>>>Larry
> >>>
> >>>Larry,
> >>>
> >>>If a small business with sufficient revenue to employee a dozen minimum
> >>>wage kids finds itself unable to sustain a $96 a day increase in
> >>>operating cost then there is something major wrong with the business
> >>>model or the owner is not competent to run the business.
> >>>
> >>>A business owner has NO right to make a profit or even to stay in
> >>>business. They do have the right to try though. Most small business
> >>>failures are the result of lack of funding or poor management somewhere
> >>>along the line, as would be the case with the restaurant you offer as a
> >>>strawman.
> >>>
> >>>I do some small business consulting and one of my current clients is a
> >>>profitable, 75 year old, three generation private manufacturer in New
> >>>York City with a 340 person workforce. They do electro mechanical
> >>>products with all production and assembly done in house, not off-shored.
> >>>
> >>>Union work force too.
> >>>
> >>>At the moment they are approaching a crises point as their work force
> >>>ages and some technology shifts are forcing some changes. Will they
> >>>adapt? Probably. I think they will make it through this gate because
> >>>they are being pro-active in making the changes needed to move into this
> >>>new century. What won't change for them is an underlying philosophy of
> >>>taking good care of their workforce. It is what made them successful in
> >>>the past and they will keep that going forward.
> >>>
> >>>Joe
> >>
> >>Wow! that's about $412.00 per month right out of the owners pocket. Of
> >>course you could always make up for it by getting rid of the consultant
> >>who thinks you are incompetent because you would like to keep that
> >>money. A lot of small business owners don't make what I make, and I'd
> >>sure miss $412.00 per month.
> >
> >
> > Oops! My bad, that's 96 bucks A DAY!!! That's more like $2,880.00 per
> > month. I think you should post the name of your consulting agency as a
> > public service!
> >
> I repeat, the small business owner does NOT have a right to a profit.
> They do need to build profitable business models though.
>
> The example given was a restaurant and if a restaurant which can afford
> to have 12 minimum wage employees working can't afford an additional
> $2,900 a month in operating cost then there is something really broken.
>
> Its time to look at the keting plan, improve the quality of the food,
> change prices, etc. Or maybe the owner needs to assess his/her draw.
>
> My son-in-law that I mentioned earlier took over the exec chef position
> at a local restaurant 6 months ago on a performance contract. The place
> was doing OK, making a few bucks for the owner. He fired and replaced
> the chef de cuisine and sous chef, upgraded the wait staff, upgraded the
> food and wine list, REDUCED prices, changed food suppliers and brought
> on a keting consultant. So far they have more than doubled the top
> line, the owner is taking more out and the staff is happier. And NOBODY
> is making min wage or less, including the dishwasher.
>
> It is all about knowing how to properly manage the business for real
> success. The same principles apply to most any business.
>

Upgrade food quality, upgrade the quality of the staff that actually
contact the public and reduce prices is probably going to work every
time. Now add $3K to your labour costs, per month. Also consider the
simple fact that the more you have to spend, the more vulnerable you
are, because you have to take in more just to cover costs; regardless
of any other factor.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:22:24
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

The_Professor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>The_Professor wrote:
>>
>>>The_Professor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>larry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
SNIP
>>
>>I repeat, the small business owner does NOT have a right to a profit.
>>They do need to build profitable business models though.
>>
>>The example given was a restaurant and if a restaurant which can afford
>>to have 12 minimum wage employees working can't afford an additional
>>$2,900 a month in operating cost then there is something really broken.
>>
>>Its time to look at the keting plan, improve the quality of the food,
>> change prices, etc. Or maybe the owner needs to assess his/her draw.
>>
>>My son-in-law that I mentioned earlier took over the exec chef position
>>at a local restaurant 6 months ago on a performance contract. The place
>>was doing OK, making a few bucks for the owner. He fired and replaced
>>the chef de cuisine and sous chef, upgraded the wait staff, upgraded the
>>food and wine list, REDUCED prices, changed food suppliers and brought
>>on a keting consultant. So far they have more than doubled the top
>>line, the owner is taking more out and the staff is happier. And NOBODY
>>is making min wage or less, including the dishwasher.
>>
>>It is all about knowing how to properly manage the business for real
>>success. The same principles apply to most any business.
>>
>
>
> Upgrade food quality, upgrade the quality of the staff that actually
> contact the public and reduce prices is probably going to work every
> time. Now add $3K to your labour costs, per month. Also consider the
> simple fact that the more you have to spend, the more vulnerable you
> are, because you have to take in more just to cover costs; regardless
> of any other factor.
>
I am not sure of your point above because it is basic economics, gozinta
has to be greater than gozouta. A business must watch its cost line
obviously. But a business that is not continuously growing its revenue
stream will fail. I've encountered a number of businesses where the
owners state that they don't want to grow and in a few years they are
gone. There will be the exceptions where you can keep this up for a
long time but the end result is the same.

Why should I feel concerned about this kind business owner? They have
decided to fail.

Joe

Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:25:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:22:24 -0500, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:

>I am not sure of your point above because it is basic economics, gozinta
>has to be greater than gozouta. A business must watch its cost line
>obviously. But a business that is not continuously growing its revenue
>stream will fail. I've encountered a number of businesses where the
>owners state that they don't want to grow and in a few years they are
>gone. There will be the exceptions where you can keep this up for a
>long time but the end result is the same.

I've encountered some businesses that have had pretty constant
(adjusted for inflation) income. Maybe that restaurant that lasted
40 years with the same owner. They do exist.

>Why should I feel concerned about this kind business owner? They have
>decided to fail.

Does it matter that a business could be more proactive and succeed
despite rising costs - if you're the employee being laid off?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:52:30
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Howard Brazee wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:22:24 -0500, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I am not sure of your point above because it is basic economics, gozinta
>>has to be greater than gozouta. A business must watch its cost line
>>obviously. But a business that is not continuously growing its revenue
>>stream will fail. I've encountered a number of businesses where the
>>owners state that they don't want to grow and in a few years they are
>>gone. There will be the exceptions where you can keep this up for a
>>long time but the end result is the same.
>
>
> I've encountered some businesses that have had pretty constant
> (adjusted for inflation) income. Maybe that restaurant that lasted
> 40 years with the same owner. They do exist.
>
I've seen places like that and as I said they can last (sometime) but
the neighborhood changes, new demographics emerge or tastes change and
slowly they drop away and die. Growth is one of the best antidotes for
potential failure. And like anything else too much of a good thing can
kill you.

How many multi-generational business do you know?

How many companies have you seen that last 100 years?

With no growth!

>
>>Why should I feel concerned about this kind business owner? They have
>>decided to fail.
>
>
> Does it matter that a business could be more proactive and succeed
> despite rising costs - if you're the employee being laid off?

It's too late. I am merely objecting to Rob's one sided view.

Joe

Date: 17 Jan 2007 11:57:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

larry wrote:
> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.

Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.

Republicans care nothing about people. They only care about businesses
and commerce.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 17:06:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Republicans care nothing about people. They only care about businesses
> and commerce.
>
Business and commerce dosen't help people? Pelosi cared enough about people
to exempt Samoa, what about them?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 17:03:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> larry wrote:
>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>
> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>
Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
point in ones employment career.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:59:10
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> larry wrote:
>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>
>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>
> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> point in ones employment career.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>
>
>

Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:07:28
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> larry wrote:
>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>>
>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>>
>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>> starting point in ones employment career.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
I believe everything you need to know is above.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:58:25
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>>>
>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>>> starting point in ones employment career.
>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
> I believe everything you need to know is above.
>

Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you injected ----
Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
point in ones employment career.

I didn't think you could back up that claim.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 09:38:49
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:45af8277$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
>>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>>>>
>>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>>>> starting point in ones employment career.
>>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>> I believe everything you need to know is above.
>>
>
> Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you injected ----
> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a starting
> point in ones employment career.
>
> I didn't think you could back up that claim.
There is a reason it's called MINIMUM ya know. Reading and actually
understanding the numbers may help you with this.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 17:56:54
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:51c70aF1jftrkU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:45af8277$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>
>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>>>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>>>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>>>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>>>>> starting point in ones employment career.
>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>>> I believe everything you need to know is above.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you
>> injected ---- Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living.
>> It's a starting point in ones employment career.
>>
>> I didn't think you could back up that claim.
> There is a reason it's called MINIMUM ya know. Reading and actually
> understanding the numbers may help you with this.
>

A dodge --- nothing more --- you can't defend your claim -- as expected.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 17:08:43
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:45b11a30$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:51c70aF1jftrkU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:45af8277$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:519nqhF1je08oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45af4a58$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:517oauF1hefahU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1169063843.982136.321760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is a very good reason that small business owners are
>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
>>>>>>>> payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my
>>>>>>> Republican
>>>>>>> boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>>>>>>> stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>>>>>>> once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a living. It's a
>>>>>> starting point in ones employment career.
>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you can & will provide us evidence for your point......
>>>> I believe everything you need to know is above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong -- I see numbers --- but no where does it say what you
>>> injected ---- Minimum wage was never meant for someone to make a
>>> living. It's a starting point in ones employment career.
>>>
>>> I didn't think you could back up that claim.
>> There is a reason it's called MINIMUM ya know. Reading and actually
>> understanding the numbers may help you with this.
>>
>
> A dodge --- nothing more --- you can't defend your claim -- as expected.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm

Date: 17 Jan 2007 13:13:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17 Jan 2007 11:57:24 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Whenever the topic of the minimum wage increase arises, my Republican
>boss always says, "I don't know how small businesses will be able to
>stay in business." Like all good Republicans, I've never heard him
>once comment on how someone could live on the minimum wage.

Those aren't the only choices. I want poor teens to have just as
much chance of having an after-school job as middle-class teens.
Learning to work for their own money is very good for them - and for
the taxpayers who want them to have jobs later. Some ginal
businesses will cut back on help if the help costs too much. I
don't know the optimal balance between poor with more money or poor
with less money when the minimum wage is raised, but I'm certain it
isn't the same around the country.

The best way to help the poor and middle class is to provide more
jobs, more training, and more education.

>Republicans care nothing about people. They only care about businesses
>and commerce.

They care about *big* business and commerce. And being Righteous.
Small towns are dying. Small businesses are being paperworked to
death - and forced to compete with subsidized big businesses. Right
now a Ma and Pa business isn't allowed to discriminate against someone
who appears Hispanic - but are liable if they find that that person is
an illegal. Don't make it expensive and difficult to hire people
legally - make it easy and safe. If that means, a central database
where the prospective employers can cheaply check to see if it's a
legal hire - so be it.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 11:23:35
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

The_Professor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > larry wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:03 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > SNIP
> >
> > >
> > > Well, the best way to convert a liberal to conservative is to mug him.
> > > As Senator McGovern learned, when you run a business you quickly get
> > > real-- and that reality often radically changes a "pie in the sky"
> > > idealistic liberalism. If you owned a restaurant with a dozen
> > > minimum wage kids working-- and watched all the profits leave in their
> > > pockets--with nothing left for you after 15 hour days seven days a
> > > week, I would like to hear your opinion of paying them "only" another
> > > dollar per hour.
> > >
> > > There are a million such businesses in the US. Small business is the
> > > backbone of the US economy.
> > >
> > > Larry
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > If a small business with sufficient revenue to employee a dozen minimum
> > wage kids finds itself unable to sustain a $96 a day increase in
> > operating cost then there is something major wrong with the business
> > model or the owner is not competent to run the business.
> >
> > A business owner has NO right to make a profit or even to stay in
> > business. They do have the right to try though. Most small business
> > failures are the result of lack of funding or poor management somewhere
> > along the line, as would be the case with the restaurant you offer as a
> > strawman.
> >
> > I do some small business consulting and one of my current clients is a
> > profitable, 75 year old, three generation private manufacturer in New
> > York City with a 340 person workforce. They do electro mechanical
> > products with all production and assembly done in house, not off-shored.
> >
> > Union work force too.
> >
> > At the moment they are approaching a crises point as their work force
> > ages and some technology shifts are forcing some changes. Will they
> > adapt? Probably. I think they will make it through this gate because
> > they are being pro-active in making the changes needed to move into this
> > new century. What won't change for them is an underlying philosophy of
> > taking good care of their workforce. It is what made them successful in
> > the past and they will keep that going forward.
> >
> > Joe
>
> Wow! that's about $412.00 per month right out of the owners pocket. Of
> course you could always make up for it by getting rid of the consultant
> who thinks you are incompetent because you would like to keep that
> money. A lot of small business owners don't make what I make, and I'd
> sure miss $412.00 per month.

Oops! My bad, that's 96 bucks A DAY!!! That's more like $2,880.00 per
month. I think you should post the name of your consulting agency as a
public service!

Date: 17 Jan 2007 15:28:53
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

The_Professor wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>larry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:03 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, the best way to convert a liberal to conservative is to mug him.
>>>>As Senator McGovern learned, when you run a business you quickly get
>>>>real-- and that reality often radically changes a "pie in the sky"
>>>>idealistic liberalism. If you owned a restaurant with a dozen
>>>>minimum wage kids working-- and watched all the profits leave in their
>>>>pockets--with nothing left for you after 15 hour days seven days a
>>>>week, I would like to hear your opinion of paying them "only" another
>>>>dollar per hour.
>>>>
>>>>There are a million such businesses in the US. Small business is the
>>>>backbone of the US economy.
>>>>
>>>>Larry
>>>
>>>Larry,
>>>
>>>If a small business with sufficient revenue to employee a dozen minimum
>>>wage kids finds itself unable to sustain a $96 a day increase in
>>>operating cost then there is something major wrong with the business
>>>model or the owner is not competent to run the business.
>>>
>>>A business owner has NO right to make a profit or even to stay in
>>>business. They do have the right to try though. Most small business
>>>failures are the result of lack of funding or poor management somewhere
>>>along the line, as would be the case with the restaurant you offer as a
>>>strawman.
>>>
>>>I do some small business consulting and one of my current clients is a
>>>profitable, 75 year old, three generation private manufacturer in New
>>>York City with a 340 person workforce. They do electro mechanical
>>>products with all production and assembly done in house, not off-shored.
>>>
>>>Union work force too.
>>>
>>>At the moment they are approaching a crises point as their work force
>>>ages and some technology shifts are forcing some changes. Will they
>>>adapt? Probably. I think they will make it through this gate because
>>>they are being pro-active in making the changes needed to move into this
>>>new century. What won't change for them is an underlying philosophy of
>>>taking good care of their workforce. It is what made them successful in
>>>the past and they will keep that going forward.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>
>>Wow! that's about $412.00 per month right out of the owners pocket. Of
>>course you could always make up for it by getting rid of the consultant
>>who thinks you are incompetent because you would like to keep that
>>money. A lot of small business owners don't make what I make, and I'd
>>sure miss $412.00 per month.
>
>
> Oops! My bad, that's 96 bucks A DAY!!! That's more like $2,880.00 per
> month. I think you should post the name of your consulting agency as a
> public service!
>
I repeat, the small business owner does NOT have a right to a profit.
They do need to build profitable business models though.

The example given was a restaurant and if a restaurant which can afford
to have 12 minimum wage employees working can't afford an additional
$2,900 a month in operating cost then there is something really broken.

Its time to look at the keting plan, improve the quality of the food,
change prices, etc. Or maybe the owner needs to assess his/her draw.

My son-in-law that I mentioned earlier took over the exec chef position
at a local restaurant 6 months ago on a performance contract. The place
was doing OK, making a few bucks for the owner. He fired and replaced
the chef de cuisine and sous chef, upgraded the wait staff, upgraded the
food and wine list, REDUCED prices, changed food suppliers and brought
on a keting consultant. So far they have more than doubled the top
line, the owner is taking more out and the staff is happier. And NOBODY
is making min wage or less, including the dishwasher.

It is all about knowing how to properly manage the business for real
success. The same principles apply to most any business.

Joe

Date: 17 Jan 2007 11:20:18
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Joe wrote:
> larry wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:03 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> SNIP
>
> >
> > Well, the best way to convert a liberal to conservative is to mug him.
> > As Senator McGovern learned, when you run a business you quickly get
> > real-- and that reality often radically changes a "pie in the sky"
> > idealistic liberalism. If you owned a restaurant with a dozen
> > minimum wage kids working-- and watched all the profits leave in their
> > pockets--with nothing left for you after 15 hour days seven days a
> > week, I would like to hear your opinion of paying them "only" another
> > dollar per hour.
> >
> > There are a million such businesses in the US. Small business is the
> > backbone of the US economy.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Larry,
>
> If a small business with sufficient revenue to employee a dozen minimum
> wage kids finds itself unable to sustain a $96 a day increase in
> operating cost then there is something major wrong with the business
> model or the owner is not competent to run the business.
>
> A business owner has NO right to make a profit or even to stay in
> business. They do have the right to try though. Most small business
> failures are the result of lack of funding or poor management somewhere
> along the line, as would be the case with the restaurant you offer as a
> strawman.
>
> I do some small business consulting and one of my current clients is a
> profitable, 75 year old, three generation private manufacturer in New
> York City with a 340 person workforce. They do electro mechanical
> products with all production and assembly done in house, not off-shored.
>
> Union work force too.
>
> At the moment they are approaching a crises point as their work force
> ages and some technology shifts are forcing some changes. Will they
> adapt? Probably. I think they will make it through this gate because
> they are being pro-active in making the changes needed to move into this
> new century. What won't change for them is an underlying philosophy of
> taking good care of their workforce. It is what made them successful in
> the past and they will keep that going forward.
>
> Joe

Wow! that's about $412.00 per month right out of the owners pocket. Of
course you could always make up for it by getting rid of the consultant
who thinks you are incompetent because you would like to keep that
money. A lot of small business owners don't make what I make, and I'd
sure miss $412.00 per month.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:26:04
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> The minimum wage, like the formation of unions, was and is a way to help
> ensure that the 'capitalist' is paying fair wages for work performed.
>
> Prior to that, it was very common for people to work for extremely low
> wages so that the rich could keep on getting richer.

I see, so when you want someone to fix your roof you hire the guy who
charges the most. Or this rhetoric doesn't apply to you, only other
individuals who hire people? How about the government fixes the wages
required for roofers, and that wages is determined by the roofers (as
in a guild)?

You want *SOMEONE ELSE* to pay you for your sevices, how about doing
something to improve yourself such that your services are more
valuable? NAH! Make a law about wages...but then we can't have higher
prices, so make a law about that too! That'll work!

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:36:34
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote ...
>
>
> I see, so when you want someone to fix your roof you hire the guy who
> charges the most.

Are you suggesting that your only consideration is finding the one who
charges the least?

Generally speaking, I've always believed that you get what you pay for. Pay
the least, you tend to get less than if you pay the most. Of course that's
not always true in a linear way. But it tends to be true generally.

When I shop for certain things -- products or services -- price is always a
factor in my decision, but it's not the only factor. VALUE is what matters
to me. If, by spending a little more, I'll get more bang for my buck, then
I'm willing to do it. On the other hand, if, by spending the lowest
possible amount, I might be cutting corners that might later come back to
haunt me, then I don't really see the value in taking this bargain-basement
approach.

On the subject of wages, I tend to believe that people earning the lowest
possible wage are going to take less pride in their work, be less motivated,
and be less skilled than if I get the same service from someone who's
earning a bit more. Of course with certain products and/or services I might
shop for, that won't have much affect on the quality and value of what I'm
getting. But sometimes it will.

Randy

Date: 17 Jan 2007 09:40:20
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17 Jan 2007 08:26:04 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>> The minimum wage, like the formation of unions, was and is a way to help
>> ensure that the 'capitalist' is paying fair wages for work performed.
>>
>> Prior to that, it was very common for people to work for extremely low
>> wages so that the rich could keep on getting richer.
>
>I see, so when you want someone to fix your roof you hire the guy who
>charges the most. Or this rhetoric doesn't apply to you, only other
>individuals who hire people? How about the government fixes the wages
>required for roofers, and that wages is determined by the roofers (as
>in a guild)?
>
>You want *SOMEONE ELSE* to pay you for your sevices, how about doing
>something to improve yourself such that your services are more
>valuable? NAH! Make a law about wages...but then we can't have higher
>prices, so make a law about that too! That'll work!

There is a very good reason that small business owners are
overwhelmingly republican and conservative. There is little room for
idealistic liberalism in their world of balance sheets, taxes, and
payrolls. Small business is overwhelmed with government mandates.

Everyone should simply drop into a bank and get themselves a
commercial loan application form. Notice that the bottom line-- the
net profit upon which the loan will be declined or granted-- is
created AFTER all the costs--and one important cost is the total wages
paid. A higher minimum wage will inevitably result in fewer such
loans being approved-- and fewer new small businesses opening--fewer
jobs.

Larry

Larry

Date: 17 Jan 2007 10:43:42
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <1169051164.723871.187330@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >
> > The minimum wage, like the formation of unions, was and is a way to help
> > ensure that the 'capitalist' is paying fair wages for work performed.
> >
> > Prior to that, it was very common for people to work for extremely low
> > wages so that the rich could keep on getting richer.
>
> I see, so when you want someone to fix your roof you hire the guy who
> charges the most. Or this rhetoric doesn't apply to you, only other
> individuals who hire people? How about the government fixes the wages
> required for roofers, and that wages is determined by the roofers (as
> in a guild)?

When I wanted my roof replaced I used a local company that hired local
people at a fair price. No illegals and all were making much more than
minimum wage. I think, but did not ask, that all were union members
too. Same thing when I remodeled.

When I hire someone to do a job for me, I pay more than minimum wage and
expect more from them. I have yet to be disappointed with how that
worked.

>
> You want *SOMEONE ELSE* to pay you for your sevices, how about doing
> something to improve yourself such that your services are more
> valuable? NAH! Make a law about wages...but then we can't have higher
> prices, so make a law about that too! That'll work!

Nah, I retired and got out of the rat race. I found there are many more
things interesting and enjoyable than the daily grind. But when I did
work, other than my years in the Navy, I worked for much more than
minimum wage. I set my wage requirements and only worked for those that
would meet or exceed them, always knowing that I could just do
commissioned sales and make at least that much if not more.

But some jobs don't work that way and you either know it or should know
it. How about the guy on the garbage truck? Not your high paying job,
but probably a more necessary one than the one you are doing. Maybe
that's the best that guy/gal can do, or maybe a bad decision put them in
a position that improving their skill set takes time and money they
don't have?

Pure capitalism isn't the answer, never was. It took unions and gov't
to make earning a living more equitable. That shouldn't have been
necessary, the companies should have been doing that all along.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:09:36
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Joe wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:12:49 -0600, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The minimum wage, like the formation of unions, was and is a way to help
> >>ensure that the 'capitalist' is paying fair wages for work performed.
> >>
> >>Prior to that, it was very common for people to work for extremely low
> >>wages so that the rich could keep on getting richer.
> >
> >
> > ... which is exactly what is happening now. The disparity in wealth
> > between the rich and poor has been widening for years.
>
>
> And this is probably one of the more important problems that we, the US,
> will face over the next few decades. I don't pretend to know what the
> solution(s) are but our school system is part of the problem and will be
> key to resolving it.

We can't do much with the school system. We need to divert funds from
there to the provision of services for seniors. We can't have seniors
giving up their golf memberships to pay for pills now can we?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:17:07
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

The_Professor wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>>Carbon wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:12:49 -0600, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
SNIP

>>
>>And this is probably one of the more important problems that we, the US,
>>will face over the next few decades. I don't pretend to know what the
>>solution(s) are but our school system is part of the problem and will be
>>key to resolving it.
>
>
> We can't do much with the school system. We need to divert funds from
> there to the provision of services for seniors. We can't have seniors
> giving up their golf memberships to pay for pills now can we?
>

I hate to say it but it is possible that we can't do much with the
school system, priily because of the various teacher and
administration unions, but right now the system is turning out
incompetents. My wife teaches some under grad classes at SUNY and the
basic reading, comprehension and ability to construct a logical argument
amongst the freshmen/sophomores is dismal. Some of the kids should
still be in 8th grade, not university.

Take away the computing register at the fast food place and the kids
can't make change.

I wouldn't trust some of these kids to add up my score for 18 and if
they had to compute a handicap adjusted score, who knows what the number
would be. Lets not even consider the ESC problem.

Before the pink mist troll calls me a racist again, most of the kids I
am referring to come from white, lower middle class, multi-generational,
born in the USA families.

Some of the "seniors" could do with a lot less pills too.

Joe

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:08:02
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

David wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That'll be those damn crazy Christians again :-)
> >>
> >> There's some theory I've read somewhere that, to test the fairness of
> >> any system your are creating, you think whether you would still
> >> consider it fair if you were at the top of the system or the bottom.
> >
> >Why this obsession with "fairness?" Do you want golf to be fair too?
> >Economics is not a moral system: no one has a "right" to make money, they to
> >have a "right" to attempt
> >to make money.
>
> Golf is fair. Everyone plays by the same rules. The handicap
> system balances the game out even more.

What? fair? Why can't I shoot 65 then? If I play once a week I am maybe
a 15 handicapper vs playing every day and if I play everey day and am
say a 5 handicapper..and I need some "system" to make up for the
difference? How about if I want to play my best I have to work harder
at it?

I have a relative who once worked for an agency of a government that
performed routine road maintenance. He was given the task of fixing 3
potholes per day. His first day, he fixed the 3 potholes in about an
hour, and came back for more work, and was told that was his work for
the day, and after competing that work, he needed to more or less lay
low until quitting time! If he fixed more potholes, it would cost other
people their job! For some reason, this particular government charges
high taxes, and yet still can't stay in the black!

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:07:57
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Date: 17 Jan 2007 21:29:26
From: bill
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in
news:1169050077.340831.78480@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> David wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That'll be those damn crazy Christians again :-)
>> >>
>> >> There's some theory I've read somewhere that, to test the fairness
>> >> of any system your are creating, you think whether you would still
>> >> consider it fair if you were at the top of the system or the
>> >> bottom.
>> >
>> >Why this obsession with "fairness?" Do you want golf to be fair too?
>> >Economics is not a moral system: no one has a "right" to make money,
>> >they to have a "right" to attempt
>> >to make money.
>>
>> Golf is fair. Everyone plays by the same rules. The handicap
>> system balances the game out even more.
>
> What? fair? Why can't I shoot 65 then?

you can, walk-off after 12 holes :)

Date: 17 Jan 2007 07:46:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

larry wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> >> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> >> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> >> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> >> > > > > increase in unemployment.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories:
> >> > > > low
> >> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
> >> > >
> >> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
> >> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
> >> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
> >> >
> >> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
> >> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
> >> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
> >> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
> >> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love to
> >> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example. Employed
> >> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are ruthlessly
> >> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
> >> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
> >> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
> >> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
> >> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
> >> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
> >> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people in
> >> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
> >> > unskilled labour.
> >>
> >> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
> >> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too often.
> >> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
> >> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
> >> the trust fund babies.
> >>
> >> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
> >> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
> >>
> >> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose more
> >> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
> >> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
> >> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
> >> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
> >>
> >> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we decide
> >> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
> >> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
> >> product?
> >>
> >> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
> >> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
> >
> >The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
> >working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
> >low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
> >you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
> >for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
> >doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
> >to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
> >were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
> >industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
> >
> >Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
> >we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
> >but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
> >more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
> >the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
> >irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
> >real socioeconomic issues.
>
> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
> (except unions)
>
> Larry

Waiters, waitresses and bartenders aren't paid the minimum wage. They
are paid almost nothing, because most of their income is in tips. Your
premise is the exact opposite of the truth. How unusual for you.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 00:38:59
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

bill-o wrote:

> On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That'll be those damn crazy Christians again :-)
> >
> > There's some theory I've read somewhere that, to test the fairness of
> > any system your are creating, you think whether you would still
> > consider it fair if you were at the top of the system or the bottom.
>
> Why this obsession with "fairness?" Do you want golf to be fair too?
> Economics is not a moral system: no one has a "right" to make money, they to
> have a "right" to attempt
> to make money.
> --

I don't know how you extrapolate my one comment into an obsession, but
I do think there should be some level of fairness in our society. I
don't think a 100% capitalist or 100% socialist system would ever work,
we need some checks in place to make sure the system doesn't go too far
in favour of one group over another.

Actually I don't think golf should be fair and I've had many
discussions on RSG about that :-)

The unfairness of a CEO voting himself a $1m payrise while his workers
get a pay cut is not quite on the same level as the unfairness of my
ball sitting in a divot when you get a good lie ;-)

Date: 18 Jan 2007 05:16:51
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 17-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com > wrote:

> The unfairness of a CEO voting himself a $1m payrise while his workers
> get a pay cut is not quite on the same level as the unfairness of my
> ball sitting in a divot when you get a good lie ;-)

A big problem over here with CEO pay is that many CEOs are able to stuff the
board with his people. There should be an independant board that actually
has oversight powers instead a buch of yes men.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:44:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:16:51 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:

>A big problem over here with CEO pay is that many CEOs are able to stuff the
>board with his people. There should be an independant board that actually
>has oversight powers instead a buch of yes men.

And how do we achieve that?

It has always been a sad fact of life that "who you know" is more
important than "what you know" to become successful. While the
president epitomizes this - it is everywhere and always has been.

And most all people who strive to become board members do so for their
own benefit.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:02:02
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:45af02c1$0$10575$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 17-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The unfairness of a CEO voting himself a $1m payrise while his workers
>> get a pay cut is not quite on the same level as the unfairness of my
>> ball sitting in a divot when you get a good lie ;-)
>
> A big problem over here with CEO pay is that many CEOs are able to stuff
> the
> board with his people. There should be an independant board that actually
> has oversight powers instead a buch of yes men.
>

Next you'll be suggesting that Congress use oversight powers & not be a
bunch of yes men/women. ;^)

> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 09:41:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

RoverII@webtv.net wrote:
> If they have a minimum wage they should also have a maximum wage. That
> way it's fair and everyone will be happy.
>
> Every time the minimum wage is raised the maximum wage should be
> lowered. Only an idiot can not see the logic in this.
>
> Roverii

I'm an idiot.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 04:09:39
From:
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

If they have a minimum wage they should also have a maximum wage. That
way it's fair and everyone will be happy.

Every time the minimum wage is raised the maximum wage should be
lowered. Only an idiot can not see the logic in this.

Roverii

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> > > > > increase in unemployment.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories:
> > > > low
> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
> > >
> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
> >
> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love to
> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example. Employed
> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are ruthlessly
> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people in
> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
> > unskilled labour.
>
> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too often.
> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
> the trust fund babies.
>
> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
>
> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose more
> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
>
> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we decide
> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
> product?
>
> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.

The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?

Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
real socioeconomic issues.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 03:05:03
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 16-Jan-2007, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
> we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
> but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
> more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
> the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
> irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
> real socioeconomic issues.

Ding, ding, ding, tell him what he's won Johnny!
So much of what is done in our capital is just window dressing.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 20:45:16
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>Increasing
>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all.

"Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an hour,
the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage, only 15
percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
these workers, 72 percent to be precise, have a family income that is
at least 50 percent higher than the poverty line, and over half belong
to families earning double the poverty level. One fifth of low-income
workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually. The average
family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000
per year.

In other words, the typical beneficiary of a minimum wage increase
will not be a poor father or mother scrambling to keep a family fed,
clothed, and housed. The recipients of the pay raises demanded under
this proposal are at least as likely, if not more likely, to already
be solid members of the middle class."

The down side.

"Simply finding full-time work, including jobs at or near the minimum
wage, provides the poor with the means to escape poverty. Research by
the Employment Policy Institute shows 47 percent of families living
below the poverty line in 1997 managed to make it over the poverty
line in 1998. The authors of that study concluded that earnings from
minimum wage work and the Earned Income Tax Credit both significantly
reduced the number of working poor in the 1990s.

Artificially raising wages will cut off this difficult but direct path
to greater prosperity for many poor families, and will delay the entry
of other workers, including youth, into paid work by needlessly
increasing the cost of unskilled labor. Employers will not be able to
afford to hire as many unskilled workers, and will respond by cutting
back services or replacing workers with machinery.

Labor economists refer to the "elasticity�"of demand for labor to
describe the ratio of jobs gained or lost when wages change. Estimates
of this "elasticity" vary, but the average estimate by labor
economists is that for a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage,
employment among those affected drops by 5 percent. If the minimum
wage is increased from $5.15 to $6.65 per hour, demand for unskilled
labor could drop by as much as 15 percent in jobs that earn the
minimum wage, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs
and making it more difficult for poor families to take this escape
route out of poverty."

This is so typical of liberalism. The policy is supposed to help poor
people but many liberal policies, like welfare, actually hurt poor
people. You should always base policy on the actual effects that it
has rather on its intended effect.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:40:07
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:l7vqq2h220qu28h05rtf97k7v0a8dlfr6b@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Increasing
>>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all.
>
> "Our analysis

And exactly who is "Our"?

Is there a reason you flunked the link test?

of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that, of 7.8 million
> American workers receiving an hourly wage of less than $6.65 an hour,
> the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum wage, only 15
> percent are currently living in poverty. Nearly three-quarters of
> these workers, 72 percent to be precise, have a family income that is
> at least 50 percent higher than the poverty line, and over half belong
> to families earning double the poverty level. One fifth of low-income
> workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually. The average
> family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000
> per year.
>
> In other words, the typical beneficiary of a minimum wage increase
> will not be a poor father or mother scrambling to keep a family fed,
> clothed, and housed. The recipients of the pay raises demanded under
> this proposal are at least as likely, if not more likely, to already
> be solid members of the middle class."
>
> The down side.
>
> "Simply finding full-time work, including jobs at or near the minimum
> wage, provides the poor with the means to escape poverty. Research by
> the Employment Policy Institute shows 47 percent of families living
> below the poverty line in 1997 managed to make it over the poverty
> line in 1998. The authors of that study concluded that earnings from
> minimum wage work and the Earned Income Tax Credit both significantly
> reduced the number of working poor in the 1990s.
>
> Artificially raising wages will cut off this difficult but direct path
> to greater prosperity for many poor families, and will delay the entry
> of other workers, including youth, into paid work by needlessly
> increasing the cost of unskilled labor. Employers will not be able to
> afford to hire as many unskilled workers, and will respond by cutting
> back services or replacing workers with machinery.
>
> Labor economists refer to the "elasticity""of demand for labor to
> describe the ratio of jobs gained or lost when wages change. Estimates
> of this "elasticity" vary, but the average estimate by labor
> economists is that for a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage,
> employment among those affected drops by 5 percent. If the minimum
> wage is increased from $5.15 to $6.65 per hour, demand for unskilled
> labor could drop by as much as 15 percent in jobs that earn the
> minimum wage, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs
> and making it more difficult for poor families to take this escape
> route out of poverty."
>
>
>
> This is so typical of liberalism. The policy is supposed to help poor
> people but many liberal policies, like welfare, actually hurt poor
> people. You should always base policy on the actual effects that it
> has rather on its intended effect.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:21:55
From: larry
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
>> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
>> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
>> > > > > increase in unemployment.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories:
>> > > > low
>> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
>> > >
>> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
>> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
>> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>> >
>> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
>> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
>> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
>> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
>> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love to
>> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example. Employed
>> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are ruthlessly
>> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
>> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
>> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
>> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
>> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
>> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
>> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people in
>> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
>> > unskilled labour.
>>
>> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
>> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too often.
>> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
>> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
>> the trust fund babies.
>>
>> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
>> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
>>
>> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose more
>> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
>> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
>> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
>> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
>>
>> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we decide
>> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
>> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
>> product?
>>
>> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
>> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
>
>The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
>working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
>low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
>you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
>for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
>doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
>to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
>were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
>industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
>
>Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
>we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
>but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
>more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
>irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
>real socioeconomic issues.

The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
(except unions)

Larry

Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:22:47
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:vrqqq2ttm01ecfggl94lpj6sffrf553epk@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes
>>> > > > > up. If
>>> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs.
>>> > > > > or so,
>>> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a
>>> > > > > significant
>>> > > > > increase in unemployment.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain
>>> > > > sub-categories:
>>> > > > low
>>> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
>>> > >
>>> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
>>> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
>>> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>>> >
>>> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
>>> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
>>> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
>>> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
>>> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love
>>> > to
>>> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example.
>>> > Employed
>>> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are
>>> > ruthlessly
>>> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
>>> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
>>> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
>>> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
>>> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
>>> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
>>> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people
>>> > in
>>> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
>>> > unskilled labour.
>>>
>>> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
>>> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too often.
>>> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
>>> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
>>> the trust fund babies.
>>>
>>> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
>>> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
>>>
>>> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose more
>>> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
>>> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
>>> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
>>> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
>>>
>>> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we decide
>>> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
>>> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
>>> product?
>>>
>>> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
>>> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
>>
>>The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
>>working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
>>low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
>>you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
>>for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
>>doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
>>to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
>>were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
>>industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
>>
>>Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
>>we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
>>but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
>>more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
>>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
>>irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
>>real socioeconomic issues.
>
> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
> (except unions)
>
> Larry

Wow --- I didn't know the food business was that good ------- here I thought
something like 60% of all new businesses failed in the 1st 4 years & now you
tell us that selling food is a 50% shot.

We are used to you pulling sh*t out of your a*s though.

I'll show you mine --- now you show us yours --- the 50% number would be a
start & then you can follow up with your proof that increasing the minimum
wage will drop the percentage. Deal lllllllary?

http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbsurvival.html

Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, and 44
percent survive at least four years, according to a new study. These results
were similar for different industries.

Firms that began in the second quarter of 1998 were tracked for the next 16
quarters to determine their survival rate. Despite conventional wisdom that
restaurants fail much more frequently than firms in other industries,
leisure and hospitality establishments, which would include restaurants,
survived at rates only slightly below the average.

Earlier research has explored the reasons for a new business's
survivability. Major factors in a firm's remaining open include an ample
supply of capital, the fact that a firm is large enough to have employees,
the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the firm in
the first place, such as freedom for family life or wanting to be one's own
boss.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 15:56:28
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Wheres larry's brilliant reply?

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:45ad63aa$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:vrqqq2ttm01ecfggl94lpj6sffrf553epk@4ax.com...
>> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>>> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes
>>>> > > > > up. If
>>>> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25
>>>> > > > > yrs. or so,
>>>> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a
>>>> > > > > significant
>>>> > > > > increase in unemployment.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain
>>>> > > > sub-categories:
>>>> > > > low
>>>> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are
>>>> > > then
>>>> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
>>>> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
>>>> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
>>>> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads
>>>> > only
>>>> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love
>>>> > to
>>>> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example.
>>>> > Employed
>>>> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are
>>>> > ruthlessly
>>>> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
>>>> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
>>>> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
>>>> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
>>>> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
>>>> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the
>>>> > poor
>>>> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people
>>>> > in
>>>> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
>>>> > unskilled labour.
>>>>
>>>> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
>>>> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too
>>>> often.
>>>> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
>>>> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
>>>> the trust fund babies.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
>>>> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
>>>>
>>>> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose
>>>> more
>>>> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
>>>> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
>>>> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
>>>> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
>>>>
>>>> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we
>>>> decide
>>>> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
>>>> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
>>>> product?
>>>>
>>>> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
>>>> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
>>>
>>>The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
>>>working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
>>>low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
>>>you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
>>>for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
>>>doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
>>>to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
>>>were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
>>>industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
>>>
>>>Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
>>>we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
>>>but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
>>>more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
>>>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
>>>irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
>>>real socioeconomic issues.
>>
>> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
>> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
>> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
>> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
>> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
>> (except unions)
>>
>> Larry
>
>
> Wow --- I didn't know the food business was that good ------- here I
> thought something like 60% of all new businesses failed in the 1st 4 years
> & now you tell us that selling food is a 50% shot.
>
> We are used to you pulling sh*t out of your a*s though.
>
> I'll show you mine --- now you show us yours --- the 50% number would be a
> start & then you can follow up with your proof that increasing the minimum
> wage will drop the percentage. Deal lllllllary?
>
> http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbsurvival.html
>
> Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, and
> 44 percent survive at least four years, according to a new study. These
> results were similar for different industries.
>
> Firms that began in the second quarter of 1998 were tracked for the next
> 16 quarters to determine their survival rate. Despite conventional wisdom
> that restaurants fail much more frequently than firms in other industries,
> leisure and hospitality establishments, which would include restaurants,
> survived at rates only slightly below the average.
>
> Earlier research has explored the reasons for a new business's
> survivability. Major factors in a firm's remaining open include an ample
> supply of capital, the fact that a firm is large enough to have employees,
> the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the firm
> in the first place, such as freedom for family life or wanting to be one's
> own boss.
>
>
>
>

Date: 17 Jan 2007 19:11:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Wheres larry's brilliant reply?

In article <45ae5ac5$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net >,
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote:

> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:45ad63aa$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> > news:vrqqq2ttm01ecfggl94lpj6sffrf553epk@4ax.com...
> >> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >>>> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >>>> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> >>>> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes
> >>>> > > > > up. If
> >>>> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25
> >>>> > > > > yrs. or so,
> >>>> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a
> >>>> > > > > significant
> >>>> > > > > increase in unemployment.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain
> >>>> > > > sub-categories:
> >>>> > > > low
> >>>> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes
> >>>> > > a
> >>>> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are
> >>>> > > then
> >>>> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
> >>>> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
> >>>> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
> >>>> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads
> >>>> > only
> >>>> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love
> >>>> > to
> >>>> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example.
> >>>> > Employed
> >>>> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are
> >>>> > ruthlessly
> >>>> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
> >>>> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
> >>>> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
> >>>> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
> >>>> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
> >>>> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the
> >>>> > poor
> >>>> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people
> >>>> > in
> >>>> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
> >>>> > unskilled labour.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
> >>>> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too
> >>>> often.
> >>>> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
> >>>> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
> >>>> the trust fund babies.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
> >>>> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose
> >>>> more
> >>>> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
> >>>> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
> >>>> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
> >>>> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we
> >>>> decide
> >>>> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
> >>>> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
> >>>> product?
> >>>>
> >>>> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
> >>>> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
> >>>
> >>>The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
> >>>working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone. Other
> >>>low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
> >>>you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to pay
> >>>for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
> >>>doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you want
> >>>to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
> >>>were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
> >>>industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
> >>>
> >>>Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right no
> >>>we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
> >>>but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
> >>>more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
> >>>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
> >>>irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with the
> >>>real socioeconomic issues.
> >>
> >> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
> >> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
> >> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
> >> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
> >> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
> >> (except unions)
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >
> > Wow --- I didn't know the food business was that good ------- here I
> > thought something like 60% of all new businesses failed in the 1st 4 years
> > & now you tell us that selling food is a 50% shot.
> >
> > We are used to you pulling sh*t out of your a*s though.
> >
> > I'll show you mine --- now you show us yours --- the 50% number would be a
> > start & then you can follow up with your proof that increasing the minimum
> > wage will drop the percentage. Deal lllllllary?
> >
> > http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbsurvival.html
> >
> > Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, and
> > 44 percent survive at least four years, according to a new study. These
> > results were similar for different industries.
> >
> > Firms that began in the second quarter of 1998 were tracked for the next
> > 16 quarters to determine their survival rate. Despite conventional wisdom
> > that restaurants fail much more frequently than firms in other industries,
> > leisure and hospitality establishments, which would include restaurants,
> > survived at rates only slightly below the average.
> >
> > Earlier research has explored the reasons for a new business's
> > survivability. Major factors in a firm's remaining open include an ample
> > supply of capital, the fact that a firm is large enough to have employees,
> > the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the firm
> > in the first place, such as freedom for family life or wanting to be one's
> > own boss.
> >
> >
> >
> >

The words "Larry" and "brilliant" do not belong in the same sentence.

William Clark

Date: 17 Jan 2007 22:27:32
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Wheres larry's brilliant reply?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> The words "Larry" and "brilliant" do not belong in the same sentence.

Larry is the village idiot - I am not use he is expected to be brilliant.
He only serves as an example of what happens when you drop out of elementary
school to spend your childhood eating lead paint.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 22:44:19
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Wheres larry's brilliant reply?

Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>>The words "Larry" and "brilliant" do not belong in the same sentence.
>
>
> Larry is the village idiot - I am not use he is expected to be brilliant.
> He only serves as an example of what happens when you drop out of elementary
> school to spend your childhood eating lead paint.
>
>

"I am not use he is expected to be brilliant." ????

This person is calling someone else the "village idiot"!!!!!!!!

Way to go Pinky.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 22:02:13
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Wheres larry's brilliant reply?

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-D75801.19114717012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <45ae5ac5$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:45ad63aa$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >
>> > "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> > news:vrqqq2ttm01ecfggl94lpj6sffrf553epk@4ax.com...
>> >> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >>>> In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >>>> > > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>> >>>> > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > > >
>> >>>> > > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument
>> >>>> > > > > comes
>> >>>> > > > > up. If
>> >>>> > > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25
>> >>>> > > > > yrs. or so,
>> >>>> > > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a
>> >>>> > > > > significant
>> >>>> > > > > increase in unemployment.
>> >>>> > > >
>> >>>> > > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain
>> >>>> > > > sub-categories:
>> >>>> > > > low
>> >>>> > > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities
>> >>>> > > > especially).
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it
>> >>>> > > takes
>> >>>> > > a
>> >>>> > > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are
>> >>>> > > then
>> >>>> > > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All
>> >>>> > that
>> >>>> > happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to
>> >>>> > increase
>> >>>> > wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is
>> >>>> > no
>> >>>> > way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads
>> >>>> > only
>> >>>> > to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I
>> >>>> > love
>> >>>> > to
>> >>>> > look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example.
>> >>>> > Employed
>> >>>> > people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are
>> >>>> > ruthlessly
>> >>>> > exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
>> >>>> > Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
>> >>>> > apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to
>> >>>> > the
>> >>>> > lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is
>> >>>> > forcing
>> >>>> > someone else to raise wages without providing the financial
>> >>>> > resources
>> >>>> > in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the
>> >>>> > poor
>> >>>> > than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled
>> >>>> > people
>> >>>> > in
>> >>>> > the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand
>> >>>> > for
>> >>>> > unskilled labour.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now,
>> >>>> those
>> >>>> jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too
>> >>>> often.
>> >>>> The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought
>> >>>> into
>> >>>> the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> the trust fund babies.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being
>> >>>> outsourced
>> >>>> or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose
>> >>>> more
>> >>>> and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
>> >>>> cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you
>> >>>> don't
>> >>>> have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't
>> >>>> quite
>> >>>> got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we
>> >>>> decide
>> >>>> to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
>> >>>> that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
>> >>>> product?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see
>> >>>> in
>> >>>> our future, but someone has to figure this one out.
>> >>>
>> >>>The only real source of low end jobs is in the service industry;
>> >>>working at Walt or Wendy's. All the rest are pretty much gone.
>> >>>Other
>> >>>low end jobs, like construction, will hire illegal immigrants because
>> >>>you simply cannot do the job any other way. How much do you want to
>> >>>pay
>> >>>for a new roof? A lot of assembly jobs have gone offshore because it
>> >>>doesn't make any economic sense to keep them here. How much do you
>> >>>want
>> >>>to pay for a car? They assemble the car here, but all the parts that
>> >>>were once made here are no made elsewhere. Most of the clothing
>> >>>industry is gone. How much do you want to pay for a pair of socks?
>> >>>
>> >>>Driving up the payscale in the lower end job drives them away. Right
>> >>>no
>> >>>we can exploit 3rd world countries to get cheap manufactured products,
>> >>>but how long can that continue. If we make them here, they cost a lot
>> >>>more. Do we want to pay that, and could the poor pay that? Increasing
>> >>>the "minimum wage" can't really help the poor at all. It is almost
>> >>>irrelevant; just a ploy to "look good" rather than try to deal with
>> >>>the
>> >>>real socioeconomic issues.
>> >>
>> >> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
>> >> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
>> >> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
>> >> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
>> >> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
>> >> (except unions)
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >
>> > Wow --- I didn't know the food business was that good ------- here I
>> > thought something like 60% of all new businesses failed in the 1st 4
>> > years
>> > & now you tell us that selling food is a 50% shot.
>> >
>> > We are used to you pulling sh*t out of your a*s though.
>> >
>> > I'll show you mine --- now you show us yours --- the 50% number would
>> > be a
>> > start & then you can follow up with your proof that increasing the
>> > minimum
>> > wage will drop the percentage. Deal lllllllary?
>> >
>> > http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbsurvival.html
>> >
>> > Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years,
>> > and
>> > 44 percent survive at least four years, according to a new study. These
>> > results were similar for different industries.
>> >
>> > Firms that began in the second quarter of 1998 were tracked for the
>> > next
>> > 16 quarters to determine their survival rate. Despite conventional
>> > wisdom
>> > that restaurants fail much more frequently than firms in other
>> > industries,
>> > leisure and hospitality establishments, which would include
>> > restaurants,
>> > survived at rates only slightly below the average.
>> >
>> > Earlier research has explored the reasons for a new business's
>> > survivability. Major factors in a firm's remaining open include an
>> > ample
>> > supply of capital, the fact that a firm is large enough to have
>> > employees,
>> > the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the
>> > firm
>> > in the first place, such as freedom for family life or wanting to be
>> > one's
>> > own boss.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> The words "Larry" and "brilliant" do not belong in the same sentence.
>
> William Clark

my bad -- I forgot the ///sarcasm

Date: 16 Jan 2007 20:17:00
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

larry wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:

>
>
> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
> (except unions)
>
> Larry

Larry,

As someone close to the restaurant business, my son-in-law is an
executive chef in the NYC scene, I disagree with you here. You chose
the word restaurant, not diner, luncheonette or "eats" joint so I assume
that the typical check is over $15. In any reasonably well run
restaurant a slight change in minimum wage is of negligible impact.

The 50% fail rate may or may not be true, but it is close. The causes
of failure are more likely to result from greed, poor management, lack
of knowledge, poor location choice, keting (poor or nonexistent), bad
selection of demographics, menu choice, pricing (too high/too low).........

Joe

Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:40:13
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:45ad7809$0$5750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> larry wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2007 14:44:32 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The industry hit hardest is the restaurant and related food services.
>> They use almost entire minimum wage people. When they can't make the
>> numbers work, they close their doors. Today any new restaurant has a
>> 50% chance of survival. Raise minimum wage and that percentage goes
>> down. NOBODY is helped when government mandates a minimum wage.
>> (except unions)
>>
>> Larry
>
> Larry,
>
> As someone close to the restaurant business, my son-in-law is an executive
> chef in the NYC scene, I disagree with you here. You chose the word
> restaurant, not diner, luncheonette or "eats" joint so I assume that the
> typical check is over $15. In any reasonably well run restaurant a slight
> change in minimum wage is of negligible impact.
>
> The 50% fail rate may or may not be true, but it is close. The causes of
> failure are more likely to result from greed, poor management, lack of
> knowledge, poor location choice, keting (poor or nonexistent), bad
> selection of demographics, menu choice, pricing (too high/too
> low).........
>
> Joe
>

Prepare for larry to curse you in some way.

Small Business Admin. numbers say 56% of ALL businesses fail in the 1st 4
years --- so larry is just pulling a number to make it fit his post --
nothing more.

http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbsurvival.html

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:06:52
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>
> > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> > > increase in unemployment.
> >
> > If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories: low
> > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
>
> Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
> certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
> gradually passed on to the consumer.

Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love to
look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example. Employed
people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are ruthlessly
exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people in
the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
unskilled labour.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 01:02:00
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Money supply drives inflation. Not wages.

Otto

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
> happens is you drive up inflation.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 01:08:38
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Otto wrote:
> Money supply drives inflation. Not wages.

Women have breasts so men will talk to them.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 01:16:45
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Why are dogs man's best friend?

Because they don't talk.

Otto

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:x9Erh.3290$To.1707@bigfe9...
> Otto wrote:
> > Money supply drives inflation. Not wages.
>
> Women have breasts so men will talk to them.
>
>

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:20:40
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Otto wrote:
> Why are dogs man's best friend?
>
> Because they don't talk.

Why do dogs lick themselves? Because they can. :-)

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:30:40
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <1168985212.168955.267590@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> > > > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> > > > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> > > > increase in unemployment.
> > >
> > > If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories:
> > > low
> > > skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).
> >
> > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
> > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
> > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>
> Do they? Why are so many car parts now made outside the US? All that
> happens is you drive up inflation. Forcing someone else to increase
> wages only causes an overcompensating increase in prices. There is no
> way to stop this, BTW. The socialist solution, for example, leads only
> to drastic limitations in supply and gross underproductivity. I love to
> look at good ole France for this, as they are a great example. Employed
> people underproduce. Unemployed people have no hope, and are ruthlessly
> exploited as temporary labour. Nice system! If you look at the old
> Soviet system, it made everyone essentially a serf, except the
> apparatchiks, of course. You get equality by lowering everyone to the
> lowest common socioeconomic denominator (like Cuba). Fact is forcing
> someone else to raise wages without providing the financial resources
> in absolute terms is going to be harmful, and more harmful to the poor
> than anyone else. Just look at the lack of jobs for unskilled people in
> the US. Best thing to do for the poor is to increase the demand for
> unskilled labour.

At the low end of the payscale isn't the problem here right now, those
jobs are all over the place. I see those jobs go begging all too often.
The jobs are there, but too many of our young people have bought into
the MTV and other crapola they see on TV. You know, the lifestyle of
the trust fund babies.

The problem is the better paying jobs that are either being outsourced
or replacing them with H1B visa types or some such.

But the longer term problem is in manufacturing. Every day we lose more
and more manufacturing capability because everyone wants something
cheap. What they don't see is that even if it is cheap, if you don't
have a job or a good paying one, you can't afford it. We haven't quite
got that far down the pipe yet, but I think it is coming.

The other side of the mfg problem is what are we gonna do when we decide
to go to war or some other very controversial action and the country
that IS manufacturing our goods says 'bullshit' and won't make the
product?

I certainly don't pretend to have the answer to the problems I see in
our future, but someone has to figure this one out.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 11:59:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:1168967808.296277.204480@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 15, 7:44 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
> >> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
> >> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
> >> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
> >> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
> >> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
> >> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
> >> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
> >> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
> >> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
> >> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
> >> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
> >> thing that someone else is supposed to do?
> >
> > The minimum wage was never intended to be more than just entry level
> > pay for those needing experience so they could move on up to higher
> > wages for higher value work.
> >
> > However raising the minimum wage, the amount businesses are FORCED to
> > pay beginning workers who bring minimum skills and value-- ALWAYS
> > results in layoffs and fewer employees learning a new skill.
> >
>
> Can you docment that ALWAYS part?

Larry has NEVER documented anything he's said and NEVER will.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 19:27:39
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168977568.927283.102390@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168967808.296277.204480@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 15, 7:44 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
>> >> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
>> >> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
>> >> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now
>> >> with
>> >> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
>> >> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
>> >> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
>> >> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
>> >> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
>> >> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
>> >> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
>> >> thing that someone else is supposed to do?
>> >
>> > The minimum wage was never intended to be more than just entry level
>> > pay for those needing experience so they could move on up to higher
>> > wages for higher value work.
>> >
>> > However raising the minimum wage, the amount businesses are FORCED to
>> > pay beginning workers who bring minimum skills and value-- ALWAYS
>> > results in layoffs and fewer employees learning a new skill.
>> >
>>
>> Can you docment that ALWAYS part?
>
>
> Larry has NEVER documented anything he's said and NEVER will.

I know --- it seems that none of those guys ever do.
>

Date: 16 Jan 2007 09:16:49
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Jan 15, 7:44 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
> thing that someone else is supposed to do?

The minimum wage was never intended to be more than just entry level
pay for those needing experience so they could move on up to higher
wages for higher value work.

However raising the minimum wage, the amount businesses are FORCED to
pay beginning workers who bring minimum skills and value-- ALWAYS
results in layoffs and fewer employees learning a new skill.

Business already pays people what they are worth. If you make more
than minimum wage, you know something that allows you to bring value to
your employer--and he pays you accordingly-- and FAR more than minimum
wage. Government should butt out.

Larry

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:39:01
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:1168967808.296277.204480@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 15, 7:44 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
>> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
>> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
>> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
>> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
>> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
>> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
>> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
>> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
>> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
>> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
>> thing that someone else is supposed to do?
>
> The minimum wage was never intended to be more than just entry level
> pay for those needing experience so they could move on up to higher
> wages for higher value work.
>
> However raising the minimum wage, the amount businesses are FORCED to
> pay beginning workers who bring minimum skills and value-- ALWAYS
> results in layoffs and fewer employees learning a new skill.
>

Can you docment that ALWAYS part?

> Business already pays people what they are worth. If you make more
> than minimum wage, you know something that allows you to bring value to
> your employer--and he pays you accordingly-- and FAR more than minimum
> wage. Government should butt out.
>
> Larry
>

Date: 17 Jan 2007 23:52:41
From: Jonathan Wilson
Subject: Re: Golf course in the middle of the airport

> Now did the pilot asked if they could
> play through and will they replace the
> divots the wheels took?
I wonder if the rules of golf allow you to take a drop (or whatever the
term is) without penalty if the ball goes into the intakes of the jets on a
big jumbo...

Date: 17 Jan 2007 10:25:43
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Golf course in the middle of the airport

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:52:41 +0900, Jonathan Wilson
<jfwfreo@tpgi.com.au > wrote:

>> Now did the pilot asked if they could
>> play through and will they replace the
>> divots the wheels took?
>I wonder if the rules of golf allow you to take a drop (or whatever the
>term is) without penalty if the ball goes into the intakes of the jets on a
>big jumbo...

I would think the jet would be considered an outside agency...... :-)
--

jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 16 Jan 2007 06:31:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:46:25
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> increase in unemployment.

If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories: low
skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 10:09:43
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

In article <45acf34d$0$10547$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:

> On 16-Jan-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Every time Congress raises the min. wage, this argument comes up. If
> > you look at the history of min. wage hikes over the last 25 yrs. or so,
> > I don't think you'll find that any one of them has caused a significant
> > increase in unemployment.
>
> If you look at the general population no, but in certain sub-categories: low
> skilled workers and young people (young minorities especially).

Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
gradually passed on to the consumer.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:23:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:09:43 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
>certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
>gradually passed on to the consumer.

This is true. So in effect, the increase in inflation wipes out the
wage gains made by the workers on minimum wage and hurts everyone else
on up the wage scale as well.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:36:29
From: Rick Brandt
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:09:43 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Only for a very short time. Then they get rehired 'cause it takes a
> > certain number of employees to get the job done. The costs are then
> > gradually passed on to the consumer.
>
> This is true. So in effect, the increase in inflation wipes out the
> wage gains made by the workers on minimum wage and hurts everyone else
> on up the wage scale as well.

Except that doesn't happen. This increase was SO far behind the times it should
have zero impact. Hell, White Castle was paying over 7 bucks an hour almost ten
years ago around here.

In a nutshell if a job is not worth paying the new minimum then it is not worth
getting done at all.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 09:22:09
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:44:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
>semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
>they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
>month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
>the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
>the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
>students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
>to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
>suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
>country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
>cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
>thing that someone else is supposed to do?
>

OT plonk-city.
--

jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 16 Jan 2007 00:03:07
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per month, and I suspect makes
a difference for a lot of students."

Yep, it's the difference between HAVING beer and weed, and NOT having
beer and weed.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:55:32
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
> thing that someone else is supposed to do?
>
>

This debate has raged for years. Some argue that workers need more
money. The counter argument is that there is no more money, so there
will be fewer jobs. Of course, those who argue loudest for increase min
wages are those who favour the left side of the political spectrum. They
want those with much to give it to those with little. Of course that
only applies to people with more money. If a lefty student, for example,
gets an A on a paper, and a righty student gets a D but needs a C to
graduate, do you think the A student would give up some of his ks
(that he earned through hard work and diligence), take a B and let the
other student have a C? Nope.

--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 05:24:43
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:03 +0100, David wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:44:01 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 16-Jan-2007, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That'll be those damn crazy Christians again :-)
>>>
>>> There's some theory I've read somewhere that, to test the fairness of
>>> any system your are creating, you think whether you would still
>>> consider it fair if you were at the top of the system or the bottom.
>>
>>Why this obsession with "fairness?" Do you want golf to be fair too?
>>Economics is not a moral system: no one has a "right" to make money,
>>they to have a "right" to attempt
>>to make money.
>
> Golf is fair. Everyone plays by the same rules. The handicap
> system balances the game out even more. Of course, everyone who works
> has a "right" to make money. That economics is not a moral system is
> evidenced by the fact that CEO's of failing companies get pay raises and
> lay off their workers.
>
> Fact is, there is plenty of money floating around. David Beckham
> just signed a contract to play soccer in the US for 250 million dollars
> over five years. If someone can get that much for playing soccer in the
> US, then there is definitely enough money to go around.
>
> How much money is Nike paying to sponsor athletes while at the same
> time paying less than $1/day to workers in a third world country seat
> shop? Nothing moral about economics, whatsoever.
>
> If you can honestly begrudge someone a minimum wage pay hike to an
> amount that is maybe 1/3 of what you make hourly, if not less, then you
> are immoral, as well.

Do you really, honestly, truly believe that Republicans just want to cause
pain to poor people? Think harder, man. Do you really think half the
people in this country are just mean and vicious?

I think there are quite a few people who have swallowed the liberal
propaganda whole and have forgotten how to think for themselves. Several
are regulars in this newsgroup.

Here's the real story: Republicans and Democrats have pretty much equal
percentages of mean, vicious people, as well as kind-hearted, caring
people. The only difference is in what they believe will help people more
in the long run. Republicans believe that a higher minimum wage will
result in fewer entry-level jobs. They also believe that it will result
in higher prices for goods and services (since the business owners aren't
going to want less profits) which at least partially neutralizes the pay
hike and makes that extra money worth less. Obviously, this hurts the
poorest people most.

Maybe Republicans are wrong about all that, but being wrong doesn't make
them evil or, as you put it, immoral. Maybe instead of throwing insults
at each other, you could try actually researching historical data and see
what correlates with what. The question is whether raising the minimum
wage will hurt more than it helps. Some people will make more money,
but other people will lose their jobs because some employers will cut back
on employees. This isn't speculation: it will happen. What we don't
know is how much it will happen.

So, if 200 thousand make a couple of dollars more an hour but 10 thousand
lose their jobs because of it, is that okay? What is an acceptable
trade-off in your opinion?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 06:05:29
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Watson deMeneux" <Nevermind@server.it > wrote in message
news:U0Yqh.666244$5R2.472750@pd7urf3no...
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> I use a couple of work study students to help around the lab every
>> semester. The rule is they can't work more than 10 hours per week, and
>> they get minimum wage. Comes to about $220.00 or so per student per
>> month, and I suspect makes a difference for a lot of students. Now with
>> the higher minimum wage, work study students will make a lot more, but
>> the rub is that we have the same amount of money for work study
>> students. So what's gonna happen? Another rub is that we aren't likely
>> to have much more for work study students next academic year, and I
>> suspect the same holds true for colleges and universities across the
>> country. I wonder if those who want to raise this wage are going to
>> cough up the money to make up the difference...or is this just another
>> thing that someone else is supposed to do?
>>
>>
>
> This debate has raged for years. Some argue that workers need more money.
> The counter argument is that there is no more money, so there will be
> fewer jobs. Of course, those who argue loudest for increase min wages are
> those who favour the left side of the political spectrum. They want those
> with much to give it to those with little. Of course that only applies to
> people with more money. If a lefty student, for example, gets an A on a
> paper, and a righty student gets a D but needs a C to graduate, do you
> think the A student would give up some of his ks (that he earned
> through hard work and diligence), take a B and let the other student have
> a C? Nope.
>

I think we can all see from what side of the spectrum you drink your
Kool-Aid since you talked about debate but only presented one side.

> --
> Watson deMeneux
> -Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:33:44
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
.
>>
>
>
> I think we can all see from what side of the spectrum you drink your
> Kool-Aid since you talked about debate but only presented one side.
>

A careful review of my post reveals two, count' em, two sides:
Some argue that workers need more money. The counter argument is that
there is no more money, so there will be fewer jobs.

Granted, the grade-sharing example serves to point out the weakness in
one side. As for drinking Kool-Aid, that references cult-like behaviour.
Holding a viewpoint on economics that supports rewarding effort and hard
work hardly demonstrates membership in a cult.

--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:36:07
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Minimum wage consequence

"Watson deMeneux" <Nevermind@server.it > wrote in message
news:I77rh.667834$5R2.109351@pd7urf3no...
>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think we can all see from what side of the spectrum you drink your
>> Kool-Aid since you talked about debate but only presented one side.
>>
>
> A careful review of my post reveals two, count' em, two sides:
> Some argue that workers need more money. The counter argument is that
> there is no more money, so there will be fewer jobs.
>
> Granted, the grade-sharing example serves to point out the weakness in one
> side. As for drinking Kool-Aid, that references cult-like behaviour.
> Holding a viewpoint on economics that supports rewarding effort and hard
> work hardly demonstrates membership in a cult.
>

My bad -- but you cleasrly did show what Kool-Aid you've been drinking & it
is likely the same as Limblob.

>
> --
> Watson deMeneux
> -Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.