The minimum wage was $8 an hour in 1968

[Senior Economist]

In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.

Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

[Roedy Green]

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).

Kerry said in the third debate with W.

"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

And, America, this is one of those issues that separates the
president and myself.

We have fought to try to raise the minimum wage in the last
years. But the Republican leadership of the House and Senate
won't even let us have a vote on it. We're not allowed to
vote on it. They don't want to raise the minimum wage. The
minimum wage is the lowest minimum wage value it has been in
our nation in 50 years.

If we raise the minimum wage, which I will do over several
years to $7 an hour, 9.2 million women who are trying to
raise their families would earn another $3,800 a year.

The president has denied 9.2 million women $3,800 a year,
but he doesn't hesitate to fight for $136,000 to a
millionaire.

One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax
cut, but people working hard, playing by the rules, trying
to take care of their kids, family values, that we're
supposed to value so much in America — I'm tired of
politicians who talk about family values and don't value
families.

What we need to do is raise the minimum wage. We also need
to hold onto equal pay. Women work for 76 cents on the
dollar for the same work that men do. That's not right in
America.

And we had an initiative that we were working on to raise
women's pay. They've cut it off. They've stopped it. They
don't enforce these kinds of things.

Now, I think that it a matter of fundamental right that if
we raise the minimum wage, 15 million Americans would be
positively affected. We'd put money into the hands of people
who work hard, who obey the rules, who play for the American
Dream.

And if we did that, we'd have more consumption ability in
America, which is what we need right in order to kick our
economy into gear. I will fight tooth and nail to pass the
minimum wage."

Cheney masterminded 9/11.
~ Stanley Hilton lead attorney for the 9/11 victims, Bob Dole's advisor.

[Steven Canyon]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

--

"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net



"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net



"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net


"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net


[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8



"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt



Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

You remind me of the horse in "Animal Farm."

--Jeff
--
When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't eat cow shit we'd
be knee
deep in flies by now. Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but
somebodies got
to do it. Luckily , either by divine plan or cosmic coincidence,
at the
dawn of creation the dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll
eat the
cow shit, if no one else will.'" - Ben Elton

[Steven Canyon]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:10:50 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

You remind me of the horse in "Animal Farm."
--Jeff

<LOL> ahhhh, another kiddie cartoon watcher speaks..

--

"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net



"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net



"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net


"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net


[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8



"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt



Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?

[unknown]

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers.

So,

These "losers" you speak of. Do they deserve a wage that will support their
basic living needs? food, clothing, shelter etc..?

Post by Steven Canyon
Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

A high school education isn't worth much in the job market these days.
That's the extent of your "free" education. Chances are, if that's all you
have, you'll wind up in one of those minimum wage jobs. College costs money.
Big money. And if you're middle class, you don't qualify for much in federal
student aid.

[Steven Canyon]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:35:59 GMT, "Scott and/or Janet Storm"

Post by unknown

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers.

So,
These "losers" you speak of. Do they deserve a wage that will support their
basic living needs? food, clothing, shelter etc..?

You "deserve" what someone is willing to pay you....

Post by unknown

Post by Steven Canyon
Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

A high school education isn't worth much in the job market these days.
That's the extent of your "free" education. Chances are, if that's all you
have, you'll wind up in one of those minimum wage jobs. College costs money.
Big money. And if you're middle class, you don't qualify for much in federal
student aid.

Never heard of working your way through college? Oh yeah, you'll have
to give up most of the beer and pot parties and if you already screwed
up and have a kid to take care of, you'll have to work all the harder
and give up even more...

.....but you've only yourself to blame.



--

"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net



"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net



"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net


"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net


[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8



"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt



Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?

[Richard Hutnik]

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

So, are you SERIOUSLY saying that everyone went out and got more
education, then there wouldn't be any jobs out there that were paid
minimum wage? You are aware that around 2000-2001, the number of
unemployed college graduates exceeded the number of unemployed
individuals without high scholl diplomas, right?

Anyhow, why aren't employers able to make jobs worth more than minimum
wage? Apparently you must also feel that computer programmers aren't
worth more than say $20,000 a year (or whatever they are paid in
India). And, obviously, I mustn't be worth more than $26K a year,
since that is all that was available for me IT related at this moment,
eventhough, I have a Masters in IT and around 7 years experience.

- Richard Hutnik

[DatMan]

Post by Richard Hutnik
Anyhow, why aren't employers able to make jobs worth more than minimum
wage? Apparently you must also feel that computer programmers aren't
worth more than say $20,000 a year (or whatever they are paid in
India). And, obviously, I mustn't be worth more than $26K a year,
since that is all that was available for me IT related at this moment,
eventhough, I have a Masters in IT and around 7 years experience.

You either are work $26K a year or are stupid.

[Richard Hutnik]

Post by DatMan

Post by Richard Hutnik
Anyhow, why aren't employers able to make jobs worth more than minimum
wage? Apparently you must also feel that computer programmers aren't
worth more than say $20,000 a year (or whatever they are paid in
India). And, obviously, I mustn't be worth more than $26K a year,
since that is all that was available for me IT related at this moment,
eventhough, I have a Masters in IT and around 7 years experience.

You either are work $26K a year or are stupid.

I must be "are work $26K" because I am not stupid.

- Richard Hutnik

[DatMan]

Post by Richard Hutnik

Post by DatMan

Post by Richard Hutnik
Anyhow, why aren't employers able to make jobs worth more than minimum
wage? Apparently you must also feel that computer programmers aren't
worth more than say $20,000 a year (or whatever they are paid in
India). And, obviously, I mustn't be worth more than $26K a year,
since that is all that was available for me IT related at this moment,
eventhough, I have a Masters in IT and around 7 years experience.

You either are work $26K a year or are stupid.

I must be "are work $26K" because I am not stupid.
- Richard Hutnik

Excuse the typo, but meant "are worth $26K". So, if you are worth $26K/year,
why are you complaining?

[Steven Canyon]

Post by Richard Hutnik

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

So, are you SERIOUSLY saying that everyone went out and got more
education, then there wouldn't be any jobs out there that were paid
minimum wage?

I suppose there'd be a few for the after school crowd, but why
speculate about something that will never happen.

Post by Richard Hutnik
You are aware that around 2000-2001, the number of
unemployed college graduates exceeded the number of unemployed
individuals without high scholl diplomas, right?

<LOL>

Post by Richard Hutnik
Anyhow, why aren't employers able to make jobs worth more than minimum
wage?

Why should they?

Post by Richard Hutnik
Apparently you must also feel that computer programmers aren't
worth more than say $20,000 a year (or whatever they are paid in
India).

Hey, if that's the going rate....

Post by Richard Hutnik
And, obviously, I mustn't be worth more than $26K a year,
since that is all that was available for me IT related at this moment,
eventhough, I have a Masters in IT and around 7 years experience.

What are you complaining about, at least it's not minimum wage.

Post by Richard Hutnik
- Richard Hutnik

--

"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net



"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net



"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net


"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net


[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8



"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt



Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?

[Tim Jowers]

Post by Steven Canyon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:36:55 GMT, Roedy Green

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is for people who don't have what it takes to go out
and compete for a job that will support them, IOW, it's for the
losers. Given that everybody in the country has access to a free
education, I see no reason why we should force employers to pay them
what they're not worth.

Dude, I just plunked down about $1250 for a coporate tax break on Sept
23. You did too. That's about the same as the TOTAL spent on all
domestic spending ex-medicare and other entitlements.

So, if you do not believe in minimum wage then how do you justify
giving handouts to US corporations? Handouts out of citizen pockets no
less!!!

[Rich]

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Bush wants to hold it flat (effectively reducing it via inflation).
Kerry said in the third debate with W.
"It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.

Kerry (ugh) is right on this one.
-Rich

[Julian D.]

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Let's make it $20 an hour. Surely that's better than $12, right?
Hell...let's make it $25.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?

Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

[Rich]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Hmmm.... that's true too. High min. wage does mean more unemployment. I
suggest Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" as a solution. Bingo!
-Rich

[Otaku_Faith]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Even raising the pay of workers by a dollar/hr at McDonalds, the price
of food would go up next to nothi9ng. The profit margins are insane,
that's why they open so many new restuaraunts. The prices they
'negotiate' with beef and potato producers give them plenty lee-way.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Funny, we seem to have a growing deficit and higher unemployment now.
We had lower unemployment under Clinton, a near dismantling of the
social safety net, and he raised the minmum wage. Hmmm....the clueless
role seems to have been reversed.

[Wm James]

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Even raising the pay of workers by a dollar/hr at McDonalds, the price
of food would go up next to nothi9ng. The profit margins are insane,
that's why they open so many new restuaraunts. The prices they
'negotiate' with beef and potato producers give them plenty lee-way.

Never run a business, have you? $1 per hour, per employee, isn't just
another dollar. It's that dollar, plus the increased employer's
"contrabution" to the ss scam, plus the additonal other
taxes,multiplied by the number of employees, multiplied by the number
of hours, minus the lost business due to higher priced trying to make
it to pay them more than they are worth, plus the losses due to poor
performance by better paid slackers. If a fast food joing has say 10
employees working an average of 25 hours per week, that extra dollar
translates $1 x 10 x 25 = $250 per week, add the various taxes and
it's easily $350, add the losses and it's a good $500 per week or
$26,000 per year on a business which might be making that much profit,
likely isn't if it's a new business. So the owner will most likely
react by cutting the staff by a position or two and squeezeng extra
work out of what he has or working even longer hours himself, and
raising prices is he can. And another example of unconstitutional
government BS regulations screing a kid out of a job, raising prices,
and makinging business owners work harder for nothing while leftist
kooks pat themselves on the bank and pretend they have helped someone.

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Funny, we seem to have a growing deficit and higher unemployment now.
We had lower unemployment under Clinton, a near dismantling of the
social safety net, and he raised the minmum wage. Hmmm....the clueless
role seems to have been reversed.

The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

William R. James

[Otaku_Faith]

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Even raising the pay of workers by a dollar/hr at McDonalds, the price
of food would go up next to nothi9ng. The profit margins are insane,
that's why they open so many new restuaraunts. The prices they
'negotiate' with beef and potato producers give them plenty lee-way.

Never run a business, have you? $1 per hour, per employee, isn't just
another dollar. It's that dollar, plus the increased employer's
"contrabution" to the ss scam, plus the additonal other
taxes,multiplied by the number of employees, multiplied by the number
of hours, minus the lost business due to higher priced trying to make
it to pay them more than they are worth, plus the losses due to poor
performance by better paid slackers. If a fast food joing has say 10
employees working an average of 25 hours per week, that extra dollar
translates $1 x 10 x 25 = $250 per week, add the various taxes and
it's easily $350, add the losses and it's a good $500 per week or
$26,000 per year on a business which might be making that much profit,
likely isn't if it's a new business. So the owner will most likely
react by cutting the staff by a position or two and squeezeng extra
work out of what he has or working even longer hours himself, and
raising prices is he can. And another example of unconstitutional
government BS regulations screing a kid out of a job, raising prices,
and makinging business owners work harder for nothing while leftist
kooks pat themselves on the bank and pretend they have helped someone.

once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Funny, we seem to have a growing deficit and higher unemployment now.
We had lower unemployment under Clinton, a near dismantling of the
social safety net, and he raised the minmum wage. Hmmm....the clueless
role seems to have been reversed.

The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

But Bush himself said it started under <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer">him.</a>

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Julian D.]

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Even raising the pay of workers by a dollar/hr at McDonalds, the price
of food would go up next to nothi9ng. The profit margins are insane,
that's why they open so many new restuaraunts. The prices they
'negotiate' with beef and potato producers give them plenty lee-way.

Never run a business, have you? $1 per hour, per employee, isn't just
another dollar. It's that dollar, plus the increased employer's
"contrabution" to the ss scam, plus the additonal other
taxes,multiplied by the number of employees, multiplied by the number
of hours, minus the lost business due to higher priced trying to make
it to pay them more than they are worth, plus the losses due to poor
performance by better paid slackers. If a fast food joing has say 10
employees working an average of 25 hours per week, that extra dollar
translates $1 x 10 x 25 = $250 per week, add the various taxes and
it's easily $350, add the losses and it's a good $500 per week or
$26,000 per year on a business which might be making that much profit,
likely isn't if it's a new business. So the owner will most likely
react by cutting the staff by a position or two and squeezeng extra
work out of what he has or working even longer hours himself, and
raising prices is he can. And another example of unconstitutional
government BS regulations screing a kid out of a job, raising prices,
and makinging business owners work harder for nothing while leftist
kooks pat themselves on the bank and pretend they have helped someone.

once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Funny, we seem to have a growing deficit and higher unemployment now.
We had lower unemployment under Clinton, a near dismantling of the
social safety net, and he raised the minmum wage. Hmmm....the clueless
role seems to have been reversed.

The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

But Bush himself said it started under <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer">him.</a>

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Otaku_Faith]

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

Even raising the pay of workers by a dollar/hr at McDonalds, the price
of food would go up next to nothi9ng. The profit margins are insane,
that's why they open so many new restuaraunts. The prices they
'negotiate' with beef and potato producers give them plenty lee-way.

Never run a business, have you? $1 per hour, per employee, isn't just
another dollar. It's that dollar, plus the increased employer's
"contrabution" to the ss scam, plus the additonal other
taxes,multiplied by the number of employees, multiplied by the number
of hours, minus the lost business due to higher priced trying to make
it to pay them more than they are worth, plus the losses due to poor
performance by better paid slackers. If a fast food joing has say 10
employees working an average of 25 hours per week, that extra dollar
translates $1 x 10 x 25 = $250 per week, add the various taxes and
it's easily $350, add the losses and it's a good $500 per week or
$26,000 per year on a business which might be making that much profit,
likely isn't if it's a new business. So the owner will most likely
react by cutting the staff by a position or two and squeezeng extra
work out of what he has or working even longer hours himself, and
raising prices is he can. And another example of unconstitutional
government BS regulations screing a kid out of a job, raising prices,
and makinging business owners work harder for nothing while leftist
kooks pat themselves on the bank and pretend they have helped someone.

once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

Funny, we seem to have a growing deficit and higher unemployment now.
We had lower unemployment under Clinton, a near dismantling of the
social safety net, and he raised the minmum wage. Hmmm....the clueless
role seems to have been reversed.

The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

But Bush himself said it started under <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer">him.</a>

I notice you didnt reply to this^

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.

Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

William R. James

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

What crap. You continue to vote for policies that are driving
our standard of living in reverse. Voodoo economics.
Eventually other nations will stop lending huge amounts of money
to the US and the whole house of cards will collapse underneath
you and you won't have a clue as to what happened. Faith-based
economic policies do not work in the long run.

--Jeff
--
When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't eat cow shit we'd
be knee
deep in flies by now. Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but
somebody's got
to do it. Luckily, either by divine plan or cosmic coincidence,
at the
dawn of creation the dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll
eat the
cow shit, if no one else will.'" - Ben Elton

[Wm James]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:28:39 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

What crap. You continue to vote for policies that are driving
our standard of living in reverse. Voodoo economics.
Eventually other nations will stop lending huge amounts of money
to the US and the whole house of cards will collapse underneath
you and you won't have a clue as to what happened. Faith-based
economic policies do not work in the long run.
--Jeff

That's why I don't vote for such crap. I vote for massive spending
cuts, elimination of government programs, elimination of socialist
scams.

William R. James

[Thom]

On 31 Oct 2004 10:49:03 -0600, Wm James

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:28:39 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

What crap. You continue to vote for policies that are driving
our standard of living in reverse. Voodoo economics.
Eventually other nations will stop lending huge amounts of money
to the US and the whole house of cards will collapse underneath
you and you won't have a clue as to what happened. Faith-based
economic policies do not work in the long run.
--Jeff

That's why I don't vote for such crap. I vote for massive spending
cuts, elimination of government programs, elimination of socialist
scams.

no such thing. Socialism works for the people and not corporations.
Socialism comes in many forms ranging from the big churches with
monestaries and convents to the government building roads and
hospitals.

THOM

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Thom
On 31 Oct 2004 10:49:03 -0600, Wm James

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:28:39 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

What crap. You continue to vote for policies that are driving
our standard of living in reverse. Voodoo economics.
Eventually other nations will stop lending huge amounts of money
to the US and the whole house of cards will collapse underneath
you and you won't have a clue as to what happened. Faith-based
economic policies do not work in the long run.
--Jeff

That's why I don't vote for such crap. I vote for massive spending
cuts, elimination of government programs, elimination of socialist
scams.

no such thing. Socialism works for the people and not corporations.
Socialism comes in many forms ranging from the big churches with
monestaries and convents to the government building roads and
hospitals.
THOM

Socialism, by definition, does NOT work for the people but for the
state exclusively. "The people" is mande on individuals. Rights is a
charactristic of individuals. Socialism doesn't recognize the rights
of individuals.

William R. James

[Otaku_Faith]

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

True buit many families are slpping into poverty and have were fine
when they had kids, and have the same jobs now. prices, inflation are
going up while benfist and wages are going down. The alternatives are
being outsourced, their taxs cut little-to-nothing and still Bush
hasnt tapped into the federal resevr e like he said he would.

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

True buit many families are slpping into poverty and have were fine
when they had kids, and have the same jobs now. prices, inflation are
going up while benfist and wages are going down. The alternatives are
being outsourced, their taxs cut little-to-nothing and still Bush
hasnt tapped into the federal resevr e like he said he would.

Tapped into the federal reserve?

Got a news flash for you: Once you are paying no taxes, no tax cot
will help you further. And another flash: If your employer can't
afford the taxes, insurance, SSI, unemployment, and all the other crap
imposed by or driven up by government, then you won't have a job ling
wherther the company goes belly up or outsources the job you
previously had. Businesses don't exists to provide you with
benefits, they exist to make money. People start businesses and
people invest in businesses in attempt to make more money that hey
could by letting their money sit in a bank drawing interest.
Outsourceing is not done for entertainment, it's not a decision made
by companies because they enjoy watching you scream. They do it
because they have to do it to keep doing business. How long would you
keep shopping at a place where the price was higher than down the
street, particularly if you were strapped for cash or even losing
money?

If you want to stop the outsourcing, fine! Stop punishing companies
who locate int he US with higher taxes and ever growing regulations.
Make the US more attractive to businesses and there will be no point
to outsourcing. n fact, the US would become the place jobs are
outsourced to. But Kerry want to punish sucess, rob businesses
further, and that will make more outsourcing absolutely necessary for
businesses in the US.

William R. James

[George Grapman]

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Wm James

Post by Otaku_Faith

Post by Julian D.

Post by Otaku_Faith
once again the quality of the work is depeendnet on hiow you treat
them. The high turnover rate and teens stealing from these places is
in due partly to the crappy treatment they receive.

It's due mostly to poor parenting. But there it is...the
'responsibility' factor is an enigma to the liberal mindset.

Or maybe it's because half the time the parents are working 2 jobs and
still can't pay the bills, but people call them lazy-slacks. Of course
parent responsibility is evident by the neo-cons in they wont take
respon. for what their kids watch on TV, just make the federal
government/High Priest Ashcroft censor things.

If the left wing fanatics in both parties let the people keep what
they earn, perhaps they wouldn't have to work two jobs to pay the
taxes and still have enough to pay their bills.
Anyway, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them.

True buit many families are slpping into poverty and have were fine
when they had kids, and have the same jobs now. prices, inflation are
going up while benfist and wages are going down. The alternatives are
being outsourced, their taxs cut little-to-nothing and still Bush
hasnt tapped into the federal resevr e like he said he would.

Tapped into the federal reserve?
Got a news flash for you: Once you are paying no taxes, no tax cot
will help you further. And another flash: If your employer can't
afford the taxes, insurance, SSI, unemployment, and all the other crap
imposed by or driven up by government, then you won't have a job ling
wherther the company goes belly up or outsources the job you
previously had. Businesses don't exists to provide you with
benefits, they exist to make money. People start businesses and
people invest in businesses in attempt to make more money that hey
could by letting their money sit in a bank drawing interest.
Outsourceing is not done for entertainment, it's not a decision made
by companies because they enjoy watching you scream. They do it
because they have to do it to keep doing business. How long would you
keep shopping at a place where the price was higher than down the
street, particularly if you were strapped for cash or even losing
money?
If you want to stop the outsourcing, fine! Stop punishing companies
who locate int he US with higher taxes and ever growing regulations.
Make the US more attractive to businesses and there will be no point
to outsourcing. n fact, the US would become the place jobs are
outsourced to. But Kerry want to punish sucess, rob businesses
further, and that will make more outsourcing absolutely necessary for
businesses in the US.
William R. James

Stop rewarding companies that outsource.

[Wm James]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:23 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman
Stop rewarding companies that outsource.

Who is rewarding them? Are you rewarding someone if you don't punish
them?

William R. James

[Jeff George]

On 1 Nov 2004 16:15:08 -0600 I used my godlike powers to observe the

Post by Wm James
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:23 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman
Stop rewarding companies that outsource.

Who is rewarding them?

The Bushies. They care only about money. That is disgusting.

Post by Wm James
Are you rewarding someone if you don't punish
them?

The American People are being punished. Is that acceptable to you?

[Wm James]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:48:10 -0500, Jeff George

Post by Jeff George
On 1 Nov 2004 16:15:08 -0600 I used my godlike powers to observe the

Post by Wm James
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:23 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman
Stop rewarding companies that outsource.

Who is rewarding them?

The Bushies. They care only about money. That is disgusting.

Post by Wm James
Are you rewarding someone if you don't punish
them?

The American People are being punished. Is that acceptable to you?

Nonsense. The producers are being punished by taking what they have
earned to redistribute to bums.

William R. James

[Tim Jowers]

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

...

Post by Wm James
The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

But Bush himself said it started under <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer">him.</a>

Post by Wm James
William R. James

Can you please leave the Jobs Lie to the politicians? The percentage
not employed is the same as it was one decade ago. I'm sick of lies
like the above being passed off as truth. USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month. Seriously! Here
are the numbers from the USA Household Employment Situation Survey:

Month, Employed,Not Employed,Unemployed,Not in Labor Force,% not
employed
Q4 1993 120,311 74,004 8402 65,602 38.1% (row NA as different measure
used prior to 1994)
Apr-94 122,338 74,024 8408 65,616 37.7%
Apr-95 125,072 73,077 7665 65,412 36.9%
Apr-96 126,095 74,007 7266 66,741 37.0%
Apr-97 129,384 73,291 6714 66,577 36.2%
Apr-98 131,383 73,348 5,859 67489 35.8%
Apr-99 133,069 74,167 6022 68,145 35.8%
Apr-00 135,706 73,510 5,524 67986 35.1%
Apr-01 135354 75,994 6,402 69,592 36.0%
Mar-02 133894 79,440 8111 71329 37.2%
Apr-02 133976 79,516 8594 70922 37.2%
May-02 134417 79,240 8351 70889 37.1%
Jun-02 134053 79,790 8424 71366 37.3%
Jul-02 134045 79,978 8345 71633 37.4%
Aug-02 134474 79,751 8142 71609 37.2%
Sep-02 135185 79,244 8092 71152 37.0%
Oct-02 134914 79,728 8209 71519 37.1%
Nov-02 134225 80,595 8508 72087 37.5%
Dec-02 136439 82,302 8711 73591 37.6%
Jan-03 137536 82,361 8302 74059 37.5%
Feb-03 137408 82,707 8450 74257 37.6%
Mar-03 137348 82,969 8445 74524 37.7%
Apr-03 137687 82,853 8786 74067 37.6%
May-03 137487 83,281 8998 74283 37.7%
Jun-03 137738 83,274 9358 73916 37.7%
Jul-03 137478 83,774 9062 74,712 37.9%
Aug-03 137,625 83,882 8905 74,977 37.9%
Sep-03 137,573 84,207 8973 75,234 38.0%
Oct-03 138,014 84,025 8779 75,246 37.8%
Nov-03 138533 83,746 8653 75,093 37.7%
Dec-03 138479 84,029 8398 75,631 37.8%
Jan-04 138566 83,595 8297 75,298 37.6%
Feb-04 138301 84,056 8170 75,886 37.8%
Mar-04 138298 84,252 8352 75900 37.9%
Apr-04 138576 84,180 8164 76016 37.8%
May-04 138772 84,196 8203 75993 37.8%
Jun-04 139031 84,164 8248 75916 37.7%
Jul-04 139,660 83,761 8,196 75,565 37.5%
Aug-04 139,681 83,995 8,022 75,973 37.6%
Sep-04 139,480 84,461 8,003 76,458 37.7%

And, as the SeniorEconomist pointed out, this does not even touch on
the FACT that Americans are making less each year; despite increasing
housing, taxes, and other costs.

[Wm James]

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

William R. James

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.

--Jeff
--
When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't eat cow shit we'd
be knee
deep in flies by now. Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but
somebody's got
to do it. Luckily, either by divine plan or cosmic coincidence,
at the
dawn of creation the dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll
eat the
cow shit, if no one else will.'" - Ben Elton

[Wm James]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:36:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.
--Jeff

Criminals who cross the border nto the US, proven themselves unwilling
to obey our laws as their first act on US soil.

ALL illegal aliens are criminals and ALL should be treated as
criminals.

William R. James

[George Grapman]

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:36:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.
--Jeff

Criminals who cross the border nto the US, proven themselves unwilling
to obey our laws as their first act on US soil.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals and ALL should be treated as
criminals.
William R. James

So are the companies the hire them.

[Wm James]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:52 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:36:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.
--Jeff

Criminals who cross the border nto the US, proven themselves unwilling
to obey our laws as their first act on US soil.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals and ALL should be treated as
criminals.
William R. James

So are the companies the hire them.

Agreed.

Having said that, however, failure to enforse the law has put them
between a rock and a hard place. If you are say a construction
company, and you do the right thing and refuse to hire the criminals,
you might as well close shop because you can't compete. Unless and
until the government starts enforcing the laws, rounding up the
criminals and the criminals who hire them, the legitimate businesses
are forced to either go under or become criminals.

William R. James

[Thom]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:52 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:36:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.
--Jeff

Criminals who cross the border nto the US, proven themselves unwilling
to obey our laws as their first act on US soil.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals and ALL should be treated as
criminals.
William R. James

So are the companies the hire them.

Now now, business is business you know and any dirty thing for a
dollar is OK in a republicans' mind.

THOM

Post by George Grapman
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

[Wm James]

Post by Wm James
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:52 GMT, George Grapman

Post by George Grapman

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:36:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month.

You misspelled "criminal invaders".

The biggest criminals have been here all along.
--Jeff

Criminals who cross the border nto the US, proven themselves unwilling
to obey our laws as their first act on US soil.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals and ALL should be treated as
criminals.
William R. James

So are the companies the hire them.

Now now, business is business you know and any dirty thing for a
dollar is OK in a republicans' mind.
THOM

What dos party have to do with it? Are you so blinded by hatred that
you cannot comprehend?

William R. James

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

...

Post by Wm James
The unemployment rate is dropping now, in spite of the Clinton
recession that some (like you) have attempted to blame on Bush even
though it started under Clinton.

But Bush himself said it started under <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer">him.</a>

Post by Wm James
William R. James

Can you please leave the Jobs Lie to the politicians? The percentage
not employed is the same as it was one decade ago. I'm sick of lies
like the above being passed off as truth. USA is not even creating
enough jobs to employ the new immigrants each month. Seriously! Here
Month, Employed,Not Employed,Unemployed,Not in Labor Force,% not
employed
Q4 1993 120,311 74,004 8402 65,602 38.1% (row NA as different measure
used prior to 1994)
Apr-94 122,338 74,024 8408 65,616 37.7%
Apr-95 125,072 73,077 7665 65,412 36.9%
Apr-96 126,095 74,007 7266 66,741 37.0%
Apr-97 129,384 73,291 6714 66,577 36.2%
Apr-98 131,383 73,348 5,859 67489 35.8%
Apr-99 133,069 74,167 6022 68,145 35.8%
Apr-00 135,706 73,510 5,524 67986 35.1%

And things start really going down hill from here on...
But this has been coming for a while, ever since the
first voodoo economics of the Reagan years. When it
came to enlightened self-interest or unenlightened
greed this country took the wrong turn and things got,
and will continue to get, inexorably worse. Don't
change that dial.

Post by Tim Jowers
Apr-01 135354 75,994 6,402 69,592 36.0%
Mar-02 133894 79,440 8111 71329 37.2%
Apr-02 133976 79,516 8594 70922 37.2%
May-02 134417 79,240 8351 70889 37.1%
Jun-02 134053 79,790 8424 71366 37.3%
Jul-02 134045 79,978 8345 71633 37.4%
Aug-02 134474 79,751 8142 71609 37.2%
Sep-02 135185 79,244 8092 71152 37.0%
Oct-02 134914 79,728 8209 71519 37.1%
Nov-02 134225 80,595 8508 72087 37.5%
Dec-02 136439 82,302 8711 73591 37.6%
Jan-03 137536 82,361 8302 74059 37.5%
Feb-03 137408 82,707 8450 74257 37.6%
Mar-03 137348 82,969 8445 74524 37.7%
Apr-03 137687 82,853 8786 74067 37.6%
May-03 137487 83,281 8998 74283 37.7%
Jun-03 137738 83,274 9358 73916 37.7%
Jul-03 137478 83,774 9062 74,712 37.9%
Aug-03 137,625 83,882 8905 74,977 37.9%
Sep-03 137,573 84,207 8973 75,234 38.0%
Oct-03 138,014 84,025 8779 75,246 37.8%
Nov-03 138533 83,746 8653 75,093 37.7%
Dec-03 138479 84,029 8398 75,631 37.8%
Jan-04 138566 83,595 8297 75,298 37.6%
Feb-04 138301 84,056 8170 75,886 37.8%
Mar-04 138298 84,252 8352 75900 37.9%
Apr-04 138576 84,180 8164 76016 37.8%
May-04 138772 84,196 8203 75993 37.8%
Jun-04 139031 84,164 8248 75916 37.7%
Jul-04 139,660 83,761 8,196 75,565 37.5%
Aug-04 139,681 83,995 8,022 75,973 37.6%
Sep-04 139,480 84,461 8,003 76,458 37.7%
And, as the SeniorEconomist pointed out, this does not even touch on
the FACT that Americans are making less each year; despite increasing
housing, taxes, and other costs.

Voodoo economics will have that effect.

--Jeff
--
When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't eat cow shit we'd
be knee
deep in flies by now. Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but
somebody's got
to do it. Luckily, either by divine plan or cosmic coincidence,
at the
dawn of creation the dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll
eat the
cow shit, if no one else will.'" - Ben Elton

[Richard Hutnik]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.

Why $12/hour? Why not $15, $20, or $30 an hour? After all, your argument is
that the higher minimum wage is, the better of the poor are, right?
Miminum wage laws discriminate against the unskilled - if you lack the
skills and productivity necessary to justify the wage, you're more likely
not to be employable.

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages means more money to spend

And higher costs, passed on to others. How many people will buy Big Macs at
McDonalds if they cost $10 each?

What makes you think that keep wages down insures the price of food
would be kept low? Do you believe a price in a market for an item is
governed by the costs of the INPUTS to produce an item on the market,
or what the market is willing to pay? Faced with an increase in
minimum wage, employers would have to find innovative ways to become
more profitable. Similar would happen if oil prices shot up, etc...

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues.

A higher minimum wage means HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, less taxes coming in, more
money spent on social welfare programs, and a growing deficit. You're really
quite clueless about these sort of things, aren't you? :O(

So, are you advocating that wages get SLASHED, so that employers will
hire more people? If, say, there were wage controls put in place, how
may more people would employers hire?

- Richard Hutnik

[Steven Canyon]

Post by Richard Hutnik
Faced with an increase in
minimum wage, employers would have to find innovative ways to become
more profitable.

Yeah, it's called automation.

--

"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net



"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net



"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net


"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net


[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8



"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt



Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?

[Wm James]

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Wht not make it $100, or $500?

William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?

William R. James

[Tim Jowers]

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?
William R. James

William, I think a better idea would be to set the "Global Minimum"
as the only allowed price in the USA. Want to sell drugs in the USA?
Have to charge the lowest price you charge on any market in the world.
No price gouging of the USA.

BTW, you may not realize that pay for a new job has fallen $4000 since
2001....
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Not only are minimum wages decreasing, but all wages are decreasing,
except for the upper 1/4 of a %. Also prices and taxes are still
increasing. And there is the schizm. Greenpockets wants us to retrain
for lower paying jobs but does not want to tax the importers who are
took our jobs. Meanwhile the Goldpockets in Congress and the Executive
branch spend hand our [future] tax dollars to their buddies in no bid
contracts.

And you make flippant statements about minimum wage not realizing that
YOU and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others because we are
paying the medicaid and food stamps for which, it has been said, 40%
of such workers qualify. That is, a higher minimum wage means less
entitlements !!!!! As it is, Fortune 500 profits are at all time highs
while 1.3 million Americans fell into poverty last year.

[Wm James]

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?
William R. James

William, I think a better idea would be to set the "Global Minimum"
as the only allowed price in the USA. Want to sell drugs in the USA?
Have to charge the lowest price you charge on any market in the world.
No price gouging of the USA.

Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country. The drug companies spend billions
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D. So what aree you going
to do, tell them they can't make back the R&D, that they can't make a
profit at all, or have the US government threaten to nuke any country
who infringes on their patents? Of just pass another goofy socialist
law saying they can't charce anymore than they charge in Rowanda and
ensure that they never waste another dime on R&D?

Post by Tim Jowers
BTW, you may not realize that pay for a new job has fallen $4000 since
2001....

No, I realize that. You may not realize the cause.

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

Post by Tim Jowers
Not only are minimum wages decreasing,

What???

Post by Tim Jowers
but all wages are decreasing,
except for the upper 1/4 of a %.

The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks. As the public "education"
systems (actually, the socialist indoctrination centers) turn out more
idiots, you get a smaller percentage of functional citizens at the
top. Notheing unexpected there.

Post by Tim Jowers
Also prices and taxes are still
increasing. And there is the schizm. Greenpockets wants us to retrain
for lower paying jobs but does not want to tax the importers who are
took our jobs.

"Our jobs"? Who is "our"? Every job "belongs" to the party trading
the money for the labor.

Post by Tim Jowers
Meanwhile the Goldpockets in Congress and the Executive
branch spend hand our [future] tax dollars to their buddies in no bid
contracts.

AH! That old BS again. Care to take a guess as to how many no-bid
contracts Haliburtan landed under the Clinton administration?

Post by Tim Jowers
And you make flippant statements about minimum wage not realizing that
YOU and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others because we are
paying the medicaid and food stamps for which, it has been said, 40%
of such workers qualify. That is, a higher minimum wage means less
entitlements !!!!! As it is, Fortune 500 profits are at all time highs
while 1.3 million Americans fell into poverty last year.

Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. But some
people insist on forcing taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart and the
others and then complain about having to do it.

William R. James

[Ribeldi]

Post by Wm James
Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country.

Ah, the glorious benefits of living in a free country!

The drug companies spend billions

Post by Wm James
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D.

Excuse me, a lot of those profits aren't going to R&D; they are going
to advertising. You see all kinds of commercials on TV for
prescription drugs.

Post by Wm James
The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks.

"able to function" yes--that is, lucky enough not to have physical or
mental disabilities.

Post by Wm James
Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. >

Sigh. Maybe you're just a troll...and there are multitudes of them on
the Net. But just in case you're not, one day YOU or your loved ones
may be in need of welfare, food stamps, or Medicaid. One day your job
may not be there any more. Or you may be physically or mentally
disabled. Ever think of that?

[Wm James]

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country.

Ah, the glorious benefits of living in a free country!

Yep. Freedom is damned inconvenient. But it's a far cry better than a
comfortable cage.

Post by Ribeldi
The drug companies spend billions

Post by Wm James
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D.

Excuse me, a lot of those profits aren't going to R&D; they are going
to advertising. You see all kinds of commercials on TV for
prescription drugs.

Do you seriously think they spend money on advertising for personal
amusement, that they do it just to get rid of excess cash that taking
up too much space in the vault, or something? The ads sell more of
their products or they wouldn't blow money doing it.

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks.

"able to function" yes--that is, lucky enough not to have physical or
mental disabilities.

Even if the disability is a mental one cases by poor education. And
even if the disability is fake to get more tax dollars.

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. >

Sigh. Maybe you're just a troll...and there are multitudes of them on
the Net. But just in case you're not, one day YOU or your loved ones
may be in need of welfare, food stamps, or Medicaid. One day your job
may not be there any more. Or you may be physically or mentally
disabled. Ever think of that?

So why not legalize armed robbery using the same twisted logic? If
your position is that anyone in need is entitled to take from others,
why not? Ever hear of charity? I know it's a strange concept to
some people, but the idea is that those who own their own paychecks
are free to donate to what hey believe are good causes and free to
refrain from giving to what hey feel are not legitimate. If you want
to give your pay to bums then feel free to do so as you wish. If you
want to give my pay to them, then you are out of luck. Freedom is
damned inconvenient, like I said.

There are very few on welfare and food stamps who are actually needy,
the vast majority would turn off the TV, put down the booze, and get
off their butts and go to work as soon as they got hungy enough and no
one was willing to pay their bills for them anymore. The few who
can't are few enough so that private charities can handle the load,
particularly if the public weren't robbed daily to pay the bums' bills
and had their money to donate to legitimate charities. Legitimate
charities can't rob the taxpayers, they can't just raise taxes to
blow, so they are careful witht he money donated to them and don't
blow it paying the cable bill for some bum who's too lazy to work.
Government has no business in the charity business, PERIOD!

William R. James

[Thom]

On 31 Oct 2004 11:22:45 -0600, Wm James

Post by Wm James

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country.

Ah, the glorious benefits of living in a free country!

Yep. Freedom is damned inconvenient. But it's a far cry better than a
comfortable cage.

I'll remember that next time I go into a gun store to buy a magazine
and have to be strip searched and fill out 200 federal forms.

THOM

Post by Wm James

Post by Ribeldi
The drug companies spend billions

Post by Wm James
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D.

Excuse me, a lot of those profits aren't going to R&D; they are going
to advertising. You see all kinds of commercials on TV for
prescription drugs.

Do you seriously think they spend money on advertising for personal
amusement, that they do it just to get rid of excess cash that taking
up too much space in the vault, or something? The ads sell more of
their products or they wouldn't blow money doing it.

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks.

"able to function" yes--that is, lucky enough not to have physical or
mental disabilities.

Even if the disability is a mental one cases by poor education. And
even if the disability is fake to get more tax dollars.

Post by Ribeldi

Post by Wm James
Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. >

Sigh. Maybe you're just a troll...and there are multitudes of them on
the Net. But just in case you're not, one day YOU or your loved ones
may be in need of welfare, food stamps, or Medicaid. One day your job
may not be there any more. Or you may be physically or mentally
disabled. Ever think of that?

So why not legalize armed robbery using the same twisted logic? If
your position is that anyone in need is entitled to take from others,
why not? Ever hear of charity? I know it's a strange concept to
some people, but the idea is that those who own their own paychecks
are free to donate to what hey believe are good causes and free to
refrain from giving to what hey feel are not legitimate. If you want
to give your pay to bums then feel free to do so as you wish. If you
want to give my pay to them, then you are out of luck. Freedom is
damned inconvenient, like I said.
There are very few on welfare and food stamps who are actually needy,
the vast majority would turn off the TV, put down the booze, and get
off their butts and go to work as soon as they got hungy enough and no
one was willing to pay their bills for them anymore. The few who
can't are few enough so that private charities can handle the load,
particularly if the public weren't robbed daily to pay the bums' bills
and had their money to donate to legitimate charities. Legitimate
charities can't rob the taxpayers, they can't just raise taxes to
blow, so they are careful witht he money donated to them and don't
blow it paying the cable bill for some bum who's too lazy to work.
Government has no business in the charity business, PERIOD!
William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Thom

Post by Wm James
Yep. Freedom is damned inconvenient. But it's a far cry better than a
comfortable cage.

I'll remember that next time I go into a gun store to buy a magazine
and have to be strip searched and fill out 200 federal forms.
THOM

Point taken! :(

William R. James

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

You know so little about science that you are taken in by the
head in the sand, "there's no global warming" crowd and you
criticize others? All the world's top scientists, including
Bush's National Academy of Sciences, acknowledge that human-
induced global warming is happening yet you keep spouting
corporate-sponsored nonsense. Sheesh!

--Jeff
--
When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't eat cow shit we'd
be knee
deep in flies by now. Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but
somebody's got
to do it. Luckily, either by divine plan or cosmic coincidence,
at the
dawn of creation the dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll
eat the
cow shit, if no one else will.'" - Ben Elton

[Wm James]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:45:38 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

You know so little about science that you are taken in by the
head in the sand, "there's no global warming" crowd and you
criticize others? All the world's top scientists, including
Bush's National Academy of Sciences, acknowledge that human-
induced global warming is happening yet you keep spouting
corporate-sponsored nonsense. Sheesh!
--Jeff

Gee, why don't you be a hero and post some evidence then? So far, no
one has managed to find any, and those you call "all the world's top
scientists" haven't found a shread of evidence, and have consistantly
ignored the scientific method entirely, therefore they aren't
scientists at all, but frauds. In reality, they are a small group of
frauds who's tax funded paychecks depend on finding their preformed
conclusions, so that's what they find in spite of the data. Most of
those pseudoscience scam pedlers apprently have no clue as to even
what the greenhouse gasses are, otherwith they wouldn't be constantly
ranting about CO2.


The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%

And that doesn't even begin to address the regulatory effects of water
on earth's temperature beyond the greenhouse effect, which makes the
other 5% of the total (certianly the meaningless .117% manmade CO2)
totaly irrelevant.

If you believe the scam peddlers who make their living claiming
gloobal warming, shall we assume you also believe the tobacco
companies' "scientists" who claim smoking is safe and not addictive?

William R. James

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:45:38 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

You know so little about science that you are taken in by the
head in the sand, "there's no global warming" crowd and you
criticize others? All the world's top scientists, including
Bush's National Academy of Sciences, acknowledge that human-
induced global warming is happening yet you keep spouting
corporate-sponsored nonsense. Sheesh!

Gee, why don't you be a hero and post some evidence then? So far, no
one has managed to find any, and those you call "all the world's top
scientists" haven't found a shread of evidence, and have consistantly
ignored the scientific method entirely, therefore they aren't
scientists at all, but frauds. In reality, they are a small group of
frauds who's tax funded paychecks depend on finding their preformed
conclusions, so that's what they find in spite of the data. Most of
those pseudoscience scam pedlers apprently have no clue as to even
what the greenhouse gasses are, otherwith they wouldn't be constantly
ranting about CO2.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/07/science/07WARM.html?ex=1066795200&en=30abb041bec27d59&ei=5070

Panel Tells Bush Global Warming Is Getting Worse

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE with ANDREW C. REVKIN

WASHINGTON, June 6 — A panel of top American scientists declared
today that global warming was a real problem and was getting
worse, a conclusion that may lead President Bush to change his
stand on the issue as he heads next week to Europe, where the
United States is seen as a major source of the air pollution
held responsible for climate change.

In a much-anticipated report from the National Academy of
Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including previous
skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the mainstream
scientific view that the earth's atmosphere was getting warmer
and that human activity was largely responsible.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as a
result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said.
"Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

The report was requested by the White House last month in
anticipation of an international meeting on global warming in
Bonn in July but arrived just before President Bush leaves next
week for Europe, a trip that includes talks on global warming
with leaders of the 15 European Union countries in Goteborg,
Sweden.
[...]
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

When I give food to the poor
they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a
Communist.
--Dom Helder Camara

The people who cast the votes
decide nothing. The people who
count the votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

"It's all connections. If dung beetles didn't
eat cow shit we'd be knee deep in flies by now.
Eating cow shit is a dirty job, but somebody's
got to do it. Luckily, either by divine plan or
cosmic coincidence, at the dawn of creation the
dung beetle said, 'Oh, for God's sake, I'll eat
the cow shit, if no one else will.'"-- Ben Elton

[Wm James]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:50:16 -0500, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:45:38 -0400, Jeffrey Turner

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

You know so little about science that you are taken in by the
head in the sand, "there's no global warming" crowd and you
criticize others? All the world's top scientists, including
Bush's National Academy of Sciences, acknowledge that human-
induced global warming is happening yet you keep spouting
corporate-sponsored nonsense. Sheesh!

Gee, why don't you be a hero and post some evidence then? So far, no
one has managed to find any, and those you call "all the world's top
scientists" haven't found a shread of evidence, and have consistantly
ignored the scientific method entirely, therefore they aren't
scientists at all, but frauds. In reality, they are a small group of
frauds who's tax funded paychecks depend on finding their preformed
conclusions, so that's what they find in spite of the data. Most of
those pseudoscience scam pedlers apprently have no clue as to even
what the greenhouse gasses are, otherwith they wouldn't be constantly
ranting about CO2.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/07/science/07WARM.html?ex=1066795200&en=30abb041bec27d59&ei=5070
Panel Tells Bush Global Warming Is Getting Worse
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE with ANDREW C. REVKIN
WASHINGTON, June 6 — A panel of top American scientists declared
today that global warming was a real problem and was getting
worse, a conclusion that may lead President Bush to change his
stand on the issue as he heads next week to Europe, where the
United States is seen as a major source of the air pollution
held responsible for climate change.

Interesting that they always refer to a handful of pseudoscience
peddlers feeding at the tax trough as "top American scientists" even
if they are ignoring science altogether.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
In a much-anticipated report from the National Academy of
Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including previous
skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the mainstream
scientific view that the earth's atmosphere was getting warmer
and that human activity was largely responsible.

Without a shread of data to back it up, as usual. Only failed computer
models and mined data.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as a
result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said.
"Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

A lie according to their own data. If they have evidence, where is
it? Follow the money. They are scam peddlers, not scientists.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
The report was requested by the White House last month in
anticipation of an international meeting on global warming in
Bonn in July but arrived just before President Bush leaves next
week for Europe, a trip that includes talks on global warming
with leaders of the 15 European Union countries in Goteborg,
Sweden.
[...]

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%

And that doesn't even begin to address the regulatory effects of water
on earth's temperature beyond the greenhouse effect, which makes the
other 5% of the total (certianly the meaningless .117% manmade CO2)
totaly irrelevant.

If you believe the scam peddlers who make their living claiming
gloobal warming, shall we assume you also believe the tobacco
companies' "scientists" who claim smoking is safe and not addictive?

William R. James

[Tim Jowers]

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?
William R. James

William, I think a better idea would be to set the "Global Minimum"
as the only allowed price in the USA. Want to sell drugs in the USA?
Have to charge the lowest price you charge on any market in the world.
No price gouging of the USA.

Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country. The drug companies spend billions
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D. So what aree you going
to do, tell them they can't make back the R&D, that they can't make a
profit at all, or have the US government threaten to nuke any country
who infringes on their patents? Of just pass another goofy socialist
law saying they can't charce anymore than they charge in Rowanda and
ensure that they never waste another dime on R&D?

You almost figured out what I'm saying. If we set the Global Minimum
law then socialist countries WILL NOT GET UNFAIR PRICES. Do you think
MRK sells in the USA for $100, in Canada for $75, and in India for
$10? Today, that is the game (the numbers are rough estimates). What
will happen with the "Global Minimum"?

Maybe MRK would just drop the worldwide price to $10. As it is, the
American TAXPAYER (ME and YOU) PAY for the research and then the
INDIAN AND CHINESE AND CANADIAN TAXPAYERS reap the benefits. Clearly,
with falling pay, we cannot continue to subsidize innovation for the
whole world. They'll have to start to pay the taxes on it as well.

Or maybe MRK'll just stop selling to the $10 country. Is this crass?
No. They want global competition. As the USA exports jobs is must also
export the associated costs for new products. You want our jobs but
want us to keep funding the research for your medicine, the companies
that design your cars, the companies that create your textbooks? Not
gonna happen. Without jobs we cannot keep feeding the Elites money.

Case in point is the Sept 23rd "Corporate Tax Break" wherein the
American taxpayer handed $340B to major Elite companies. This is TWICE
the total cost of Iraq War, the same as TOTAL DOMESTIC SPENDING
ex-entitlements, and over 1/2 of the TOTAL USG DEFICIT THIS YEAR.

That an unsurmountable lot of money to subsidize the companies so
they can make cheap drugs to sell to other countries. Americans are
paying the cost of those cheap drugs via high current taxes and
EXTREMELY HIGH FUTURE TAXES.

Your children will pay for today's standard of living in the
socialist and communist countries. We cannot keep asking American
children to bear the future cost of drugs and other goods sold to
countries who are unwilling to pay the real cost to produce those
goods. The current tax system steals our children's future in order to
do this.

Woe to any who would support an incumbant for the bankruptcy of
America is the future being created by the current Government.

Of course, the argument of "Charge what the market will bear" (AKA,
"screw the customer") suggests as pay fall then the cost in the USA
will fall. I simply project that prices and taxes will fall at a much
slower rate than pay. That is what has happened over the last two
years. In fact, prices and taxes are still increasing as pay falls.

No matter what you think about my "Global Minimum" idea, I think
you'll have a hard time showing the current system has more promise!

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
BTW, you may not realize that pay for a new job has fallen $4000 since
2001....

No, I realize that. You may not realize the cause.

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

Post by Tim Jowers
Not only are minimum wages decreasing,

What???

Post by Tim Jowers
but all wages are decreasing,
except for the upper 1/4 of a %.

The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks. As the public "education"
systems (actually, the socialist indoctrination centers) turn out more
idiots, you get a smaller percentage of functional citizens at the
top. Notheing unexpected there.

Post by Tim Jowers
Also prices and taxes are still
increasing. And there is the schizm. Greenpockets wants us to retrain
for lower paying jobs but does not want to tax the importers who are
took our jobs.

"Our jobs"? Who is "our"? Every job "belongs" to the party trading
the money for the labor.

Post by Tim Jowers
Meanwhile the Goldpockets in Congress and the Executive
branch spend hand our [future] tax dollars to their buddies in no bid
contracts.

AH! That old BS again. Care to take a guess as to how many no-bid
contracts Haliburtan landed under the Clinton administration?

I don't defend the Clinton era. A whole new lower standard in national
morals. Thanks to Bill Clinton. Prior to Clinton anyone who fondled
his interns and lied in court was at least publicly frowned upon; but
now Americans have accepted this as A'OK.

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
And you make flippant statements about minimum wage not realizing that
YOU and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others because we are
paying the medicaid and food stamps for which, it has been said, 40%
of such workers qualify. That is, a higher minimum wage means less
entitlements !!!!! As it is, Fortune 500 profits are at all time highs
while 1.3 million Americans fell into poverty last year.

Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. But some
people insist on forcing taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart and the
others and then complain about having to do it.

Me too. Welfare sucks for all parties involved except for WaMrt and
others who take advantage of the taxpayer paying the cost of living
for their employees.

Post by Wm James
William R. James

[Wm James]

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?
William R. James

William, I think a better idea would be to set the "Global Minimum"
as the only allowed price in the USA. Want to sell drugs in the USA?
Have to charge the lowest price you charge on any market in the world.
No price gouging of the USA.

Different problem with some overlap, agreed. Drugs cost more here
because this is a free country. The drug companies spend billions
bringing a drug to market and the socialist countries wontallow it at
market prices, but they are willing to counterfeit it should the maker
not play along. They can at least make a few bucks over the
manufacuring costs in those countries, but they rely on americans
paying far higher prices to make up the R&D. So what aree you going
to do, tell them they can't make back the R&D, that they can't make a
profit at all, or have the US government threaten to nuke any country
who infringes on their patents? Of just pass another goofy socialist
law saying they can't charce anymore than they charge in Rowanda and
ensure that they never waste another dime on R&D?

You almost figured out what I'm saying. If we set the Global Minimum
law then socialist countries WILL NOT GET UNFAIR PRICES. Do you think
MRK sells in the USA for $100, in Canada for $75, and in India for
$10? Today, that is the game (the numbers are rough estimates). What
will happen with the "Global Minimum"?
Maybe MRK would just drop the worldwide price to $10. As it is, the
American TAXPAYER (ME and YOU) PAY for the research and then the
INDIAN AND CHINESE AND CANADIAN TAXPAYERS reap the benefits. Clearly,
with falling pay, we cannot continue to subsidize innovation for the
whole world. They'll have to start to pay the taxes on it as well.

They have to play along to protect their rights from socialists. See
below.

Post by Tim Jowers
Or maybe MRK'll just stop selling to the $10 country. Is this crass?
No. They want global competition. As the USA exports jobs is must also
export the associated costs for new products. You want our jobs but
want us to keep funding the research for your medicine, the companies
that design your cars, the companies that create your textbooks? Not
gonna happen. Without jobs we cannot keep feeding the Elites money.
Case in point is the Sept 23rd "Corporate Tax Break" wherein the
American taxpayer handed $340B to major Elite companies. This is TWICE
the total cost of Iraq War, the same as TOTAL DOMESTIC SPENDING
ex-entitlements, and over 1/2 of the TOTAL USG DEFICIT THIS YEAR.

Pardon me, but "not robbing" is not the same as "giving". Not taking
someone's money is not giving them anything. Taking les is not a
gift. The real tragedy of the last few years is people getting back
more in tax "refunds" than they paid in, and that's the botton payers,
not the top. And no business pays it's taxes. A tax on any business
is just a hidden tax on consumers.

Post by Tim Jowers
That an unsurmountable lot of money to subsidize the companies so
they can make cheap drugs to sell to other countries. Americans are
paying the cost of those cheap drugs via high current taxes and
EXTREMELY HIGH FUTURE TAXES.
Your children will pay for today's standard of living in the
socialist and communist countries. We cannot keep asking American
children to bear the future cost of drugs and other goods sold to
countries who are unwilling to pay the real cost to produce those
goods. The current tax system steals our children's future in order to
do this.
Woe to any who would support an incumbant for the bankruptcy of
America is the future being created by the current Government.

Agreed. But one of the two socialist scumbags is going to win, and of
those two, the incumbant is the one with the least history of
socialist tax and spend policies. I'll be voting a write-in, btw.

Post by Tim Jowers
Of course, the argument of "Charge what the market will bear" (AKA,
"screw the customer") suggests as pay fall then the cost in the USA
will fall. I simply project that prices and taxes will fall at a much
slower rate than pay. That is what has happened over the last two
years. In fact, prices and taxes are still increasing as pay falls.
No matter what you think about my "Global Minimum" idea, I think
you'll have a hard time showing the current system has more promise!

Too much socialism. Any is a bad thing, any reduction is better.

Post by Tim Jowers

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
BTW, you may not realize that pay for a new job has fallen $4000 since
2001....

No, I realize that. You may not realize the cause.

Post by Tim Jowers
"A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, using the
most detailed classification of jobs and distribution of wages so far
found that, since 2001, job categories that are growing pay an average
of 10 percent to 12 percent less than jobs categories that are
shrinking. A new full-time position would therefore pay about $4,000 a
year less than one of the jobs that were lost."
--http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/low.paying.jobs/index.html

Berkeley is hardly a reliable source, but in this case I don't doubt
the data is at least somewhat accurate. But so what? The schools are
graduating idiots who can barely read if at all, who are
scientifically illiterate enough to fall for the global warming scam,
who can't even comprehend the Consitution, who can't do basic algebra,
and who cannot even begin to operate a business. Frankly, I'm
surprized it's not lower.

Post by Tim Jowers
Not only are minimum wages decreasing,

What???

Post by Tim Jowers
but all wages are decreasing,
except for the upper 1/4 of a %.

The upper percentages are the people who are willing and able to
function, those who aren't relying on government to take care of them,
the ones who can balance their checkbooks. As the public "education"
systems (actually, the socialist indoctrination centers) turn out more
idiots, you get a smaller percentage of functional citizens at the
top. Notheing unexpected there.

Post by Tim Jowers
Also prices and taxes are still
increasing. And there is the schizm. Greenpockets wants us to retrain
for lower paying jobs but does not want to tax the importers who are
took our jobs.

"Our jobs"? Who is "our"? Every job "belongs" to the party trading
the money for the labor.

Post by Tim Jowers
Meanwhile the Goldpockets in Congress and the Executive
branch spend hand our [future] tax dollars to their buddies in no bid
contracts.

AH! That old BS again. Care to take a guess as to how many no-bid
contracts Haliburtan landed under the Clinton administration?

I don't defend the Clinton era. A whole new lower standard in national
morals. Thanks to Bill Clinton. Prior to Clinton anyone who fondled
his interns and lied in court was at least publicly frowned upon; but
now Americans have accepted this as A'OK.

Post by Wm James

Post by Tim Jowers
And you make flippant statements about minimum wage not realizing that
YOU and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others because we are
paying the medicaid and food stamps for which, it has been said, 40%
of such workers qualify. That is, a higher minimum wage means less
entitlements !!!!! As it is, Fortune 500 profits are at all time highs
while 1.3 million Americans fell into poverty last year.

Hey, I'm all for fixing that problem! Eliminate welfare, food stamps,
medicaid, and all the other socialist redistribution scams and then
you and I wont be subsidizing Wal-Mart and the others. But some
people insist on forcing taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart and the
others and then complain about having to do it.

Me too. Welfare sucks for all parties involved except for WaMrt and
others who take advantage of the taxpayer paying the cost of living
for their employees.

Post by Wm James
William R. James

I agree with you in theory, but in practice, what happens ios
countries simply infringe on patents. If you spend a billion dollars
developing a drug and want to sell it in the nation of "Gimmeland",
and Gimmeland is socialist, they set the price at say $1 per pill.
Your manufaturing cost may be 90 cents, and if you sell it there,
youaren't losing money but you can't possibly make up your investment
like that. So you have to make it up by charging Americans $1000 per
pill. You can still make a few bucks selling it in Gimmeland too,
however. But that's not the end of the story. Since you are selling
it in Gimmeland so cheap, they can repackage it and sell itto
americans (legally or not) at $100 per pill undercutting you by $900,
AND you start getting political problems from people upset because you
are giving them the shaft at your high prices to americans even though
you are selling it dirt cheap in Gimmeland. So you say, "No,
Gimmeland, if you want it, you have to pay more, at least $20 per
pill, that's still far less than it should be!" Gimmeland says no,
removes your patent rights, starts making your drug over there and
still sells it to americans and other countries and you never make
back your investment.

The enemy is socialism.

William R. James

[J***@twixt.org]

If people were not prepaired to work for $8 per hour, the minimum wage would
be higher.
Many people would not demand more, or demand their rights.
People need more faith to complain when they are not happy.

I have seen a lot of times where people complain to there spouses about
there low wage, but never to their boss.
(This is not the main cause of low wages, but I feel that this is a
consistant contributory factor)

[Thom]

On 23 Oct 2004 15:46:20 -0500, Wm James

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
In 1968 the Minimum Wage was $1.60. That is the equivalent of $8 an
hour in 2004 dollars. Given that we are a richer society 35 years
later, the minimum wage should now be close to $12 an hour.
Higher wages means more money to spend - if prices rise, people will
have the money to buy the higher priced products. More money in the
hands of consumers will stimulate the economy, make it more productive
and make us all richer. We will also save money as crime disappears
and our economy reaches full employment.

That's silly, if proper wages are paid lazy fat cats won't get as rich
and we can't have that can we.

Post by Wm James

Post by Senior Economist
Higher wages equal higher tax revenues. Instead of cutting taxes, we
should raise wages. If we want wages to rise, we should begin raising
them at the bottom, and the higher salaries will follow.

Why not set minimum prices for everything?

its already happening mate.

THOM

Post by Wm James
William R. James