Conference back40::soapbox

    Well, 20K a year is about the minimum a family could expect to live on.
    
    But as a start, let's move the minimum wage up from its historic
    40-year low, if not up to the poverty level for someone working
    full-time.
    
    Kit
    
    P.S. I hear some of the Repubs are already cracking on their brave
    battle to keep the miinimun wage at $4.25 --- *if* they can get a
    captial gains tax cut as a quid pro quo.

    Does that include Senators? 

Re: .0 -- "lower middle class and poor" that's redundant today.

You are elegible for "Low Income Housing" in my town if you make $53k.
One of Clinton's programs for "middle class" allows for $104k/year wages.
I have developed a new opinion of where I fit in American society, and
it ain't pretty. I'll be talking to the pigeons in the park and pushing
my belongings in a grocery cart pretty soon. But I'll have an EMAIL
address.

Art 

    Inflation will offset any benefit to those who are making mimimum wage. 
    Someone has to pay for the extra pay (consumers).  Every one is a
    consumer, even the minimum wage earner.
    
    Boy, imagine going to McDonalds and paying $4 for a quarter-punder and $2
    for a large order of fries.   Ah, but wait, my favorite spots (buffets)
    will probably raise prices to offset the new pay-scale. 
    
    ...or do you think that these places will take it on the chin?
    (profits)

    re: .4
    
   > Inflation will offset any benefit to those who are making mimimum wage. 
    
    That's the standard excuse, but it's not proven. Not when there's as
    much slack in the economy, and as many unemployed or underemployed as
    there are now. And the traditional pegging of minimum wage to the
    poverty rate (until the last decade or so) doesn't correspond to
    inflation/noninflation.
    
    Finally, the only real study ever done about this described what
    happened when NJ raised its minimum wage and PA did not. Job growth in
    minimum wage jobs *grew* in NJ, and not in PA.  They postulate that
    this may have something to do with (surprise!) the higher productivity
    of the workers who stay longer because they were paid closer to a living
    wage.
    
    Kit

    I thought we poo poo'd socialism in this country last November!

    It seems to be simple economics to me that raising the minimum wage
    won't help many.
    
    Let me put it in even simpler terms...it will make things economically
    worse for me (middle class guy).  Once again, I take it on the chin. 
    Oh, but since I make over and above the poverty level, it shouldn't
    really matter, right?  
    
    -steve

    >> President Clinton thinks we ought to raise the minimum wage $.90
    >> phased in over a couple (2?) years.  
    
    This is just one of the first of his humble offerings to the
    masses in Campaign 96, as he attempts to remind the folks whose
    side he's on.  If it was such a great idea, why wasn't it a
    great idea two years ago, or even one year ago?  Presumably
    he'd have had an easier time getting it passed by the Democongress
    back then.
    
    Because it's not a great idea, unless your motivation and objective
    is to get re-elected.  Other than that, it doesn't have much going
    for it.
    
    But I expect the Repubs to cave and/or trade on matters like this;
    they already seem to be forgetting why they were put in charge a few
    short months ago.  Come next year, I'll probably be looking for that
    third party alternative running for Congress, if any.
    
    Chris

|   P.S. I hear some of the Repubs are already cracking on their brave
|   battle to keep the miinimun wage at $4.25 --- *if* they can get a
|   captial gains tax cut as a quid pro quo.
    
    "Some" is named Bob Dole.  He got a little weak kneed yesterday.
    At least the National Democrats aren't quite as stupid as our
    State Democrats.  (In Mass, the deal was "give we the legislators
    a huge raise and we'll give you a huge tax cut."  But this is no less
    noble than "give they the people a teeney tiny raise and we'll give
    you a huge tax cut.")
    
|   If it was such a great idea, why wasn't it a great idea two years ago,
|   or even one year ago?  Presumably he'd have had an easier time getting
|   it passed by the Democongress back then.     
    
|   Because it's not a great idea, unless your motivation and objective
|   is to get re-elected.  Other than that, it doesn't have much going
|   for it.
    
    Because two years ago, even a year ago, there was an attempt to run
    the country in such a way that interest rates would go down.  This
    was good.  Everything was done to get interest rates down.  Tax hikes.
    Spending cuts.  And no minimum wage increases.
    
    But then the Republicans started talking interest rates up,
    and then once they actually achieved the power to make them go way
    waaaaaaaaaaaay up, well, we are we are today.
    
    
    Vote for me and I'll cut your taxes a penny but raise your interest
    payments a dollar.
    
    And you fools fell for it.
    
    
    Now that everyone is in a bidding war to see how high they can send
    interest rates, well, everything goes.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >> Vote for me and I'll cut your taxes a penny but raise your interest
    >> payments a dollar.
    >>
    >> And you fools fell for it.
    
    I didn't, but then again, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat.  I've
    never believed either one of these entrenched kingdoms has my best
    interests in mind.
    
    Chris

    Mr. Bill:
    
    Are you saying the rates during the Carter years increased because of
    Republicans, or are you talking about something else?!

    
    Mr. Newt will not have the courage of his convictions to submit
    legislation repealing one of the largest unfunded federal mandates
    -- the minimum wage.
    
    And BTW, "Waiting for a third alternative"
    
    Why do I suspect that as soon as there is a third alternative, you'll
    be waiting for a fourth alternative?
    
    								-mr. bill

    The real beneficiaries of a higher minimum wage are middle-class
    high school and college students -- the very people with the smallest
    need for it.
    
    It should be abolished.

    
      It was standard Bob Dole, "Let's Make a Deal".
    
      If he gets to be Prex, who will he make deals with ?
    
      bb

     The following is transcribed from an AP graphic (Pie Charts) contained
     in the Sunday Manchester Union Leader (5-Feb-1994).  The data is cited
     as being from the Bureau of Labor Statistics;


     Profile of Minimum Wage Workers  (About 2.5 Million Workers):
     -------------------------------------------------------------

     Age         16-19            37  %      Sex:      Men            41%
                 20-24            20  %                Women          59%
                 25-34            17.5%
                 35-44            11  %
                 45-54             6  %
                 55-64             5  %
                 65+               3  %

     Education:  No H.S. Diploma  42.5%      Employment: Full Time    33%
                 H.S. Diploma     32  %                  Part Time    67%
                 Some College     20  %
                 College Grad      3  %


     Major Jobs: Food Service     26.5%      Region:   South          44.5%
                 Sales            20.5%                Midwest        24  %
                 Operators,                            West           22.5%
                  Laborers        19  %                Northeast       9.5% 
                 Clerical          8  %
                 Janitor & other
                  Building Maint   7  %

     Note:  Some figures do not add up to 100% due to rounding.
    

    Raise the minimum wage. Businesses maintain wage equilibrium by
    reducing headcount. That's a net gain?

    When you raise the minimum wage, you also raise other wages.  For
    instance, you are currently paying an employee one dollar above the
    current minimum wage because you think that employee deserves it (more
    experience, works harder, been with the company longer).  Now the
    minimum wage goes up ninety cents.  Now you are only paying this
    employee ten cents above minimum.  It would only seem fair to raise
    this persons wage another dollar to show them that you still value
    their experience, hard work and dedication and will continue you to pay
    them a premium above the minimum wage.
    
    You will not hear Bill Clinton talk about this scenario because he
    knows it will create wage inflation.  I will bet that this is a common
    scenario.

  >  When you raise the minimum wage, you also raise other wages.  For
     .
     .
  >  You will not hear Bill Clinton talk about this scenario because he
  >  knows it will create wage inflation.  I will bet that this is a common
    
    On the contrary, that is one of the reasons for raising the minimum
    wage -- so that those working just above it get pushed up as well.
    
    The problem is that 60% or more of the working population has seen
    their income fall over the last 20 years. And they have not profited
    from the vast increases in their productivity over the last decade.
    
    Many reputable economists question the conventional wisdom that raising
    the wages of this productive under-employed part of the population
    would cause inflation until far more of them were employed and paid up
    to their levels of productivity.  And this doesn't even take into
    account what would happen to buying power if the increasingly
    bifurcated incomes of top and bottom didn't continue to grow.
    
    Finally, why is it that so many people in the 30-40% who *have* kept up
    with the cost of living are so all-fired sanctimonious about making
    sure that those who don't earn 50K+ don't earn a miserable 20K per
    year.  Spend a little of your outrage on the effect of burgeoning
    interest rates, executives who are paid  factors of their lowest paid
    employees that are unheard of in the rest of the world, etc.
    
    Kit

    This seems to be a perfect discussion to identify those who are of the
    liberal/socialist bent and those who beleive in personal
    accountability.  I think if you look at the statistics cited earlier
    you will see that a true minimum # of people are employed full time,
    with a high school education, at the minimum wage.  the only missing #
    in those statistics is how many of those working full time at minimum
    wage jobs are the primary wage earner.
    
    You can cite all the theoretical examples of how terrible it is that we
    have a low minimum wage, etc, etc, but ignore the fact that neither you
    nor probaly anyone you know can idenify one person who is the primary
    wage earner who, as their primary source of income, works ata minmum
    wage job.  Now there may be amny people working a second job or part
    time who are paid minimum, but the argument about supporting a family
    on minimum wage is specious at best.
    
    I wonder how many of you would complain if you found out that the
    majority of the minimum wage jobs were filled with people using it as a
    second income for the purchase of cars, vacations, etc.  Or even worse,
    investing it in the stock market to make their retirement comfortable.
    
    Want to really make a difference.  complain to your liberal reps about
    the income and SS tax on under age workers.  How many kids hold jobs to
    save for college or meet personal expenses and then get whacked for
    taxes.  If you really want to make a difference, and eliminate the pork
    of the Americorp, just remove the tax liability from full time
    students, living at home, under the age of 21.  You will see a
    significant increase in savings and independence with that change than
    all of the silly talk about the minimum wage.
    
    One last point.  If you don't have a high school education don't
    compalin about your salary.  Also, if I remember correctly, it wasn't
    that long ago that our poverty level was equal to the average income in
    England.
    

    re: .19
    
>                      <<< Note 282.19 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
>                            -< Socialism at work. >-
>
>    This seems to be a perfect discussion to identify those who are of the
>    liberal/socialist bent and those who beleive in personal
>    accountability.  I think if you look at the statistics cited earlier
    
    It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who  
    can only respond with smears and straw-man arguments.
    
    Kit

re: .-1

:^)

You don't think, perhaps, that this was what Komar had in mind when
he placed the basenote?

    Re: 20
    
    Hey, that was a truly insightful response.  I'll have to spend some
    time digesting the pithy intellectualism you displyed in replying to
    the valid and cogent comments made.
    
    Thank you for acknowledging the correctnes of my position.  I knew I
    could count on you.
    

    .    It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who
    .    can only respond with smears and straw-man arguments.
    
     What you say is true, Kit, and granted there were "smears" and vague
    arguments, but to casually dismiss the entire note merely because the
    author could not refrain from taking gratuitous swipes is really no
    better. There were, in fact, substantive arguments proferred among the
    swipes, and your failure to address them is as vexing as the way in
    which they were conveyed. Surely you can find you way clear to wade
    through the insults and address the arguments made.

    Actually my last reply was out of line and I hereby retract it.
    
    That does not mean that my original note regarding this being a perfect
    topic to determine where on falls politically is still valid. 
    Liberals/socialists tend to think that teh government through their
    largess i.e., minimum wage will make everything fine.  I tend to take
    severe exception to that and beleive that the government through
    dictates like the minimum wage exaserbate a problem and introduce
    additional problems to the original.
    
    My first statement is still fairly accurate.
    

exaCerbate

    You're right, Doctah, I should. And I usually do.  Let me re-gird my
    loins and try once again. But not right now.
    
    Kit
    

    
      Philosophies aside, the tactics is surely diversionary, and may
     prove marginally effective.  The wage will be scheduled for hearings,
     debate, amendments, vote.  No matter the result, nothing earth
     shattering is likely to come of it.  We have had high/low minimum
     wages before, relative to median, and few people notice except
     down south.
    
      This looks like a move from some board game to me.  The Republicans
     should play the game, adding it to the agenda, but not till summer.
    
      bb

	This talk about the minimum wage is what I had in mind when I started
the base note.

	However, MY OPINION is that even by raising the minimum wage, we will
not help the people that have these jobs enough.  I just used simple math, and
$36 / week does not do a lot for people, and that figure does not include how
much will be taken by taxes.

	Therefore, I figured that, in order to truly help the people we want to 
help, we need to give them a minimum salary of $20,000/year.  This should be 
enough for everyone to get what they need, such as food, clothing, shelter, and
transportation.

	However, here are some questions to consider: how do we pay for this?  
Answer: we can't.  If we ordered all Mickey D's and Burger Kings to pay this 
salary, they would be out of business.  Also, the government can't afford to
give everyone $20,000/year.  So, what do we do?

	What I did with the basenote was to demonstrate absurdity by being 
absurd.  We can't help the people by raising the minimum wage because the 
majority of businesses that employ these people cannot afford it.  They would 
have to either close down, fire people, or not hire as many people as they would
like.

	The post on the statistics of these jobs is perfect.  I will also add that
the majority of minimum wage jobs are only worth the minimum wage or less.

ME

    
    Government should mandate a minimum wage of $200.00/hr. Wages should
    also be frozen, by government fiat. This way, in a few short years, we
    will all be millionaires and live happyly (sp?) ever after.
    
    Paul
    

    I have for some time thought it would be interesting to have sort of
    the same policy, but in reverse.  Call it a guaranteed minimum standard
    of living.  You give the government the first $x dollars of your annual
    earnings.  In exchange, you get a guaranteed minimum standard of
    living, such that you and your family will always have food, clothing,
    shelter and medical care.  (Also a radio so you could hear civil
    defense and emergency announcements.)  Anything you earned beyond the
    $x would go to supplement your standard of living (like getting a TV or
    buying junk food).  This would allow people to be rewarded for their 
    individual achievements, a common criticism of socialism.
    
    Unfortunately, implementation would be difficult....

    .1
    
    KIT:
    
    Maybe I misunderstand your logic, but what do you mean by "historic 40
    year low"?
    
    Ron

    	Why aren't the people who want to raise the minimum wage embracing
    my idea of raising it to $20,000 / year?
    
    ME

 >                  <<< Note 282.31 by USAT05::WARRENFELTZR >>>
 >
 >   .1
 >   
 >   KIT:
 >   
 >   Maybe I misunderstand your logic, but what do you mean by "historic 40
 >   year low"?
    
    In constant dollars, the current minimum wage is the lowest in at least
    40 years. The chart with the specifics that I saw last week only went
    back 40 years. Basically, it showed the rate rising, in constant 1995
    dollars from $3.94 through the 50s and 60s, peaking at something over
    $6/ hour, falling slowly in the 70s, faster in the 80's, a little blip
    up at the last rise, falling to $4.25.
    
    It didn't show before that, but I understood that it traditionally was
    aimed at reaching the poverty level (family of 4?), or half the median
    wage.
    
    The bigger point is that much of the wage structure above the minimum
    wage is also at a low point, until you get up to the "knowledge
    classes", say 50K or so.  Hence more and more people struggle to meet
    minimum needs, and the disparity between earnings of the winners and
    losers grows.  
    
    Even if you're a "winner", or even if you think, for ideological
    reasons, that it's okay that the fruits of work are falling ever more
    unevenly, it's just not healthy for a society that used to be one of
    hope to have over half the people believing life can only get worse;
    that no matter how hard you work, how many in your family contribute,
    you simply stand still, not even getting part of the productivity gains
    that you, as a worker, have produced in the last few years. (Ex: total
    1994 wages were flat, despite large increases in employment in an
    expanding economy)
    
    Kit

    .33
    Some one correct me here (and I`m sure you will) but I didn`t think
    there was a minimim wage until the Kennedy admin in the 60`s. How can
    it go back for 40 years?

    If raising the min wadge will encourage people to get off welfare. So
    be it. At least they might be in a productive enviorment vs warehousing
    people in housing at our expence. 
    
    Funny, earlier there was a comment about working a second job at min
    wadge to cover living expences. Funny, if you go to cities and towns
    like Atlanta, Boston, New York. I rather doubt you will find many min
    wadges for a 40 hour. Even in little hick town Nashua NH. 

    Once again we get back to the basic question of who has a
    responsibility for you.  those who support a minimum wage, guaranteed
    standard of living, etc apparently beleive that the government, through
    their efforts, can remove the basic rules of economics and provide for
    everyone.
    
    As the earlier statistics indicate the largest percentage, and in
    absolute terms quite small, are those without a high school education. 
    I tend to think that the cause and effect are rather self-evident.
    
    The greatest growth and expansion this country saw was prior to and
    just after the Korean war.  The amount of government dictates and
    mandates to the private sector were minimal.  It is only within the
    last 30-40 years that the government, at all levels, has said that they
    know better than you do in how to stucture your life and what reward
    system should be in place.
    
    As I asked earlier, how many people work at minimum wage jobs and are
    the primary wage earner in a family?  I beleive the % will be miniscule
    if existent at all, and those few can be addressed in a completely
    different fashion that dictating private sector activity.
    

    re: .33
    
    The minimum wage goes back to the'30s.
    
    Kit

    .36 Look at it like this.:) If yha get whacked/TFSO'ed, when our next
    job might be 'plastic or paper sir?' or 'want some biggy frys with
    that?' getting a few more in the pocket aint going to hurt yha!:)

    re: .36
    
    >  The greatest growth and expansion this country saw was prior to and
    >  just after the Korean war.  The amount of government dictates and
    >  mandates to the private sector were minimal.  It is only within the
    
    Not really. The great postwar expansion from 1945 to 1965 was a time of
    tremendous government growth, high taxation (at the upper ends), strong
    labor, and high minimum wages. 
    
    But more to the point, it is just such attention to the wrong things
    that keeps us from looking at the very real economic stagnation and
    loss for the middle class (not to mention the absolute desolation of
    those who used to be the urban industrial workers who are now the
    jobless poor).
    
    Kit
    
    

    .37
    Thank you. I didn`t realize that it went all the way back to the
    depression! If it did go that far back did it work in the depression?
    
    Thanks in advance.

    .Not really. The great postwar expansion from 1945 to 1965 was a time of
    .tremendous government growth, high taxation (at the upper ends), strong
    .labor, and high minimum wages.
    
     Government growth got out of control, taxation became too onerous, and
    labor became so strong they cost themselves jobs.
    
     But forget all of that. Attempting to deal with 90s issues with a 30s
    approach is not going to work.
    
     The fact of the matter is that education is the key to wage earning in
    the 90s, and the sooner the "jobless poor" catch on the better. You
    can't force someone to read or learn. They have to want to. The role of
    our government in all of this is to create the opportunity to learn.
    
     I personally think the whole mindset of people who think that minimum
    wage jobs ought to provide "a living wage" is wrong. Quality workers,
    even in the service industry, are not paid minimum wage for full time
    employment. It's crazy to think that you ought to be able to support a
    family of four by being minimally employed. It's also economically
    unsound, which is why more and more low skilled labor type jobs are
    being sent overseas where the market rate is more in line with what
    consumers are able to pay. Because eventually consumers are the ones
    that pay for it all. It's folly to assume that we can raise the minimum
    wage 20% and not cause any inflation.
    
     Kit brings up important issues with regard to unskilled workers. But
    the solution isn't to ensure that no matter how little they have to
    offer, that they still get a living wage. The solution is to enable
    them to offer more.
    
     It's the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching him to
    fish.
    
     The Doctah

    You're right about education and training, Doctah, and I think there's
    plenty of evidence that most people want more of that.
    
    But I don't think you can just write off the 60% of the working force
    that is falling behind by blaming it on government taxation or the need
    for more training.  And one area to consider is the consumer end -- if
    more and more people weren't spending more and more on basic needs,
    there might be more to spend on growing the economy.
    
    Finally, the US has always been a high-wage country, as have the other
    great industrial democracies.  We can never compete for low wages, no
    matter how hard we drive down real wages. We *can* compete on
    productivity -- but we must be willing to give some of those gains to
    the people who produced those gains.
    
    Kit

    .And one area to consider is the consumer end -- if
    .more and more people weren't spending more and more on basic needs,
    .there might be more to spend on growing the economy.
    
     Guess what. Spending money on "basic needs" helps the economy. Giving
    money to the government has a much less beneficial effect.

    Re: .41
    
    >The fact of the matter is that education is the key to wage earning in
    >the 90s, and the sooner the "jobless poor" catch on the better.
    
    Sure, but how much education is needed to turn a burger flipper into,
    say, a technical support person?

>    Sure, but how much education is needed to turn a burger flipper into,
>    say, a technical support person?

And who'll flip the burgers when he/she quits?

    This must really be a very difficult concept for some people to
    understand.  dictating what a person is going to be paid, as opposed to
    letting the market determine wages is bot h detrimental and
    counter-productive.  The new dictated wage only inflates all figures,
    thereby requiring another round of wage increases, and provides a
    dis-incentive to those at the lower rungs to skill up.
    
    If we allow people to succeed or fail, based on the choices and
    decisions they make, the overall benefits increase proportionately. 
    This folly of assuming that a higher minimum wage will result in any
    short or long term benefits is plain silly.   As was stated earlier a
    $5.00/hr wage is not going to raise someone into affluence, or even do
    much in terms of providing even a marginally better life.  What it does
    is give the liberals an arguing point and make them look caring and
    compassionate, when all they are doing is increasing dependence on a
    government that has no responsibility to the private sector.
    
    Also, when I made reference to the increased government involvement
    after the Korean war I was including the ultimate impact of the social
    legislation, etc that came about after WWII.
    
    If the government really cared about individual improvement they would
    tie any handout, which the minimum wage law is, to a discrete and
    measurable increase in personal skills.  If you are in a job that
    requires minimum wage handouts, then you must be enrolled in a
    educational program to achieve a high school degree as well vocational
    training to increase your usable skills.
    
    I think you will find fewer and fewer people participating if they
    actually have to put in some effort.
    
    We have created a society that takes no personal responsibility and
    punishes any evidence of success.
    

    Bottom line is that, for the first time in our history, the majority of
    the succeeding generation can expect to be less well off than their
    parents. We're moving toward the *second* generation in this boat.
    
    Stale old talk about how this is the result of taxation or minimum
    wages that are closer to the poverty level simply won't materially
    affect the problem.
    
    Kit 

    
    Can this be classified as an "Unfunded Mandate"?
    

    The tried and failed cranking up of the minimum wage with its resultant
    inflation and tax bracket ratcheting won't help either.

    
    Anyway -- is the minimum wage increase likely to go through?
    
    

    Unfortunately, it probably will.

    re: .49 -- Where is the evidence of it cranking up inflation?  There is
    certainly no simple historical correspondence. Inflation and a rising
    minimum wage have no particular connection historically.
    
    And, as I pointed out a while back, the only study that I know of that
    actually had a "control" (the recent NJ-PA study) showed higher job
    growth in minimum wage jobs in the area with the increase (job loss
    being the other oft-repeated but seldom defended mantra).
    
    Kit

    RE: 52
    
    I assume you have additional back up information regarding all of the
    market dynamics in place during the time of your NJ-PA survey.  I
    assume that the economic factors, unemployment rates, local taxes,
    incentives, etc were all identical and the only deciding factor was the
    minimum wage.  I would tend to think that those two states are
    significantly different from an industrial base, etc that trying to
    identify one factor is quite difficult.  In addition, PA is basically a
    manufacturing environment that pays above minimum to start with.  Nj,
    and particularly Atlantic City provide many service type jobs.  So if
    your study was done when new Casinos, hotels, etc were opening, they
    would have needed to hire additional workers whether there was minimum
    wage or not.  In fact, I suppose it's possible that starting wages were
    held down because of the minimum since the employers could point to the
    minimum as the prevailing wage and it would difficult for folks to
    argue.
    
    How job losses occur due to increases in the minimum is more through
    incremental hires as opposed to lopping off current employees.  So
    trying to find  a statistic on an employee avoided is rather difficult.
    
    The basic issue is still why argue about a wage level that still leaves
    people below the poverty line.  Unless you are going to fully support a
    $20K-$25K minimum salary any discussion is pure politics and has no
    bearing whatsoever on actually increasing an individuals' earinings.
    
    Institute policies that truly reward success and you will see more
    people strive for success.  As a simple example, lower the tax rate on
    higher incomes.  You will see many more people work harder to get to
    that hirer income then if you tax income at increasing rates.  All you
    do is punish success and provide a de-motivation to achieve higher
    earnings.  At the same time you provide a ridiculous sop to those who
    think the government is their sugar daddy and will take care of them.
    

   Note 282.36

   >Those who support a minimum wage, guaranteed
   >standard of living, etc apparently beleive that the government, through
   >their efforts, can remove the basic rules of economics and provide for
   >everyone.

    Actually, some of us simply believe that if business wants to get credit
    for being good corporate citizens by creating jobs, then those jobs should
    be decent, life-supporting positions, as opposed to virtual slave-labour.
    ("Good jobs at good wages.")
    
   >As the earlier statistics indicate the largest percentage, and in
   >absolute terms quite small, are those without a high school education. 
   >I tend to think that the cause and effect are rather self-evident.

    If you are referring to the stats in .15, then you are mistaken; the stats
    show that approx. 55% have a high school diploma or better.  In real terms
    that is over one million people, not "quite small" in my books.  However,
    if in your books that *is* "quite small", then I have to ask how big an
    impact that increase (what is it, $0.90?) will have on the overall economy?
    
   >As I asked earlier, how many people work at minimum wage jobs and are
   >the primary wage earner in a family?
  
    What does this have to do with it?  If a minimum wage worker is not the 
    primary wage earner, it is unlikely that the other wage earner is raking
    in big-time cash.  Why would the secondary earner work for $4.25 flipping
    burgers if they didn't *have* to?
    
   Note 282.46

   >This must really be a very difficult concept for some people to
   >understand.

    Not everyone who disagrees with you has comprehension difficulties.

   >dictating what a person is going to be paid, as opposed to
   >letting the market determine wages is both detrimental and
   >counter-productive.

    I think that the absence of a minimum wage would be detrimental to all,
    especially in tough economic times.  Employers will simply cut wages and
    challenge their employess to do anything about it.  "Can't afford to work
    for $3?  Too bad, I'll find someone else who will."  Employees will be 
    forced to bid against each other, in a downward direction.  The recent
    recession should be all the evidence you need of that.  In droves, 
    employers laid off workers and contracted the work out at substantially
    lower wages.  When push comes to shove, the company *will not* do the
    right thing by their employees.  

   >The new dictated wage only inflates all figures,
   >thereby requiring another round of wage increases, and provides a
   >dis-incentive to those at the lower rungs to skill up.

    IMHO, the lack of a decent minimum wage would just lead to increased 
    unionization, which will drive wages a lot higher than $5.00.  
    
   >As was stated earlier a
   >$5.00/hr wage is not going to raise someone into affluence, or even do
   >much in terms of providing even a marginally better life.  What it does
   >is give the liberals an arguing point and make them look caring and
   >compassionate

    This may be true, but in that respect it differs little from most things
    elected officials *ever* say or do.
    
   >If the government really cared about individual improvement they would
   >tie any handout, which the minimum wage law is

    Bullspit.  *Welfare* is a handout.  You try working 40 hours a week as a
    line cook for $4.25/hr, then tell me about what a "handout" your paycheque
    is.  Let's not forget here, as Tom mentioned earlier, SOMEBODY in society
    has to cook the food, take out the trash, wash the floors, clean the 
    toilets, sew the garments, etc, etc.  We all want these things to be done
    by someone (we INSIST that they get done), but we scorn the individuals
    who do this work, almost as much as we scorn people who sit at home doing
    nothing and collecting as much (if not more) as a guy who does $4.25/hr 
    work.

   >to a discrete and measurable increase in personal skills.  If you are 
   >in a job that requires minimum wage handouts, then you must be enrolled
   >in a educational program to achieve a high school degree as well 
   >vocational training to increase your usable skills.

    You're worried about paying the wages of the unskilled in the form of
    higher prices (inflation).  Would you rather pay for another government
    program, via taxes?
    
   >I think you will find fewer and fewer people participating if they
   >actually have to put in some effort.

    My guess is, people who are working at McD's instead of pulling welfare
    are willing to put some effort into bettering themselves.  Kind of hard
    to pay for nightschool on $4.25/hr, though.
    
   >We have created a society that takes no personal responsibility and
   >punishes any evidence of success.

    If only it were that black-and-white.
    
    By the way, the Province of Ontario, where I reside, has a minimum wage
    somewhere around $6/hr, and our economy is still fairly decent, taking
    the recession into account.  I personally have done better in Ontario
    than I could have anywhere else in the country, with relatively few
    skills.  Minimum wage, rather than stifling my ambition, helped keep me
    from being stuck in a poverty rut.

    jc
    

    
    In .54, I asked what impact this increase would have on the economy.
    
    Now, neither math nor economics are my strong suit (:^), but I took
    the liberty of doing some calcs based on the figures in .15, and...
    
    Assuming: - 2.5 million minimum wage earners
              - one-third working and average of 40 hrs/week
              - two-thirds working an average of 24 hrs/week
              - all working 52 weeks a year
              - that the increase will not result in fewer workers
                 earning minimum wage
     
    ...I estimated that business would end up paying out an additional 
    $3.41 billion/year in wages after the increase.  I don't have GNP
    figures handy, so I can't say what that represents as a percentage.
    
    I think something to bear in mind, though, is that very little of that
    money will be invested or saved; these are people who can't afford big
    savings accounts.  It will probably all be spent on goods and services,
    which should reduce the impact to the overall ecomomy.
    
    jc
    

    
   Note 282.53 
    
   >The basic issue is still why argue about a wage level that still leaves
   >people below the poverty line.  Unless you are going to fully support a
   >$20K-$25K minimum salary any discussion is pure politics and has no
   >bearing whatsoever on actually increasing an individuals' earinings.
    
    One assumes that *you* wouldn't support a minumum hourly wage of
    $9.60.
    
   >Institute policies that truly reward success and you will see more
   >people strive for success.  As a simple example, lower the tax rate on
   >higher incomes.  You will see many more people work harder to get to
   >that hirer income then if you tax income at increasing rates.  All you
   >do is punish success and provide a de-motivation to achieve higher
   >earnings. 
    
    Hmmmm...cut taxes on the rich...and poverty will begin to dissipate?
    Why do I doubt that?  However, let's take it as a given that this one
    "simple" example is valid.  Do you have any other suggestions, or is
    this your only solution to the problem of poverty?  Minimum wage may
    not prevent poverty; does anyone here know what will?
    
    My guess is that people like ourselves don't stop striving just because 
    we're worried that we'll move into a higher tax bracket.  I didn't.  Did
    you?  Did *anyone* here in Soapbox slack off just because of the threat 
    of an impending higher tax bracket?
    
    jc
    

    Re: 54
    
    Boy, your response just begs for an answer it's difficult to know
    exactly where to begin to rebut the points you raised.  but just to get
    things in perspective, let's start with your first point.  Corporations
    and businesses are in business for one reason only.  the issue you
    raise about good corporate citizen, etc, etc are just Marketing fluff
    put out to influence you to buy their products.  Businesses are run in
    order to return a profit to investors above that which they could
    obtain in an alternate investment.  Businesses are not charitable
    institutions.  They exisat because someone invests in them and is
    expecting a return equivalent to the risk involved.  Digital has always
    been a good corproate citizen, but if they didn't put away a whole hell
    of a lot of money over the years, and paid it out instead then we all
    would be out of work now, since we couldn't have absorbed the losses we
    had.
    
    Second only 33% of minimum wage earners work full time and 57 % are
    under the age of 24.  So I would assume that a reasonable proprotion of
    those employed full time are actually living at home and are not
    supporting themselves or a family.  Also, how many work at these jobs
    for an extended period.  If I was TFSO'd I would grab the first job I
    could while I looked for another job.  So I could be counted as a
    primary wage earner working a a minimum wage job.  Most likely, I would
    not be in that job very long.  So the whole argument around #s and
    statistics is full of holes.
    
    Also, my statement lumping the minimum wage with handouts is that
    anything that you get without earning it i.e., your efforts result in
    what you get as opposed to someone dictating what you get constitutes a
    handout to me.
    
    Also, when I said that people should be improving their skills I never
    mentioned nor implied a government program to provide those skills or
    funding.  Why did you assume that the government would have to fund
    such training.  Another example of "don't make me responsible, let the
    govenment do it" mentality.
    
    Lastly, If $4.25 isn't enough, and $5.00 is better, then $8.00 or
    $10.00 or even $12.00 would be better still.  If you can not support a
    $12.00 minimum wage because the reasons opposing are intuitively
    obvious, the same applies to any minimum wage.  If not, then your
    argument should be to raise the minimum to $12.00.
    

re .54:

>    By the way, the Province of Ontario, where I reside, has a minimum wage
>    somewhere around $6/hr, and our economy is still fairly decent, taking
>    the recession into account.

What's a Canadian $ worth nowadays in terms of a US $?  If it's $0.70 US
(what I remember, probably wrong) your minimum wage is $4.20/hr US, so you're
actually worse than us in the minimum wage department.


A minimum wage increase has different effects depending on local economy and
cost of living.  Where the cost of living is high and economy good, normal
market forces already have low end wages above minimum and the people earning
them won't see much if any increase from them, but subject to normal market
forces.  Where the cost of living is low the minimum wage is "worth" more
than elsewhere and these people get a great benefit - if they keep their
job.  Business is less likely to relocate there from a more expensive area
(since the wage differencial from expensive to cheap areas of the country)
so areas such as West Virginia mountains won't see the same effect as
NYC metro area or Boston.

    Re: 56
    
    As far as your question about the causes of poverty and what would end
    it, unfortunately there is no one cause of poverty and therefore not
    one cure.  The one thing that is certain is that government programs
    won't end it, and neither will a $5.00 minimum wage.
    
    An education sytem that teaches basic skills and responsibilities and
    insists on equal performance standards would be a good start.  Second,
    intact families would be  a significant benefit, and the destruction of
    the fgamily is another topic entirely.  Eliminating government programs
    that make people think of the government as a solution instead of
    themselves.  Once people focus on what they can do, should do must do
    and need to do without government interference then you will begin to
    see progress.
    
    Is this something that can be done in a year, 2, 5,10.  Not sure, but
    it took several decades to get where we're at.  It think it only right
    to give an alternative quite a few years to see if things turn around.
    

   Note 282.57

   >You disagree, but prove your point.

    My "point" is an opinion.  I'm not an economics egghead, so I can't
    "prove" that a minimum wage won't have detrimental effects.  Can you
    "prove" that it will?  Nothing I've seen so far suggests that you can.
    In Ontario we have a generous minumum wage, and I've never heard anyone
    complain that it was anything but too low.  Toronto is still considered
    one of the top ten cities worldwide for business to locate.
    
   >Corporations
   >and businesses are in business for one reason only.  the issue you
   >raise about good corporate citizen, etc, etc are just Marketing fluff
   >put out to influence you to buy their products.  Businesses are run in
   >order to return a profit to investors above that which they could
   >obtain in an alternate investment.  Businesses are not charitable
   >institutions.  They exist because someone invests in them and is
   >expecting a return equivalent to the risk involved. 

    Corporations *also* do not operate in a vacuum.  The money they make
    does not materialize out of thin air...it is taken from the customer
    base (that's you and me).  For them to have a viable business, the
    society that contains their customer base has to have a disposable
    income.  The society has to have an infrastructure.  The society has
    to need, to want, and to be able to afford the product.  In short,
    if they want to *take* from that society, they have to put back in, too.
    Business can no more be separated from the fabric of society than the
    population, the government, the land, or the mores.

   >Second only 33% of minimum wage earners work full time and 57 % are
   >under the age of 24.  So I would assume that a reasonable proprotion of
   >those employed full time are actually living at home and are not
   >supporting themselves or a family.

    Apart from the thing age (and that itself is a shaky assumption), I don't
    see how the second sentence follows the first, but it still doesn't 
    matter.  A person who works hard, regardless of the skill level, should
    be able to bring home a living wage.  If minimum wage doesn't keep pace
    with reality, then you're going to find that people will simply stop
    doing the crap work and pull welfare, or turn to crime.  Then you'll
    *really* be paying for it.

   >So the whole argument around #s and statistics is full of holes.

    Perhaps that's because you haven't got any?
    
   >Also, my statement lumping the minimum wage with handouts is that
   >anything that you get without earning it i.e., your efforts result in
   >what you get as opposed to someone dictating what you get constitutes a
   >handout to me.

    Still bullspit, but you're welcome to repeat it as often as you like.
    A person works -> THEN -> s/he gets paid.  No handout.

    Have you ever stood in line at the <mumble> store and wonder how anyone
    could be as stupid as the cashier?  Well, the smart people in society
    don't become cashiers, they become rocket scientists and brain surgeons.
    The lower the wage for that job, the stupider that cashier is going to be.
    But there's no reason the cashier has to be stupid.  The job still needs
    to be done right, regardless of how simple it is, and if *you* want it 
    done right, then you should be prepared to pay for it.

    And, of course, there is always going to HAVE to be SOMEONE at that cash
    desk.  Whay can't that person be able to earn a living wage?  Somebody's
    got to do it, and that person needs food, clothing and shelter every bit
    as much as, say, you or I (and may, incidentally, be making a more
    valuable contribution to daily life).
    
   >Also, when I said that people should be improving their skills I never
   >mentioned nor implied a government program to provide those skills or
   >funding.  Why did you assume that the government would have to fund
   >such training.

    Well, whose gonna pay for the training, then?  Do you think someone
    earning $4.25 has a lot of money left over for school?

   >Another example of "don't make me responsible, let the govenment do it"
   >mentality.

    So wrong.  See above.  *You* suggested "improving their skills".  How?
    Also, you fail to see the ultimate beauty of this minimum wage thing.
    The free market forces that you claim are being subverted here are
    actually at your disposal.  Don't want to pay $5 for a Big Mac to
    support unskilled labour?  Then vote with your pocket book.  You don't
    get that choice if the person quits and goes on welfare.
    
   >Lastly, If $4.25 isn't enough, and $5.00 is better, then $8.00 or
   >$10.00 or even $12.00 would be better still.  If you can not support a
   >$12.00 minimum wage because the reasons opposing are intuitively
   >obvious, the same applies to any minimum wage.

    Sorry, but any number of ridiculous, and unreal, figures can be floated
    out to take the argument to either extreme.  Neither is helpful to the
    debate.  $5 is more realistic than $12, and you *know* this.
    
   Note 282.59

    I basically agree with everything you said in .59, except for:
    
   >The one thing that is certain [about poverty] is that government programs
   >won't end it, and neither will a $5.00 minimum wage.

    Possibly not.  But I firmly believe that by ensuring that workers in
    tough economies aren't forced into accepting $3/hr jobs, we can prevent
    *some* people from slipping into the poverty rut, and I doubt that the
    overall cost to society outweighs the benefits. The example of my own 
    personal life, as well as the Ontario economy as a whole, supports my
    position. You are invited to provide the facts that prove me wrong. 

    jc
     

    .58:
    
>What's a Canadian $ worth nowadays in terms of a US $?  If it's $0.70 US
>(what I remember, probably wrong) your minimum wage is $4.20/hr US, so you're
>actually worse than us in the minimum wage department.

    The key word in that statement is "nowadays".  My purchasing power here
    here in Canada didn't drop just because our dollar dropped relative to
    yours.  In a few months time it'll be back up to $0.85 US.  Then how 
    will we compare?
    
    The only valid comparison is local purchasing power.  How big/nice an
    apartment will $4.25/hr get you in Boston?  How big/nice will it be
    in Toronto at $6/hr?  How many loaves of bread or litres of milk can I
    buy for $6 in Toronto versus $4.25 in Boston?
    
    jc
    

Note 282.54  
    
    
>    Actually, some of us simply believe that if business wants to get credit
>    for being good corporate citizens by creating jobs, then those jobs should
>    be decent, life-supporting positions, as opposed to virtual slave-labour.
>    ("Good jobs at good wages.")
 
    You are forgetting the  most basic element that drives wages
    up...demand.  If there is no demand for a burger-flipper at McDonald's,
    then wages will be low.  However, if McDonald's is having a problem
    finding burger-flippers at X $/hour, then they will try advertising at
    a higher pay rate to fill the positions.  
    
    Why must we circumvent the economic checks and balances by forcing an
    arbitrary minimum wage?  People don't HAVE to take "slave-labor" jobs,
    after all.  And if no one takes these jobs, the employer will be forced
    to raise the pay if he wishes to fill these jobs.
       
>    If you are referring to the stats in .15, then you are mistaken; the stats
>    show that approx. 55% have a high school diploma or better.  
    
    Right.  Many are college students making some extra money for expenses.
       
>    I think that the absence of a minimum wage would be detrimental to all,
>    especially in tough economic times.  Employers will simply cut wages and
>    challenge their employess to do anything about it.  "Can't afford to work
>    for $3?  Too bad, I'll find someone else who will."
    
    Using an extreme example is not the best way to make a
    point...especially when you use it with speculation.
    
Rocush   >We have created a society that takes no personal responsibility and
Rocush   >punishes any evidence of success.      

    Unfortunately, this is basically true.  Look at the "tax the rich"
    schemes that have only damaged out economy.  They are nothing more than
    economic retribution and class warfare.  It's always rob the rich and
    give to the poor...a Robin Hood society (without the honor of said hero).
      
   
    -steve   

           <<< Note 282.61 by TROOA::COLLINS "Property Of The Zoo" >>>

It's hard to find anything to add to Mr. Collins's eloquent and thorough 
arguments for the minimumm wage, but I'll try :>).

First, the role of government is not just to clear the path for the free 
market. It was never thus reasoned by the FF. It is to guard the LLPoH of 
its citizens against all forms of terrany, from abroad and from within. In 
the time of the revolution and its predominantly agricultural economy, the 
villains were kings and king wannabes. In our very different and complex 
society today, the forces that would rob us of our liberties are not so 
much individuals and institutions and the dynamics of enterprise itself. 
Who can deny that the objective of business is to raise revenues while 
minimizing expenses? And payroll is one such expense. The market also 
applies pressure to wages through pricing. The further down the income 
strata you are, the greater the pressure. As the requirement for skills 
diminishes, the pool of available labor grows. If you don't see the terrany 
of this situation for those at the MW level, you are blind. The MW simply 
says to free-market enterprise, you can push back on your labor pool, but 
only so far. It is  a ligitimate function of a government. It doesn't 
discourage responsibility, it encourages it, because it says that society 
values work at all levels, even if an unfrettered market might not be 
willing to compensate appropriately.

Second, the argument that a good portion of the MW workforce is part-time 
and therefore not breadwinners obscures the fact that most people who are 
responsibly trying to support themselves and their families on MW jobs HAVE 
to work more than one job. The second - or third - jobs are mostly 
part-time. Even at that, they may not be reaching the poverty level, but 
the argument "if you can't give them $20K/year, don't give them any raise
in income" is nonsense, not to mention cruel. 

Finally, most businesses don't mind raising the minimum wage, and many 
welcome it, because they are run by good people who would like to pay 
reasonable wages but their hands are forced by competition in the market 
to suppress wages. The MW may cost them more, but it costs their competition 
the same, so its ok. The only ones hurt by MW regulations are in the 
manufacturing sector, who compete against foreign companies with lower wage 
structures. And they're fighting a lossing battle anyway. The vast 
majority of MW work is in the service sector, where foreign competition is 
a moot point.

Tom

    Note 282.62, Steve:
 
   >You are forgetting the  most basic element that drives wages
   >up...demand.  If there is no demand for a burger-flipper at McDonald's,
   >then wages will be low.  However, if McDonald's is having a problem
   >finding burger-flippers at X $/hour, then they will try advertising at
   >a higher pay rate to fill the positions.

   >Using an extreme example is not the best way to make a
   >point...especially when you use it with speculation.

    You are essentially correct about the demand thing, but I still feel that
    there should be a lower limit to how far wages can drop.  If McD's wants
    to abolish minimum wage, then maybe they *would* like the freedom to cut
    wages to $3/hr.  Then the $3 example doesn't seem extreme at all.  At 
    least, no more extreme than the doom-and-gloom inflation "speculations"
    that have taken place here, as yet unsupported.  
    
   >Why must we circumvent the economic checks and balances by forcing an
   >arbitrary minimum wage?  People don't HAVE to take "slave-labor" jobs,
   >after all.  And if no one takes these jobs, the employer will be forced
   >to raise the pay if he wishes to fill these jobs.

    In tough economic times, yes they *do* have to take those jobs, and grin
    the whole time.  Unless you'd prefer them on welfare, for which you
    currently have no choice of paying.

    On the subject of "econonomic checks and balances", McD's is probably
    the first example that springs to mind of a company that would seize any
    opportunity to circumvent or subvert natural market forces.  Here in
    Toronto, at SkyDome (home of reigning World Series Champions The Toronto
    Blue Jays :^), McD's used its economic leverage to ensure that it has a
    monopoly on food services at the Dome.  You can't buy SQUAT inside the
    Dome unless you buy it from McD's.  There is also an enforced policy 
    against bringing in food from outside the Dome.  And even the Hot Dog
    vendors outside were targetted when McD's set up their own carts and 
    undercut the vendors prices.  

    Sounds like McD's can't stand even a little healthy competition.
       
   >Look at the "tax the rich"
   >schemes that have only damaged out economy.  They are nothing more than
   >economic retribution and class warfare.  It's always rob the rich and
   >give to the poor...a Robin Hood society (without the honor of said hero).
      
    Listen, Steve, I'm no great fan of taxes.  When it comes to taxes, you
    'muricans are rank amateurs compared to Canadians.  We even pay tax on
    tax. No joke.  But this is a tired argument, and I still have yet to see
    anyone admit that graduated tax brackets destroyed their will to succeed.
    Frankly, I view the constant "victim" whining regarding taxes as a form
    of class warfare, with the poor portrayed as the bad guys.  When all is
    said and done, we here in Soapbox enjoy a standard of living that is 
    better than fully 90%, maybe 95% of the people in the world.  

    Pay fair price for that hamburger.  Or bring your lunch.

    jc
  

    a) The minimum wage law does not require any employer to pay the
       minimum wage.  It merely eliminates jobs which pay less.
    
    b) The wage ladder is an essential part of our society and economy;
       climbing the ladder is a way to better one's situation.  The minimum
       wage law chops the bottom rungs off the ladder, putting it out of
       some people's reach.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .65:
    
    IYHO, of course.  And, as yet, unsupported by anything in this string.
    

    
    It surprises me that the minimum wage thing is drawing such ire.
    If anything can be said to have unnaturally inflated wages for 
    unskilled labour, it is unionization.  And it has done so, not to
    the tune of $0.90/hr, but to the tune of $2, $5, $10/hr, and for
    vaster numbers of people than will be affected by this minimum
    wage hike.
    
    Maybe people should be more outraged at what an automotive worker
    makes, or a garbageman, or a bus driver, or a snow-plow operator,
    or a construction labourer, or just about *any* civil servant.
    
    These are the positions that are taking the *real* chunk of your
    cheque, everytime you buy a car, or a house, or a dishwasher, or
    (for that matter) pay taxes.
    
    IMHO, of course.  :^)
    
    jc
    

re .61:

>    .58:
>    
>>What's a Canadian $ worth nowadays in terms of a US $?  If it's $0.70 US
>>(what I remember, probably wrong) your minimum wage is $4.20/hr US, so you're
>>actually worse than us in the minimum wage department.

>    The key word in that statement is "nowadays".  My purchasing power here
>    here in Canada didn't drop just because our dollar dropped relative to
>    yours.  In a few months time it'll be back up to $0.85 US.  Then how 
>    will we compare?

And if pigs could fly...

As of today a Canadian $ is worth less than $0.72 US.  This means your $6/hr
minimum wage is very close to ours, being equivalent to $4.32.
Note all this is before taxes, and you yourself say Americans are wimps
compared to Canada in the taxation department.

If you think that this has nothing to do with local purchasing power, think
again.  Canada and the US are each other's largest trading partners, with much
cross-border trade.  A change in the exchange rate has a large effect on
the prices.

Also if Canadian purchasing power is so great explain the mall they built
in Massena, NY, which is nowhere near large enough to support that size
mall.  But they're doing quite well, being a short drive from a bridge over the
St. Lawrence River, and with all those cars with those license plates with
the little crowns on them in the parking lot...

So are you leading the fight to get your minimum wage raised to $6.94 (oh heck,
make it an even $7) to make it equivalent to the $5 which you think is
appropiate for the US?

    For some reason you keep thinking that dictating a solution will solve
    any problems.  It never has and probably never will.
    
    Minimum wage jobs are just that.  Minimum wage for minimum skill. 
    Artificaially valuing a lack of skill out of so-called "compassion"
    will not imporve the minimum skilled person one bit.  I t will only
    confirm their lack of skills and make them more comfortable with what
    they have.
    
    As far as the Canadian experience with the minimum wage, you can look
    at other developed contries that have different levels of wages and try
    to make similar comparisons.  They are all equally flawed.
    
    The basic issue is who is responsible for the job and salary a person
    has.  I personally beleive an individual has the responsibility to
    change their situation if they are not satisfied, not society and
    certainly not teh government through fiat.
    

>    The basic issue is who is responsible for the job and salary a person
>    has.  I personally beleive an individual has the responsibility to
>    change their situation if they are not satisfied, not society and
>    certainly not teh government through fiat.

Now, why did you have to go and make sense like that, Al?

 
 Note 282.68

>And if pigs could fly...

    Meaning what...that the CDN dollar will never go back up?
    Can you support this?  The CDN dollar fluctuates constantly. It
    generally resides between $0.80 and $0.86 US.

>As of today a Canadian $ is worth less than $0.72 US.  This means your $6/hr
>minimum wage is very close to ours, being equivalent to $4.32.
>Note all this is before taxes, and you yourself say Americans are wimps
>compared to Canada in the taxation department.

    And when our dollar climbs back up to $0.85 US, our minimum wage 
    (in Ontario, since minimum wage is set at the provincial level rather
    than the federal level) will be $5.10 US.  It doesn't matter...the 
    comparison just doesn't work that way.

>If you think that this has nothing to do with local purchasing power, think
>again.  Canada and the US are each other's largest trading partners, with much
>cross-border trade.  A change in the exchange rate has a large effect on
>the prices.

    Granted, some goods will be affected.  A large number will not.
    My rent (my single largest expenditure) will not be.  Most of my
    clothing, which is made either here in Canada or in the third
    world, will not.  Grain products and dairy products will not.

>Also if Canadian purchasing power is so great explain the mall they built
>in Massena, NY.

    Canadians shop south of the border because lower American taxes keep
    retail prices lower there.  The poor exchange rate will offset that
    in the short term.  All of this has nothing to do with minumum wage,
    especially if you keep insisting that they are currently equivalent.

    By the way, when the CDN dollar drops we see a drastic increase in
    American activity here such as motion picture production, which
    thrives on a low CDN dollar.  There *are* some positive aspects to
    Canadian life, believe it or not.

>So are you leading the fight to get your minimum wage raised to $6.94 (oh 
>heck, make it an even $7) to make it equivalent to the $5 which you think is
>appropiate for the US?

    I believe that the minimum wage in Ontario is scheduled to go up to
    $6.50 or $6.70 in the near future.  I have no problem with this.
    I've worked for minimum wage...have you?

    jc

   Note 282.69

   >For some reason you keep thinking that dictating a solution will solve
   >any problems.  It never has and probably never will.

    For some reason *you* keep thinking that minimum wagers are just
    thrilled to be busting their butts for $4.25.
    
   >Minimum wage jobs are just that.  Minimum wage for minimum skill. 
   >Artificaially valuing a lack of skill out of so-called "compassion"
   >will not imporve the minimum skilled person one bit.

    And what about unionization?  How has this artificially inflated wages
    relative to minimum wage?  How big is the impact on *you*, relative
    to minimum wage?
    
   >As far as the Canadian experience with the minimum wage, you can look
   >at other developed contries that have different levels of wages and try
   >to make similar comparisons.  They are all equally flawed.

    The Canadian system is *flawed*?  On what do you base this?  What do
    you have (apart from handguns) that I lack?
    
   >The basic issue is who is responsible for the job and salary a person
   >has.  I personally beleive an individual has the responsibility to
   >change their situation if they are not satisfied, not society and
   >certainly not the government through fiat.

    You still haven't addressed the issue of climbing out of the poverty
    rut.  How does one do that when one is barely able pay their rent and
    phone bill?  And when they do, who does the work they left behind?
    Suppose DEC management circulated a memo saying that, due to punitive
    minimum wage laws, they could no longer afford to pay janitors to clean
    the bathrooms, and that *you* were now going to have to pitch in and
    start scrubbing the toilets?

    How does one arbitrarily put a cash value on a job?  An undercooked
    burger can kill you, and you don't have the time to make dinner.
    How important is that job now, as opposed to an automotive assembly
    line worker sticking foam seal on your car doors?

    jc
    

    Re: 72
    
    You seem to mixing several different issues at the same time.  First of
    all, I agree totally with you that the unions have done more than their
    share in distorting the economy and providing wage rates that were
    destined to lead to the situation we presently have.  Unions certainly
    have a role and a function, but their ridiculous demands and
    managements agreement, have basically eliminated basic manufacturing in
    the US.  Unions still refuse to accept the role in this happening.  Now
    that they have made American goods uncompetitive in many markets they
    want to sceam for protectionism.  They were wrong then and they are
    wrong now.
    
    Your insistence on a minimum wage, unfortunately, is similar to the
    unions wage demands.  They are both without merit.  Union workers
    should have been paid based on their value and so should all workers. 
    An artificail minimum wage does nothing, long term, to correct an
    unskilled workers advancement.  Union workers were happy when they
    forced high wages in the TV, radio, auot, etc industries and did next
    to nothing to improve their basic skills.  they thought their jobs were
    secure forever and never bothered to get additional education or
    training.  Well, the gravy train came to a halt and their jobs are now
    gone forever.
    
    Will erev increasing minimum wage raters cause a similar reduction in
    service jobs?  I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.  You
    example of McD's is a very possible target.  If you keep forcing up
    wage rates, without regard to the underlying economics, then many of
    these folks could be replaced with technology.  You could punch in your
    order and it could be processed by automated equipment and all you
    would need is a cashier.  This would eliminate how many jobs?  Then
    what will your complaint be.
    
    
    btw, I worked at jobs at and below minimum when I was growing up, so I
    know what it's like.  Also, if Digital wanted to get rid of janitors
    and I had to clean the johns in order to keep my job, well where's the
    mop and scrubber.  I don't have a problem doing whatever it takes to
    keep moving forward and I don't expect anyone to pay may any more than
    i am worth.  I will; however, do everything I can to improve my skills
    and make me very valuable to my employer that I don't wind up in that
    situation.  But if I do a minimum wage job will be the first I grab and
    then move on very quickly, if possible.  If it means getting two and
    three jobs and going to night school again, then so be it.  Just keep
    the government and other wrong-headed "do-gooders" out of the economy.
    

     re: .72
    
>    For some reason *you* keep thinking that minimum wagers are just
>    thrilled to be busting their butts for $4.25.
 
    Irrelevant.
    
>    How does one arbitrarily put a cash value on a job? 
    
    Now you've got the right idea.  Take this logic to the next step...how
    does one (government) arbitrarily put a (minimum) cash value on a job?
    
    The market has to decide, not the government.  
    
    We do not understand the meaning of freedom anymore.  Freedom means
    opportunity, not guarantees.  It means you can try to succeed or not. 
    It means that you can succeed without limit or fail utterly...on your
    own merits.
    
  
    -steve

    Re:74
    
    Way to go, Steve.  Very nicely put.
    

   >Note 282.73
    
   >You seem to mixing several different issues at the same time.

    Well, the reason I keep bringing up unions is to put the minimum wage
    issue in perspective.  I think that the overall impact of the minumum
    wage increase will not be significant, and so far in this string no-one
    has shown me any evidence that the reputed `inflation' and `job loss'
    will in fact happen.
    
   >Your insistence on a minimum wage, unfortunately, is similar to the
   >unions wage demands.  They are both without merit. 

    No, I don't agree.  I think the scope of the two issues is vastly
    different, and I also think that poor, disorganized minimum wagers make
    easier targets that organized and politically powerful unions.  AND,
    I also think that if minimum wage doesn't keep pace with reality,
    unions will see this as an opportunity to further increase their power
    base via retail and service sector unionization drives.
    
   >If you keep forcing up
   >wage rates, without regard to the underlying economics, then many of
   >these folks could be replaced with technology.

    Well, automation is a different issue, and one that people in our
    industry are unlikely to argue against.  But the "underlying economics"
    also indicate that a lack of decent-paying jobs for the kind of people
    who (let's face it) will never have the aptitude for higher skills is
    very likely to lead to an increase in welfare rolls and prison 
    population, and *you* will *have* to pay for that.
    
   >I don't have a problem doing whatever it takes to keep moving forward
   >and I don't expect anyone to pay may any more than i am worth.

    Well, I guess our underlying difference here is the value we place on
    that work.  I don't think that $5/hr is more than it's worth.

   >But if I do a minimum wage job will be the first I grab and
   >then move on very quickly, if possible.

    If possible.  Yes.  Me as well.  But what is possible for us, you and
    I, isn't always possible for others, and that's a reality of life,
    regardless of whether you want to admit it.

   >If it means getting two and three jobs and going to night school again,
   >then so be it.

    *If* you can afford the tuition on minimum wage, and *if* those two or
    three jobs leave you any time for class and studying, and *if* your 
    employer is sympathetic to the demands school life will make on your 
    time, etc, etc.

   >Just keep the...wrong-headed "do-gooders" out of the economy.

    I'm sorry you feel that way about me.  :^)

    jc
    

    
    Note 282.74
    
    >Now you've got the right idea.  Take this logic to the next step...how
    >does one (government) arbitrarily put a (minimum) cash value on a job?
    
    By deciding, under public pressure (unless you're convinced that this
    change will *not* pass) that a job that doesn't pay a living wage has
    no value to society other than to widen the gap between rich and poor.
    
    >The market has to decide, not the government.
    
    Where we differ is, you distrust the gov't, in favour of the free
    market.  I distrust the free market just as much as the gov't.  
    
    >We do not understand the meaning of freedom anymore.  Freedom means
    >opportunity, not guarantees.  It means you can try to succeed or not. 
    >It means that you can succeed without limit or fail utterly...on your
    >own merits.
    
    Freedom also means first come first served.  What happens when all the
    good jobs are full?  Are there and infinite supply of good jobs in this
    world?  If not, who gets stuck with the crap?  Are there an infinite
    supply of jobs, period?  If not, what happens to those without?  A sort
    of social musical chairs, where the loser drops out of the game, and
    then, in this kind of case, gets villified by the lucky ones (and don't
    kid yourselves...we here ARE the lucky ones) for pulling welfare or 
    committing crimes.
    
    Somebody, anybody, please demonstrate that this increase will genuinely
    be problematic for society, as opposed to the option of leaving the
    minimum wage where it is, or even abolishing it completely.
    
    jc
    

    
    But that would work itself out as well.  That is until organized labor
    got in bed with the politiskunks.  This made it much more difficult.
    
    
    Mike

re .71:

>>And if pigs could fly...
>
>    Meaning what...that the CDN dollar will never go back up?
>    Can you support this?  The CDN dollar fluctuates constantly. It
>    generally resides between $0.80 and $0.86 US.

There would have to be a relative change between the US and Canadian economies
of 11% for the Canadian dollar to increase to $0.80  It is possible, especially
if the US government screws up and causes the US dollar to fall.  (However
because of the heavy US/Canada trade the CDN $ may be dragged along with it)
Just not that likely in the short term.  What would you expect to happen that
would make all of Canada as a whole worth at least 11% more in the short term?

>    And when our dollar climbs back up to $0.85 US, our minimum wage 

If.  And if it falls to $0.60 US they'll be hurting.

>    (in Ontario, since minimum wage is set at the provincial level rather
>    than the federal level)

This is actually good since the cost of living varies by area.  As I said
in Appalachia(sp) there will be a large effect in a minimum wage increase.  In
the Boston area with higher prices fewer places pay minimum wage (I don't think
even McDonald's does, I know the McDonalds in Maynard posted offered wages
during the late 80s boom, they reached $6/hr at one point)

>>If you think that this has nothing to do with local purchasing power, think
>>again.  Canada and the US are each other's largest trading partners, with much
>>cross-border trade.  A change in the exchange rate has a large effect on
>>the prices.
>
>    Granted, some goods will be affected.  A large number will not.
>    My rent (my single largest expenditure) will not be.  Most of my
>    clothing, which is made either here in Canada or in the third
>    world, will not.  Grain products and dairy products will not.

You also have to consider how Canadian inflation is affected by expensive
US imports which a low CDN $ causes.  This _will_ affect your rent if your
landlord can raise it according to the value of your apartment, which will
be affected by inflation.  Also the price of non-US imports such as your
clothes _will_ be higher if the CDN $ is "low" compared to other currencies
such as that from the third world nation(s).  (If the price is about the
same as when the CDN $ was $0.80 US [whenever that was] it means the US $ is
unusually high compared to other currencies in general which I don't think
is the case)

>    Canadians shop south of the border because lower American taxes keep
>    retail prices lower there.

Which means your buying power isn't as great as you claim, therefore your
$6 minimum wage isn't as great as you claim.

>    By the way, when the CDN dollar drops we see a drastic increase in
>    American activity here such as motion picture production, which
>    thrives on a low CDN dollar.

Yup.  Beware of inflation eating away at your purchasing power as Americans
(and others) buy your cheaper (to us) goods and your own people stay home
more.

>  There *are* some positive aspects to Canadian life, believe it or not.

Did I claim there wasn't?  (Toronto is a beautiful city.  I visited adjancent
Canada not infrequently when in Buffalo and Massena, much of it is quite nice)

>    I've worked for minimum wage...have you?

Yup.  Had some trouble finding it when I first went looking for work. Don't
know for sure if it was due to a mild recession at the time or a recent
increase in minimum wage that had just gone into effect. 

I am not necessarily against a minimum wage increase.  It may not have too
much effect locally since things are already expensive here.  I am against
people believing you can just raise minimum wage and the poor will live
happily ever after.  If the low end job market is elastic, unemployment
among these people will increase.  If it's inelastic inflation will increase.
(Reality will be somewhere in between)  People must realize this and take it
into account.

Note 282.79:

>There would have to be a relative change between the US and Canadian economies
>of 11% for the Canadian dollar to increase to $0.80
>What would you expect to happen that
>would make all of Canada as a whole worth at least 11% more in the short term?

    The Canadian dollar has been at $0.70 US before, and then gone back up
    to $0.86 US.  I see no reason why it shouldn't happen again.

>>    And when our dollar climbs back up to $0.85 US, our minimum wage 
    
>If.  And if it falls to $0.60 US they'll be hurting.

    No...because we (well, some of us, me included) are not spending our money
    in the US, we are spending it in Canada.

>You also have to consider how Canadian inflation is affected by expensive
>US imports which a low CDN $ causes.  This _will_ affect your rent if your
>landlord can raise it according to the value of your apartment, which will
>be affected by inflation.

    This province is rent-controlled, but the value of the units is 
    determined by the vacancy rate, not inflation.

>Also the price of non-US imports such as your clothes _will_ be higher if the
>CDN $ is "low" compared to other currencies such as that from the third world
>nation(s).

    I believe that we are still strong relative to third-world currencies,
    but don't quote me on that.

>>    Canadians shop south of the border because lower American taxes keep
>>    retail prices lower there.
    
>Which means your buying power isn't as great as you claim, therefore your
>$6 minimum wage isn't as great as you claim.

    I didn't make any claim about relative buying powers, I asked the
    question about rent and bread prices in Boston versus Toronto, relative
    to the minimum wage.  Possibly you do have greater buying power, being
    the richest nation on Earth.  If so, why is this increase a problem?
    Do you think that the Canadian standard of living is poor?  I seem
    to have enough money left over after the bills are paid to spend a
    grotesque amount on beer.  :^)

>Beware of inflation eating away at your purchasing power as Americans
>(and others) buy your cheaper (to us) goods and your own people stay home
>more.

    I thought selling our goods and services was going to be a good thing for 
    us, especially if the amount you spend up here outstrips the amount we 
    spend down there (which *will* drop as a result of the current exchange 
    rate, and drop even further if Clinton institutes the border crossing fee).

>I am against people believing you can just raise minimum wage and the poor 
>will live happily ever after.

    I don't think anyone here has claimed that.  I'm simply saying that the
    rate should be subject to periodic review and increase to ensure it keeps
    pace with cost of living.  Otherwise, people will just look for other
    options, and those options may not be beneficial to society.

>If the low end job market is elastic, unemployment among these people will 
>increase.  If it's inelastic inflation will increase. (Reality will be 
>somewhere in between)  People must realize this and take it into account.

    Which is what people here keep *claiming*, but...

    Do you think the $0.90 increase is too much?  Others here would do
    away with minimum wage entirely.  Would you?

    jc

.64>    And even the Hot Dog
>    vendors outside were targetted when McD's set up their own carts and 
>    undercut the vendors prices.  
>
>    Sounds like McD's can't stand even a little healthy competition.
    
    	No.  Sounds more like McD's CREATED a little healthy competition.

    
    Note 282.81
    
    	>No.  Sounds more like McD's CREATED a little healthy competition.
    
    Tell that to the independent hot dog vendor who owns his own cart and
    can barely speak English.  Do you think that he has a hope in hell
    of competing with McD's, especially if McD's is selling their dogs at
    artificially low prices?
    
    C'mon Joe.  Think!  This vendor is doing EXACTLY what you reich-
    wingers claim he should be...busting his butt in the freezing cold or
    sweltering heat to provide for himself and his family, instead of
    sponging off others.  McD's doesn't *need* the revenue, they just
    begrudge it the vendors.
    
    That's cool in your books?  Well it wasn't here.  It turned into a
    public relations nightmare for McD's, as well it should have.
    

>	However, here are some questions to consider: how do we pay for this?  
> Answer: we can't.  If we ordered all Mickey D's and Burger Kings to pay this 
> salary, they would be out of business.  Also, the government can't afford to
> give everyone $20,000/year.  So, what do we do?
>
>	What I did with the basenote was to demonstrate absurdity by being 
> absurd.  We can't help the people by raising the minimum wage because the 
    
    It may not be absurd ... maybe not a wise thing to do but not
    necessarily absurd.  First change your rule to guarentee everyone at
    least $20,000/year (i.e., the government only pays the difference
    between your current salary and $20,000).  Second fund this by
    eliminating NEA, REA, Amtrack, Agricultutre subsidies, charge market
    rates for grazing on public lands, charge market rates for timber taken
    from pulic lands, charge market rates for mining on public lands.  
    
    Now how far apart are you?  Need more go after mortgage deductions,
    make social security need based, etc.  We certainly could afford to
    provide a rock solid mininmum living standard for the poor but it would
    require cutting the heck out of entitlements and create (IMO) a very
    questionable reward system. 
          
    GReg
                                                         

    
    You could free up $15 billion right off the bat by disbanding the DEA.
    
    Of course, then you've got all those unemployed agents to deal with.
    
    :^)
    

    > You could free up $15 billion right off the bat by disbanding the DEA.
    
    > Of course, then you've got all those unemployed agents to deal with.
    
    
    	You make that sound like a bad thing 8-)

    Until we get over this "big business is evil" mind block, I hold little
    hope of seeing any real problems being addressed.

    
    .85
    
    >You make that sound like a bad thing 8-)
    
    Hey, man, I saw `Under Siege' and `In The Line Of Fire'.
    I know what happens when federal agents lose their jobs!  ;^)
    

    
    Note 282.86

    >Until we get over this "big business is evil" mind block, I hold little
    >hope of seeing any real problems being addressed.
    
    Sorry to be so obtuse, Steve, but I think blind faith in Big Business
    is as dangerous as blind faith in Big Government, Big Labour, or Big
    Religion.  In all cases, good is possible (probable, even), but "evil"
    as well, if they aren't watched closely.
    
    Granted only 24 hours have elapsed since I joined this fray, but I
    (and maybe Kit and Tom) am (are) still waiting for evidence to support
    the oft-repeated warnings that this minimum wage increase will start 
    an inflationary snowball and result in a net loss of unskilled jobs. 

    jc
    

	.82
        
>    Tell that to the independent hot dog vendor who owns his own cart and
>    can barely speak English.  Do you think that he has a hope in hell
>    of competing with McD's, especially if McD's is selling their dogs at
>    artificially low prices?
    
    	What is "artificially low"?  If McD's outprices the independent
    	vendor, will they raise their prices after he leaves?  If so,
    	why can't the independent return to reclaim his niche in the
    	higher-priced market?  If not, then the consumer gets what he
    	wants -- a lower-priced hot dog.   Why should we be subsidizing
    	higher-priced hot dog prices for vendors who can "barely speak
    	English"?
    
>    C'mon Joe.  Think!  This vendor is doing EXACTLY what you reich-
>    wingers claim he should be...busting his butt in the freezing cold or
>    sweltering heat to provide for himself and his family, instead of
>    sponging off others.  
    
    	Forcing me to pay for a higher-priced hot dog *IS* sponging off 
    	of me!  If McD's can do it cheaper for me, great!
    
>    McD's doesn't *need* the revenue, they just
>    begrudge it the vendors.
    
    	McD's "needs" the revenue (from an economics standpoint) just
    	as much as the other vendor.  Business isn't a welfare system.
    	Profits go to the one who earns the business, not to the one
    	that has the greater personal needs relative to the other
    	vendors.  That's why quota hiring is wrong.  That's why the
    	awarding of government contracts solely on the basis of
    	the race of the owners is wrong.  That's why forcing businesses
    	to pay unskilled laborers more than they are worth through
    	increased minimum wages is wrong.

re .80:

>    The Canadian dollar has been at $0.70 US before, and then gone back up
>    to $0.86 US.  I see no reason why it shouldn't happen again.

It'll still need a reason for a relative increase of 20%.

>>>    And when our dollar climbs back up to $0.85 US, our minimum wage 
>    
>>If.  And if it falls to $0.60 US they'll be hurting.
>
>    No...because we (well, some of us, me included) are not spending our money
>    in the US, we are spending it in Canada.

You don't seem to understand economics.  You _will_ be hurting even if you
never set foot in the US.  If your $ falls to $0.60 US, everything that you buy
that is imported from the US (that's quite a bit of stuff) goes up in price
20%.  Everything that's Canadian made that's made from US imported raw
materials goes up in price.  Everything that's imported from other countries
goes up in price by the amount that your $ fell (US $ could have gone up
causing some of the CDN $'s "fall")  Everything that hasn't gone up in price
is being bought by those from the US because of the 20% discount, supply
and demand says these prices will go up shortly.  Business will be good for
you guys if you can stand the inflation, and if the businesses can stand
the price increases.

>    This province is rent-controlled, but the value of the units is 
>    determined by the vacancy rate, not inflation.

Short term yes.  Long term the increased cost of building materials means
new/replacement apartments won't be built as much, and existing units won't be
repaired as well.  The supply goes down and the price goes up and/or the
quality goes down.  If the rents are controlled the latter will happen.

>>Beware of inflation eating away at your purchasing power as Americans
>>(and others) buy your cheaper (to us) goods and your own people stay home
>>more.
>
>    I thought selling our goods and services was going to be a good thing for 
>    us, especially if the amount you spend up here outstrips the amount we 
>    spend down there (which *will* drop as a result of the current exchange 
>    rate, and drop even further if Clinton institutes the border crossing fee).

Business will be good, but if business gets too good you get inflation.

>>If the low end job market is elastic, unemployment among these people will 
>>increase.  If it's inelastic inflation will increase. (Reality will be 
>>somewhere in between)  People must realize this and take it into account.

>    Which is what people here keep *claiming*, but...

A company makes widgets and sells them for $4.00 each, which includes
$2.00 for minimum wage labor necessary, $1.90 raw material and overhead,
and 0.10 profit.  Now a 20% increase is made in the labor, so it now costs
$2.40 each.  What happens now?

A second company can import widgets from the third world for $4.10 each
including shipping here.  There is no quality difference.  Now what happens
after the 20% labor wage increase? 

>    Do you think the $0.90 increase is too much?

If it forces too many people out of work or causes enough inflation to do
more harm than good, yes.  Otherwise no.

>  Others here would do away with minimum wage entirely.  Would you?

Keep it as an abusive limit to help protect those who don't really understand
how things work.

    Re:                <<< Note 282.86 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

    >Until we get over this "big business is evil" mind block, I hold little
    >hope of seeing any real problems being addressed.
    
    I don't think business is "evil".  I just don't think that people
    running the businesses give a damn about much else beyond their
    business.  My dad is a pharmacist.  His business is like a family
    member.  Attack his business, and he fights back - hard.  
    
    My brother is a pharmacist, too.  You know, healer type, caring for the
    sick, all that rot.  He is *so pissed* about having to make all these
    modifications to his store so its handicapped accessible.  He doesn't
    even plan on doing anything about it until the first complaint is
    filed.
    
    Now, I like my dad and my brother.  And generally speaking, they are
    good, decent, hard working folks.  But they will be the first to tell
    you that you "can't run a business" by being worried about every other
    Tom, Dick and Harry that comes by.  You are in it for YOURSELF.
    
    This is a fine attitude for winning football games, but it doesn't do
    much to make life liveable for those around you (other than your
    family, and the recipients of your hard earned bucks - other
    businesses).  
    
    Things might be different if EVERYONE was in business for him/herself. 
    But we have a mix of business owners and worker bees.  As long as we
    have a mix, then we need a mix of government and free capitalism to
    balance each other out (actually, I'd argue we ALWAYS need government).
    
    But the main point is that businesses will never police themselves, or
    selflessly work for the good of others.  They aren't "evil".  Its just
    their nature (like the scorpion :-). They only do things in their best
    interest.  Government just tries to make sure that things that kill
    people aren't in the businesses' best interest, and things that make
    life better for people, like being able to eat a decent meal once a
    month, are.
    

    Note 282.89:
        
    	>What is "artificially low"?

    Selling below cost to drive out competition.  I don't know for sure that
    McD's was doing that per se, but at the very least they were utilizing
    their massive buying power and minimum wage policies to bully the indep-
    endents.  Once the McD's carts appeared, public hue and cry forced McD's 
    to back off.  The PEOPLE (you remember them?) said they were sick of 
    McD's constant monopolization of the food service in the Dome area.

        >If McD's outprices the independent
    	>vendor, will they raise their prices after he leaves?

    If you saw the prices they charge inside, you'd know the answer is:
    of course.

        >If so, why can't the independent return to reclaim his niche 
        >in the higher-priced market?

    What happens to the vendor in the meantime?  Welfare?  How long until he
    can return, and how long will he last when he does?

    	>Why should we be subsidizing higher-priced hot dog prices for 
        >vendors who can "barely speak English"?

    For the same reason people subsidize DEC employees by buying our stuff
    (often at much more than it's worth in the market).  Because we *all*
    subsidize each other, Joe, every day of the week.  You are not insulated
    from the difficulties of a man in this situation.  You have all refused
    to acknowledge the point I have been making...you can pay him to work or
    you can pay him to sit at home or you can pay to keep him in prison, BUT
    YOU WILL PAY FOR HIM, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, just as he pays for you everytime
    he buys buns from a bakery that uses DEC PCs or pays tax to a government
    that spends the money on VAXes.
    
        >McD's "needs" the revenue (from an economics standpoint) just
    	>as much as the other vendor.  Business isn't a welfare system.

    This is why people like you scare me, Joe.  Your insistence that business
    is morally or ethically neutral may fit in with your little reich-wyng
    fantasy world, but out here where the humans live it simply isn't so.
    To you, right and wrong is defined by nothing more than what a business
    *can* do.  You never bother to wonder whether the business *should* do
    it.  You spend a lot of time preaching about morals in here, Joe.  Family
    values, sexual behaviour, answering to a higher calling.  Is anything that
    is permissible, right?  Not according to you.  So why in this case, Joe?
    What law says I can't cut ahead of you in line at the supermarket or spread
    nasty rumours about your mother?  None.  Does that mean I should?  Or does
    my sense of fair play, do my morals, and do my ethics, say that I 
    shouldn't?  If I see you drop a $20 bill on the ground, should I tell you?
    Why?  After all, it's not stealing; you lost it!

    McD's was wrong.  If they weren't, they would still be out there 
    selling hot dogs.
    
    My guess is, since the price of hot dogs seems to have got your shorts in
    a knot, is that you don't really care at all if this increase results in a
    net loss of jobs.  Your concern is with inflation, and specifically, (in 
    your best Herb Tarlek voice:), "How does this affect ME?"  For a group who 
    whines about the victim mentality so much, there seem to be a lot of 
    middle-class professionals in here who appear to feel victimized by this
    increase.  Not one of you has been able to demonstrate the extent to which
    you will be robbed, though.  (I know, I know..."If it's one *penny*, it's
    too much!")

    	>That's why forcing businesses to pay unskilled laborers more than 
        >they are worth through increased minimum wages is wrong.

    IYNSHO, Joe.  Me, and apparently a lot of others (if the passage of this
    increase is as sure as Steve claims) think differently.

    Have a large day, Joe.
    

    
    .90, Moroney:
    
    Look, it was not my intention to get into a debate on international 
    exchange rates, import/export, and cross-border shopping.  I have already
    stated that ecomonics is not my forte.  If you think that our dollar 
    won't rise, fine.  I believe it will.  Neither is relevant to the
    discussion of minimum wages.  This started because you think the American
    minimum wage is more generous than in Ontario.  Fine.  I then fully
    support increasing the minimum wage in Ontario to achieve parity with 
    our American bretheren, and I'm sure that position comes as no surprise
    to anyone here.
    
    Now, for the actual issue of minimum wage...you have provided an example
    of how the increase might affect inflation.  Do you have any real-life
    examples?  So far, the only person who has cited one is Kit Binns, and
    his example does not support the prevailing theory here.
    
    jc
      

>	    					you can pay him to work or
>    you can pay him to sit at home or you can pay to keep him in prison,

Why are these the only alternatives? How about "he can find another way
to provide for himself and his family", or "he may starve to death and
cease being an issue"?

I don't necessarily mean to be blunt, but these are also very realistic
possibilities which expand the solution space by about 66%. And they happen.
And they don't cost a penny.

This concept that "people will continue to require support at the same
burdensome level no matter what we do" is a rather defeatist attitude
that I find puzzling. There are endgames in everything.

	.92
            
>    Selling below cost to drive out competition.  I don't know for sure that
>    McD's was doing that per se, but at the very least they were utilizing
>    their massive buying power and minimum wage policies to bully the indep-
>    endents.  
    
    	You don't know...  Yet you make a lot of noise about it as though
    	it did.  
    
    	As for using economy of scale to "bully" competition, that's 
    	just a simple principle of economics.  Sorry, but that's how
    	the business world works.  That's why it is better for the US
    	government to defend the nation instead of having each city or
    	state raise its own army, for example.
    
>    Once the McD's carts appeared, public hue and cry forced McD's 
>    to back off.  The PEOPLE (you remember them?) said they were sick of 
>    McD's constant monopolization of the food service in the Dome area.
    
    	Wait a minute.  So now are you saying that McD's is NOT monopolizing 
    	the Dome area?

>        >If so, why can't the independent return to reclaim his niche 
>        >in the higher-priced market?
>
>    What happens to the vendor in the meantime?  Welfare?  How long until he
>    can return, and how long will he last when he does?
    
    	I don't know.  Supply and demand will dictate that. 

>    	>Why should we be subsidizing higher-priced hot dog prices for 
>        >vendors who can "barely speak English"?
>
>    For the same reason people subsidize DEC employees by buying our stuff
>    (often at much more than it's worth in the market). 
    
    	Customers who pay too much do so by their own hand.  DEC isn't
    	the only vendor around, you know.  And are you suggesting that
    	DEC stuff is overpriced because DEC employees are paid too much?
    	Customers don't buy stuff to subsidize us.  They buy stuff because
    	they need/want it.  DEC doesn't (shouldn't) hire us for the sake of 
    	providing employment to us.  We are hired to produce the product
    	DEC sells.  A proper economic balance is made if the process  is
    	allowed to flow unimpeded.
    
>    Because we *all*
>    subsidize each other, Joe, every day of the week.  
    
    	Not in a free economic model.  Today your model holds true more
    	than mine, perhaps, but it is not the way it is supposed to work.
    
>    you can pay him to work or
>    you can pay him to sit at home or you can pay to keep him in prison, BUT
>    YOU WILL PAY FOR HIM, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, just as he pays for you everytime
>    he buys buns from a bakery that uses DEC PCs or pays tax to a government
>    that spends the money on VAXes.
    
    	Herein lies the problem.  You see it as pay.  But wages should be 
    	viewed as earnings.  Artificially inflating PAY merely increases 
    	the cost of the goods or services in which the worker is involved.
    	The price of that good or service must be increased to cover that
    	cost, and therefore the wage-earner with inflated pay ends up in 
    	the same boat with respect to his (in)ability to purchase that
    	good or service.
    
>    This is why people like you scare me, Joe.  Your insistence that business
>    is morally or ethically neutral may fit in with your little reich-wyng
>    fantasy world, but out here where the humans live it simply isn't so.
    
    	You're taking this rather personally.  Really, you don't have
    	to get so nasty!
    
    	Econimocs is a science.  It is not a religion.  Individuals
    	within the ecomonic model -- and that means both sides of the
    	equation (consumers and producers, employees and employers,
    	buyers and sellers) -- are the ones to make the (im)moral 
    	decisions.  
    
>    You spend a lot of time preaching about morals in here, Joe.  Family
>    values, sexual behaviour, answering to a higher calling.  Is anything that
>    is permissible, right?  Not according to you.  So why in this case, Joe?
    
    	Apples and oranges.
    
>    My guess is, since the price of hot dogs seems to have got your shorts in
>    a knot, is that you don't really care at all if this increase results in a
>    net loss of jobs.  
    
    	You are correct.  I am not concerned about the loss of jobs -- 
    	including mine -- when viewing the economocs of it.  When DEC
    	was first starting to TFSO, people were suggesting (in
    	HUMANE::DIGITAL, for instance) that we all take a cut in pay
    	to "save" jobs.  Check out my postings in those discussions.
    	I held that DEC is not in the hiring business.  If we have
    	too many people, cut them.  I also argued against salary
    	freezes.  Forcing those who earn a higher pay to accept lower
    	pay will -- by the forces of economics -- drive them to other 
    	companies willing to pay their worth.  If no other company is
    	willing to pay them what they want, they have priced themselves
    	out of their market, just as artificially raising wages by 
    	government decree prices unskilled workers out of the market.
    
>    net loss of jobs.  Your concern is with inflation, and specifically, (in 
>    your best Herb Tarlek voice:), "How does this affect ME?" 
    
    	Inflation, yes.  Specifically "How does this affect me", NO.  See
    	above.
    
>    For a group who 
>    whines about the victim mentality so much, there seem to be a lot of 
>    middle-class professionals in here who appear to feel victimized by this
>    increase.  Not one of you has been able to demonstrate the extent to which
>    you will be robbed, though.  (I know, I know..."If it's one *penny*, it's
>    too much!")
    
    	This statement just goes to show that you simply don't understand
    	the science involved in economics.  It is not a matter of robbery
    	or victimization, it is a matter of good/bad economic policy.
    	Your reply really started verging on personal attack, and I can
    	only assume that you did so because it is your only response to
    	your inability to assimilate the science behind it.
    
>    IYNSHO, Joe.  Me, and apparently a lot of others (if the passage of this
>    increase is as sure as Steve claims) think differently.
    
	Quite a bit of opnion in your reply, wouldn't you agree?  No, what 
    	I've said is not my opinion.  It is a simple matter of economic 
    	science.

    Note 282.94, Jack:

>Why are these the only alternatives? How about "he can find another way
>to provide for himself and his family", or "he may starve to death and
>cease being an issue"?
>I don't necessarily mean to be blunt, but these are also very realistic
>possibilities which expand the solution space by about 66%. And they happen.
>And they don't cost a penny.
    
    Well, my point was that all of our earning are inextricably
    intertwined, so the "other way to provide for himself" is really
    no different from paying a fair price for the hot dog.
    
    The "starvation" option had never occurred to me.  Call me wacky.

    jc
    

    Note 282.95
    
    	>You don't know...  Yet you make a lot of noise about it as though
    	>it did.
    
    I knew more about it than you...and I admitted my ignorance in this
    international forum.  Anything else?  
    
    	>As for using economy of scale to "bully" competition, that's 
    	>just a simple principle of economics.
    
    But why is it necessary, Joe.  Everything was going fine.  McD's had
    their monopoly indoors, the vendors competed with each other outdoors,
    and the fans were, for the most part satisfied.  Then McD's just *had*
    to muscle in, like they were having trouble making ends meet.  You can
    call it science all you want, I simply don't buy that it is morally
    neutral, any more than you accept that my out-of-wedlock sexual
    activities are morally neutral.  It may be apples and oranges to you,
    but it's still a valid illustration of our world views.
    
    	>Wait a minute.  So now are you saying that McD's is NOT monopolizing 
    	>the Dome area?
    
    They have a monopoly INdoors.  They tried, and failed, to move that
    monopoly OUTdoors.

>>    What happens to the vendor in the meantime?  Welfare?  How long until he
>>    can return, and how long will he last when he does?
    
    	>I don't know.  Supply and demand will dictate that.
    
    Well I'm sorry, Joe, but I'm just not that cavalier about the fate of
    my fellow man. 

    	>Customers who pay too much do so by their own hand.  DEC isn't
    	>the only vendor around, you know.  And are you suggesting that
    	>DEC stuff is overpriced because DEC employees are paid too much?
    
    HAAAA!  No.  Well...not most.  :^)
    
    	>Customers don't buy stuff to subsidize us.  They buy stuff because
    	>they need/want it.  DEC doesn't (shouldn't) hire us for the sake of 
    	>providing employment to us.  We are hired to produce the product
    	>DEC sells.
    
    Never said otherwise.  But that's what happens...each of our incomes is
    tightly linked to the incomes and spending habits of the others. 
    Mother DEC wants us to make money for her.  Fine.  That's reality, and
    I accept that.  But DEC won't sell squat if the society is unhealthy.
    People have to have disposable incomes to spend at the kinds of places
    that buy our stuff, and when they do that, intentional or not, they
    subsidize us.  And when we, in turn, spend our wages at the places
    these people work, we subsidize them.  With such an intimate inter-
    dependency, I think we can ill-afford to be cavalier about the fate of
    or fellow citizens.
    
    	>Not in a free economic model.  Today your model holds true more
    	>than mine, perhaps, but it is not the way it is supposed to work.
    
    Well...sorry.  I didn't build this world, but I am trying to deal
    with it.
    
    	>Herein lies the problem.  You see it as pay.  But wages should be 
    	>viewed as earnings.
    
     Actually, I do view them as earnings.  Others view them as handouts.
    
    	>You're taking this rather personally.  Really, you don't have
    	>to get so nasty!
    
    Point taken.  {{{...calm blue ocean...calm blue ocean...}}}
    
    	>Econimocs is a science.  It is not a religion.
    
    HAAA!  I sometimes doubt whether it is either.  I forget who said it,
    but someone once quipped that economics was something that could be
    observed to happen in reality without being explicable in theory.
    If economics was a science, the people who claimed to understand it
    would be a lot richer than many of them are.
    
        >Individuals within the ecomonic model -- and that means both sides of
        >the equation (consumers and producers, employees and employers, buyers
        >and sellers) -- are the ones to make the (im)moral decisions.
    
    Okay, fine.  The *people* who run McD's in Canada were wrong.  It's a
    human model, after all.
    
    	>This statement just goes to show that you simply don't understand
    	>the science involved in economics.
    
    As I have stated at least 3 times now.  But so far, no one but Kit has 
    provided a real-life example of the issue at hand, and his example
    doesn't support your theory, so I'm left wondering who really knows
    what they're talking about here.
    
    	>Your reply really started verging on personal attack, and I can
    	>only assume that you did so because it is your only response to
    	>your inability to assimilate the science behind it.
    
    Mea culpa.  Now then...THE REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES, please?
    
	>Quite a bit of opnion in your reply, wouldn't you agree?
    
    Yes.  And equally true for the anti-minimum wage side, as well.
    
        >No, what I've said is not my opinion.  It is a simple matter of
        >economic science.
    
    You mean, "You're simply too simple to understand, so just take my word
    for it."?  C'mon, Joe, I'm a quick learner.  I started here at a large
    multi-national computer company without knowing the first thing about
    computers, and ended up Lead Operator of a great big Computer Room with
    all kinds of neat things and keen lights and stuff.
    
    Show me, Joe.  Show me the tragedy that minimum wage represents.
    
    jc
    

    minor point... you Canadians spend millions of dollars in the US
    each and every year. to state that you're spending your money in
    your native land is grossly inaccurate.
    
    Chip

    If every one makes $20,000.00 a year then I might finally get a raise.

    
    .98, Chip:
    
    "Grossly inaccurate"?  In what way?  I hardly ever travel to the
    US.  Lots of other Canadians do, though, and spend serious coin too,
    I hear. I don't think I ever denied that.  I believe what I said 
    was: "We (well, some of us, myself included)...".
    
    jc
    

Note 282.88    
    
   > >Until we get over this "big business is evil" mind block, I hold little
   > >hope of seeing any real problems being addressed.
    
>    Sorry to be so obtuse, Steve, but I think blind faith in Big Business
>    is as dangerous as blind faith in Big Government, 
    
    Who said anything about faith in big business?  You missed my point.
    It would seem that you have no faith at all in a free market economy,
    even though it has made the US the most economically powerful nation in
    the world.  Unfortunately, the "free" aspect has been taken out of it. 
    We are now a tightly regulated economic model that is far too
    intertwined with government. 
    
    I'm for a free market system.  Morality or faith is not a part of this
    system...that is up to the people to regulate.  If they see immoral
    actions taken by company A, they should boycott company A's products. 
    You need look no farther than the tuna industry's sudden change, with
    regards to the fisherman's nets...people got angry when they found out 
    that dolphins were being caught in the nets.  Enough people spoke up
    (and boycotted products), and the big business changed to accomodate.
    
    You cannot allow government to be the moral check and balance to
    business.  
    
    
>    Big Labour, or Big
>    Religion.  In all cases, good is possible (probable, even), but "evil"
>    as well, if they aren't watched closely.
 
    Yes, but your answer is that the GOVERNMENT be that moral guide.  This
    is outside the realm of what the government was intended to do.  
    
    I find it interesting that the same folks who argue against allowing 
    prayer in school (or a moment of silence, even), argue for the government 
    being the moral guide/check to business. [this may not be directed at
    you, as I don't remember your position on the 'moment of silence'
    issue...it does apply to a few others, though]
       
    
    -steve                                        

re .98/.101:

The Canadians may spend lots of money in their own country but they may
not realize how much goes outside their country, particularly to the USA.
Our economies are largely intertwined, particularly from a Canadian viewpoint
(only because the USA is bigger than them)

re .93:

OK, replace "widget" in my note by "lettuce" or other produce, "Big Mac at the
evil McDonald's", "clothes" or your favorite labor-intensive product.

   Note 282.102, Steve:
    
   >It would seem that you have no faith at all in a free market economy,

    "At all"?  Hmmm.  I don't think "at all" is the correct phrase, but I 
    do believe that (the people who run) big business will slip and slide
    through any just about any crevasse they can find in order to maximize
    their profits, and many of those activities (price-fixing, collusion,
    toxic waste dumping) have detrimental effects to society as a whole.
    They also have the disadvantage of being difficult to punish when 
    someone's sole purpose is to set up a company intended to make a whack
    of cash in short period of time, then disband and form another company.
    Obviously, that's not the same issue as McD's, but when a company like
    McD's, who is not hurting for cash, decides to interfere with a
    process that moves cash directly from your pocket to the pocket of the
    guy who will live off that money; and instead, takes your money, gives
    a little to some minimum-wager, and keeps the rest for its already
    wealthy stockholders...well...that's just not necessary in my books,
    and it's an example of the kind of middle-man money-pit you're always
    accusing the government of being.

    The independent hot dog may seem too expensive, but later, when all
    the independent vendors are out of business, the McD's dog will be the
    only one you can buy, and it won't be cheap any more.  Choice...use it
    or lose it.
    
   >I'm for a free market system.  Morality or faith is not a part of this
   >system...that is up to the people to regulate.
   >You cannot allow government to be the moral check and balance to
   >business.  

    Morality IS part of that system, whether or not you want to admit it,
    and the people regulate it not only with their wallets, but also at
    the voting booth.  I have been accused of losing sight of the fact that
    `business' is not a big, faceless entity, that it's the *people* who
    run that business that are the issue.  Well, let me turn that around and
    tell you that `government' is not a big, faceless entity, it's you and
    me.  We pay for it, we elect the officials, and we can run for office
    at any time.  Because the people who run the country have to please
    their voters to keep their jobs, they respond to public pressure.  When
    `government' is checking and balancing business, that's us, you and me.
    
   >Yes, but your answer is that the GOVERNMENT be that moral guide.  This
   >is outside the realm of what the government was intended to do.

    Government, Steve, is intended to do whatever the hell we tell it.
    You don't like the laws that interfere with a free market, but at some
    time or other, someone decided to respond to a perceived need by passing
    those laws.  If those laws were genuinely wrong, they wouldn't have lasted
    so much as one election.  
    
   >I find it interesting that the same folks who argue against allowing 
   >prayer in school (or a moment of silence, even), argue for the government 
   >being the moral guide/check to business. [this may not be directed at
   >you, as I don't remember your position on the 'moment of silence'
   >issue...it does apply to a few others, though]
       
    Well, maybe you are referring to me.  I have no problem with a moment
    of silence, but I do oppose prayer out loud, especially if it is led
    by the school.  I can still see no reason why kids can't pray at home
    before going to school.  What is it about that six-hour period of the
    day that God so craves worship?  School prayer is not state-sponsored
    *morality*, it it state-sponsored *religion*, and there is a difference.

    However, I don't intend to rathole this topic with a school prayer
    debate.  If you really want to beat up on me on *that* issue, we should
    move it to the appropriate topic (although I barely have time to keep
    with *this* debate, what with everyone ganging up on me. ;^)

    jc
    

    Re: 104
    
    Your entry in this note pretty well sums up the problem you apparently
    have with understanding the basics of economics.  You claim that once
    McD's puts all of the hot dog vendors out of business they will then
    just raise prices and really stick it to the consumer.
    
    Well one ofd the basics in economics is that competition is determined
    by the cost of entry into the market.  Selling hot dogs has a very low
    cost of entry.  If McD's raises prices too high some enterprising
    individual will open up a stand and drive prices down again.
    
    If you don't beleive me, just look as the computer market.  IBM had the
    PC market sewn up with 20%-30%-40% of the market depending on which
    report you read and when.  Well, it didn't take too long for the likes
    of Compaq to enter the market with a lower caost product.  This brought
    in Dell and Gateway as well as others.  Needless to say, you can chart
    the effect on PC prices ever since.
    
    Now the minimum wage really begins to play a part in this equation. 
    IBM was building PCs in a high wage area here in the states.  They paid
    significantly over the minimum.  Gateway was located in a low wage area
    and was able to bring a lower priced product to the market.
    
    Now let's bring in International competition.  As was referenced
    earlier, a lower priced product of similar quality gets market share. 
    By arbitrarily raising a company's cost structure you run the risk of
    making their product uncompetitive.  BTW, when IBM had to compete in
    the lower priced arena they were able to lower their costs by
    redesigning and laying workers off to get a lower cost structure.
    
    I'm sure those who got laid off were really happy that there is a
    guaranteed minimum wage.  Letting government set eceonomic and
    marketing policy is plain stupid and counter-productive.
    

   Note 282.105, Econ 101:
    
   >Your entry in this note pretty well sums up the problem you apparently
   >have with understanding the basics of economics.

    Yes...sad isn't it.
    
   >IBM was building PCs in a high wage area here in the states.  They paid
   >significantly over the minimum.

    Then it sounds like the minimum wage was not a factor. 

   >Gateway was located in a low wage area
   >and was able to bring a lower priced product to the market.

    Then it sounds like minimum wage did not hurt them either.
    
   >Now let's bring in International competition...

    Stop right there.  If you think we should be depressing the worker's
    standard of living in North America (either actively, or by simply
    allowing it to sink) to compete with countries that have few if any
    human rights, utilize child or slave labour, enforce no pollution laws,
    and have extremely low costs of living to begin with (or, in the case of
    Japan, engage in brutally unfair business practices like below-cost
    dumping, price fixing, and collusion, probably to counter what they feel
    to be unfair tarriffs and protectionist duties), then I just plain flat
    out disagree.  Who you gonna sell *that* concept to?  Management types,
    maybe, but not the general public.
    
   >I'm sure those who got laid off were really happy that there is a
   >guaranteed minimum wage.

    Who in your IBM/Dell/Compaq/Gateway example got laid off due to
    minimum wage?  You haven't demonstrated that minimum wage was really
    a factor at all, unless you're insisiting that it was the foreign-
    manufactured goods that tipped the balance.  If that was the case, 
    see my previous paragraph.  And, as I've said before, I doubt that
    minumum wage is a significant factor in international competition
    when compared to unionization.  And, as I've asked before, what will
    you do if the failure to keep minimum wage at a realistic level leads
    to increased unionization (which WILL cost you more) or increased
    welfare usage (which WILL cost you more) or increased street crime
    (which WILL cost you more).

    For someone so much more educated than myself in economic theory, you
    don't seem to be able to make a case based on anything more than theory
    or ideology.  No one in this string has yet provided an historical
    example of how minimum wage has really, actually, in fact, been harmful
    to your economy.  If this change goes through, it will be because you
    learned individuals were unable to make a concrete case to prevent it.

    Stop blaming the government, Al, unless you're willing to admit that
    you, as a society, have lost control over it.  If so, then I'll bet that
    minimum wage is the least of your worries.
    
    jc
    

    Your last paragraph is probably more correct than even you realize. 
    Yes, American society has lost control of government and that is
    exactly the issue.  For too many years too many people expected
    government to fix every problem and take of people from cradle to
    grave.  In order to re-take control we must do it at every level and in
    avery arena that government raises it's ugly head.  Minimum wage is
    just one of them.
    
    Your contention that eliminating a minimum wage will lead to increased
    unionization, welfare or crime is basically meritless.  You assume that
    either we raise the minimum wage or face these consequences.  I contend
    you are wrong.  People realize that unions were the source of the
    problem and have left unions in droves and truly marginalized unions. 
    Second by redoing welfare that hadout hopefully will be limited to
    those who truly need it, and for a very short time.  Lastly, your
    contention about crime sounds a lot like extortion.  "Either pay me
    $5.00/hr or I'll rob you."  There is a much simpler correction for that
    then be extorted into paying higher wages.  Shoot the crooks.
    
    Also, you apparently missed the point between IBM and Gateway.  My
    point was that IBM paid over the minimum and had a cost structure that
    couldn't compete when a lower cost producer showed up.  Also, Gateway pays
    just over minimum, but that's beside the point.  the issue is the
    underlying cost structure and when you dictate a level you introduce
    anothe non-competitive element.
    
    Lastly, your point about the fact that every other country in the world
    that can produce lower cost products do so because they use slve labor,
    child labor, destroy the environment, etc is hogwash.Tiawan, which is
    very effective competitor, has a pretty good standard of living and
    relatively affective laws.  are they the same as the US, but then the
    US laws should not be the same as they are presently.  So pointing to
    stupid laws ans insisting that everyone else use the same stupid laws
    is plain silly.  Just because other countries, and the are not the US,
    have the right to put any laws they so chose into effect as they see
    fit.  It is the height of arrogance to say we know how Mexico, China,
    Tiawan, Hong Kong, India, etc should be run.
    

    Note 282.107, "Still miss it":

    This must be terribly frustrating for you, Al.  %^}

   >Yes, American society has lost control of government and that is
   >exactly the issue.  For too many years too many people expected
   >government to fix every problem and take of people from cradle to
   >grave.

    And who pays for that gov't, and who elects that gov't, and who runs
    for office in that gov't?   Are you just peeved that the majority of
    Americans get their way even when it's not what *you* want?
    
   >Your contention that eliminating a minimum wage will lead to increased
   >unionization, welfare or crime is basically meritless.

    Maybe so, maybe not.  So far, no more so than your contention that the
    minimum wage increase will lead to inflation and job loss.

   >You assume that either we raise the minimum wage or face these 
   >consequences.  I contend you are wrong.

    Well...so far we're deadlocked, then.  I contend that these consequences
    are just as easily forseeable as the consequences you warn of.

   >People realize that unions were the source of the
   >problem and have left unions in droves and truly marginalized unions.

    You have figures, I guess, to show that people left willingly as opposed
    to having been laid off, as many non-union people were over the past five
    years (myself included).  This is assuming that union membership *has*
    declined, as you are suggesting.
 
   >Second by redoing welfare that hadout hopefully will be limited to
   >those who truly need it, and for a very short time.

    So they're now cut off from welfare and forced to take a $3/hr job.
    How do you propose they *ever* climb out of that rut?

   >Lastly, your contention about crime sounds a lot like extortion.  
   >"Either pay me $5.00/hr or I'll rob you." 

    Extortion?  Not at all.  Reality.  Poverty leads to crime and violence.
    You don't think so?   Maybe edp's `The Bell Curve' extracts can shed
    some light on that.

   >There is a much simpler correction for that
   >then be extorted into paying higher wages.  Shoot the crooks.

    Well...I'm glad to see we're keeping our scenarios firmly based in 
    reality, here.
    
   >Also, you apparently missed the point between IBM and Gateway...
   >...the issue is the underlying cost structure and when you dictate a 
   >level you introduce anothe non-competitive element.

    I understand the point, Al, but you failed to demonstrate that minimum
    wage was a factor in that example, and since the topic here is minimum
    wage...
    
   >Lastly, your point about the fact that every other country in the world
   >that can produce lower cost products do so because they use slve labor,
   >child labor, destroy the environment, etc is hogwash.

    I don't think *every* country does, Al, but many of them do, including
    China and Bagladesh and Sri Lanka and India, and those are countries
    that are genuinely competing with you in minimum wage industries like
    garments and discount tools and shoes and electronic goods.  Certainly 
    NONE of them are competing with you in the fast food business, unless 
    you order take-out directly from China.

   >Tiawan, which is
   >very effective competitor, has a pretty good standard of living and
   >relatively affective laws.  are they the same as the US, but then the
   >US laws should not be the same as they are presently.

    Not a well-constructed sentence here, Al.  Are you saying that the US
    should not have pollution laws and child labour laws and laws about the
    use of prison labour, all of which jack up the price of goods produced
    in the US relative to the global community?

   >Just because other countries, and the are not the US,
   >have the right to put any laws they so chose into effect as they see
   >fit.

    Another great sentence, but if I understand it correctly, my answer is:
    I never said that you should try to influence their laws, I said that you
    should refuse to sink to their level if their conditions are poor and
    unregulated.  Most Americans won't go for that, Al.

    jc
    

          <<< Note 282.108 by TROOA::COLLINS "Distributed being..." >>>

   > Extortion?  Not at all.  Reality.  Poverty leads to crime and violence.
   > You don't think so?   Maybe edp's `The Bell Curve' extracts can shed
   > some light on that.

   What was the crime rate during the depression?

   daryll

    
   Note 282.109, Daryll,

   >What was the crime rate during the depression?

    Beats me.  What is the crime rate in <insert favorite urban ghetto
    here> versus other, more affluent regions of that same urban area?
    

                      <<< Note 282.107 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
                              -< Still miss it. >-

>    Your last paragraph is probably more correct than even you realize. 
>    Yes, American society has lost control of government and that is
>    exactly the issue.  For too many years too many people expected

You forgot to add IMHO. Our government is elected by the american people, 
so no, "we" haven't lost control of our government, YOU have lost control 
of our government (although you recently regained at least some of that 
control).

>    $5.00/hr or I'll rob you."  There is a much simpler correction for that
>    then be extorted into paying higher wages.  Shoot the crooks.

Shall we skip the trial, save the expense, you old guardian of 
constitutional rights, you.
    
>    Lastly, your point about the fact that every other country in the world
>    that can produce lower cost products do so because ...
>    ...fit.  It is the height of arrogance to say we know how Mexico, China,
>    Tiawan, Hong Kong, India, etc should be run.

No, YOU miss the point. What jc is saying (if I may be so bold as to put 
words in your mouth, jc) is that it would be unthinkable for us to lower 
our standards to meet theirs. Unthinkable for most Americans, I would 
think. YMMV

>    Extortion?  Not at all.  Reality.  Poverty leads to crime and violence.
>    You don't think so?   Maybe edp's `The Bell Curve' extracts can shed
>    some light on that.

Wrong. Lack of moral discipline, often found in broken homes, lead to criminal
activity. You can argue that being poor may influence the breakup of families
but again, that is usually due to lack of moral dicipline.

Doug.

    >What jc is saying is that it would be unthinkable for us to lower our 
    >standards to meet theirs. Unthinkable for most Americans, I would think.

    Precisely.  (Whew...I was beginning to think it was me!  ;^)
    

    
    Note 282.112:
    
    >Being poor is no excuse
    
    Of COURSE not...but it IS a reason...and it DOES happen.  Whatever
    happened to the concept of crime prevention, and the normal reluctance
    of Americans to pay for incarceration with tax dollars?  Is it cheaper
    to pay a little extra for a hamburger, or pay an inmate's entire food,
    lodging, clothing, and utilities bills?
    
    >Wrong.  Lack of moral discipline...
    
    That's it?  That's the only reason?   HAAAAA!  Moral discipline won't
    feed or clothe or house or educate anyone.  Providing a decent paying
    job might, though, and might give someone a reason to practice moral
    discipline.
    

Crime rate during the depression was low.

Also the Glob mentioned that only 33,000 people in New England earned
minimum.  (a more useful figure would be how many earn below the proposed
$5.15 minimum?)

    OK, let's try this one more time.  You contend that raising the minimum
    wage to $5.00/hr will eliminate crime, poverty, etc.  If it won't then
    whether the minimum is $3.00 or $5.00 doesn't make a difference.  $5.00
    will not make a difference other than to arbitrarily raise the wage
    base for every company without any increase in productivity to offset
    it.
    
    You keep asking for proof of the effect of the minimum wage in people
    losing their job.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, there have never
    been any difinitive studies done either way.  That it created jobs,
    kept jobs the same or reduced them.  My contention is, quite simply,
    that new jobs are not created, and worse yet, those who deserve a raise
    based on performance don't get it because the money went to someone
    else.
    
    Also, you were the one that claimed international competition was based
    on slave labor, etc.  My point was that there are many contries that
    don't abuse people, protect the environment, etc, but have a lower wage
    base and you are going to lose to them, and you deseerve to.  So let's
    see we can pay $5.00/hr but sorry, no jobs because foreign competition
    does it better for less.
    
    As far as poverty creating crime is concerned, you have no idea what
    you are talking about.  My dad worked in a factory fro 25 years and was
    making $7200/year when he died in 1972.  Even at that time that was an
    incredibly low salary.  He raised a family of 6 on just his income and
    would never consider accepting welfare and certainly never considered
    crime as an answer to his family.  What prompts your comments is making
    excuses for criminals.  If you need to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends
    meet, then that's what you do.  You do not attempt to extort money from
    society by saying pay me more or I'll resort to crime.
    
    When I was first married I worked 3 jobs to make ends meet and to try
    and save for a home.  I worked full time during the week and part time
    at nights and then had a separate job on the weekends.  It was not a
    pleasant experience, but I did what I needed to do.  At no time did I
    think, "oh, I'll go rob a store because this working multiple job sis
    too hard."
    
    Lastly, your question about unions is that many people lost union jobs,
    but did not look to find another union job, also union activity is the
    lowest it has been in decades.  What people learned was that unions
    don't provide solutions, they help create the problem.
    

    Note 282.116, "One more time":

    Soon, you will tire and weaken...heh heh heh heh...    :^)

   >OK, let's try this one more time.  You contend that raising the minimum
   >wage to $5.00/hr will eliminate crime, poverty, etc.

    I never contended anything of the sort, Al.  I contend that *not* raising
    it will lead to an increase in these things.  Are you reading my notes,
    or do they bore you?

   >If it won't then
   >whether the minimum is $3.00 or $5.00 doesn't make a difference.

    Yes it will.  Which suits *your* needs better...a $3/hr job or a $5/hr
    job, if those are the only two choices (and for many, they are).
    
   >You keep asking for proof of the effect of the minimum wage in people
   >losing their job.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, there have never
   >been any difinitive studies done either way.

    It didn't necessarily have to be a study, just an historical example.
    But thank you for finally admitting that your position is not based upon
    demonstrable facts, but rather, upon ideology (or philosophy, or world
    view, if you prefer).

   >My contention is, quite simply, that new jobs are not created,

    Well, I don't think anyone claimed that the increase *would* create
    new jobs.  Whose notes have you been reading?

   >and worse yet, those who deserve a raise based on performance don't
   >get it because the money went to someone else.

    Oooooo, well then, if they truly deserve the raise, and aren't getting
    it, then they can take their *valuable* skills out on the open market,
    can't they?  Or is that too heartless of me?

    Nevertheless, this remains your unsubstantiated theory.
    
   >Also, you were the one that claimed international competition was based
   >on slave labor, etc.

    Not all of it, but certainly a good portion of the countries and companies
    that compete with the US in minimum wage industries.  Obviously, these 
    don't include the auto industry, which is unionized in the US, or high-
    end tools or machinery, or probably lots of others that aren't occurring 
    to me right now.

   >So let's see we can pay $5.00/hr but sorry, no jobs because foreign 
   >competition does it better for less.

    Do you have some good examples of these?  I mean, countries/industries,
    that aren't utilizing child or prison labour, and are enforcing serious
    anti-pollution laws, and don't utilize an unskilled labour pool that has
    standards of living demonstrably lower than the US and working conditions
    unacceptable by American standards and punitive hours of employment; and
    are killing US industries that are currently not unionized and are
    generally paying out (in deference to Moroney) wages at or below $5.15
    per hour?

    I know that's a lot of variables to ask for, but that reflects the
    complexity of the situation, and I frankly think that this situation
    has been oversimplified by the anti-minimum wage side.  Too much time
    is being spent thinking about what might happen *with* this increase
    and not enough time is being spent thinking about what might happen
    *without* the increase.
    
   >As far as poverty creating crime is concerned, you have no idea what
   >you are talking about.

    *I* don't know what I'm talking about?  I've been on welfare, Al.  I've
    worked for minimum wage.  My life's anecdotes count every bit as much
    as yours.  But there are 250 million *different* situations in your
    country, and our stories don't mean squat compared to that.  My guess
    is that YOU don't know what YOU'RE talking about when it comes to the
    kind of bone-numbing poverty and disenfranchisement that exists in many
    areas of New York, Detroit, Washington and Los Angeles.  Give a kid in
    that situation *one* good reason why he should work for $3 or $4/hr 
    when he can just take the money, or make it in other criminal pursuits,
    or make it in welfare.

    If you want to trade barbs, fine, but neither of us are a representative
    slice of life.  The difference between you and me is that you will
    *always* underestimate the degree to which luck has played a role in your
    life, and I will *never* underestimate it.  Some people, Al, just HAVE
    NOT been as lucky as us.  Deny it if you want, but it's the truth. 
    No-one chooses their place of birth, no-one chooses their parents.

   >What prompts your comments is making excuses for criminals.

    I'm not making excuses for criminals, here.  Break the law?  Do the
    time!  I'm saying that if we're smart, and if we're willing to show
    a little compassion as a society, then maybe we can head off some of
    that crime before it starts.  If we simply adopt an `every man for
    himself' attittude, then that's also the message we're sending, and
    that message *will* be picked up.  Count on it.
    
   >Lastly, your question about unions is that many people lost union jobs,
   >but did not look to find another union job,

    No, they looked to find *any* job they could, union or not.  If
    they had not wanted the union job, they would have quit and looked
    elsewhere.  Myself...I had a union job once, and I hated it.  Wouldn't
    do it again, UNLESS I HAD TO (which I did at that time).  Then, like you,
    I'd take anything I could get my hands on.

   >What people learned was that unions
   >don't provide solutions, they help create the problem.

    I doubt that people in general learned anything except to take whatever
    job they could get.  And if minimum wage doesn't keep pace with reality,
    then the unions will find places like McD's and Wal-Mart a perfect source
    of warm, willing bodies for their membership drives.

    jc
    

tv news says the last time the minimum wage was increased, employment went
down by 275,000 during the month the increase went into effect (in early
1991.)  this, according to congressional budget office numbers. of course,
this proves nothing, except possibly that increasing the minimum wage doesn't
cause employment to _increase_, but no one is arguing that.

bill

    
    Re: .118:
    
    There you go, Al.  Bill's helping you out here.  Don't know about that
    "TV news says..." part, but if they're Congressional Budget Office
    figures, they shouldn't be to hard for one of the wwweb-wwwarriors here 
    to confirm and place in context.
    
    Now...if you can show a cause-and-effect (ie: that those jobs wouldn't
    have been lost at that time *anyway*, given the fact that layoffs were
    still occurring in droves during 1991), and show that the companies
    weren't simply over-reacting and changing their minds a few months
    later, and show that companies didn't save some already scheduled layoffs
    until the increase went into effect just to skew the government numbers
    for later ammunition (not likely, but possible), then you just might have
    me pinned!  :^)
    
    (...at least, on the `job loss' part.  Still no sale on the `inflation'
    part yet.)
    
    jc
    

    a different angle... i wonder what the long term effects would be
    on progress, productivity, growth (individual & company), competition,
    motivation, etc. if a substantial "salary" were available to every-
    one?
    
    would the capability/quality (workers) suffer? it appears (at least to
    me) that it had an effect on eurasian-communistic countries... they
    are always touted as being technically behind by 10 years.
    
    just wondering... 
    
    Chip

    
    >it appears (at least to
    >me) that it had an effect on eurasian-communistic countries... they
    >are always touted as being technically behind by 10 years.
    
    Chip,
    
    I see your point, but I think the difference here is that communist
    countries had social guarantees, but no social opportunity outside of
    the Party.  I don't think *any* of the conservatives in here would
    argue that opportunity in America doesn't exist in equal quantities 
    for all.
    

    it was just a question (as well as soliciting some others opinion).
    i agree with your observation.
    
    economic and (or) career options were extremely limited as well...
    
    Chip

    .118
    
>this proves nothing, except possibly that increasing the minimum wage doesn't
>cause employment to _increase_, but no one is arguing that.
    
    Well, er, actually somewas *was* arguing that, or at least that that is
    a possible scenario.
    
    Back yonder, in exasperation at the continually-advanced, but
    never-supported argument that raising the minimum wage increases
    inflation and joblessness, I pointed out that I had read that there is
    only one examination of this thesis that could conceivably be called a
    control: a study by some Princeton economists of what happened to
    minimum wage jobs in border areas between NJ and PA when NJ raised the
    minimum and PA did not.
    
    The surprising result was a *rise* in the minimum wage jobs in NJ as
    compared to PA.  They postulated that this might have occurred 
    because at higher wages they got better workers, and the workers stayed
    longer. It's called productivity, folks, and it ain't a mystery. A
    Mickey D worker who stays a year is likely to be faster and more
    efficient that one who stays a month, and doesn keep sopping up the
    training budget either.
    
    Many economists who don't simply repeat the unthing mantra of "more
    joblessness and more inflation" point out that there are many elements
    of the current labor structure, relating to productivity, idle or
    under-employed workers, etc, that indicate no danger on those fronts at
    the paltry effect achieved by ratcheting up the lower levels of
    wage-earners.
    
    Kit