Democratic agenda Options

[pebkac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1981688,00.html

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:

· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;

· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;

· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;

· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;

· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;

· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

I suppose the minimum wage thing is debatable, but I like most of the stuff on the agenda (although I really don't know much about the 9/11 committee's recommendations. I do like the last one the best though.

Another interesting part...

In a much-anticipated speech, Mr Bush is expected to reveal his new strategy on the war as early as next week, amid widespread speculation that he intends to bolster the US presence in Iraq in the short term by an additional 30,000 troops.

That troop "surge" and a White House request for an additional $100bn (£51bn) to pay for the war this year are expected to encounter strong opposition from a previously supportive Congress.

This should turn out to be interesting. Wonder what the Dems are going to do if Bush does decide to try a surge.

[Hartmann]

I think that a troop increase would help but I fear it may be too little, too late.

A plan for cheaper prescription drugs? Yeah, I can see the insurance companies letting that happen. The only way this is going to happen is if the entire healthcare system is reevaluated and slowly reformed.

Everyone knows my feelings on the minimum wage increase.

[impala454]

A plan for cheaper prescription drugs? Yeah, I can see the insurance companies letting that happen.

are you being sarcastic? (can't tell)

i'd think insurance companies would welcome cheaper drugs...

i don't really know the details of the 'plan' but i think this is something just about every politician who's ever run for office says in their campaign, so i'll remain a little skeptical on it.

[The Fanatic]

Instead of lower prescription drug prices, congress needs to fix the healthcare system. An example would be providing a means for persons without insurance to obtain it.

[pebkac]

I'd agree, but I doubt that'll happen with this Congress. There'd have to be some major compromises to get the thing by Bush.

[The Fanatic]

That is why we need a new president

[pebkac]

I'd agree, but that probably won't happen within the next two years.

[Aaron]

Finally.

[pysex]

Proposals.




MORE LIKE BULLSHIT.


I swear the only thing they do in congress is have one massive orgy. They never get anything done.

[RitalinJunkie]

I swear the only thing they do in congress is have one massive orgy. They never get anything done.

alright everybody


BACK TO THE PILE!

[GOB]

providing a means for persons without insurance to obtain it.

i think it's called going to school and getting a job, but i might be mistaken.

[Dogmeat]

The Democratic Agenda:

*Shut off as much oil and gas exploration in the continental US as possible, driving prices through the roof all the while pandering more votes from idiot fuckheads in california and the east coast claiming you're saving the environment whilst pumping trillions more dollars into terrorist states economies because you know damned good and well nobody in this country is gonna stop driving their SUV's ..... and then of course blame the whole fucking thing on the previous Republican congress and "big oil".

*Claim you're the 'Party of the People' while your bigtime hollywood donors in the RIAA and MPAA file lawsuits and use blatant terror tactics to illegally prosecute and punish people for downloading songs

*Pull the same thing Lynden B. Johnson did in the Vietnam war and don't fight it to win it. Johnson haulted the bombing of North Vietnam and we were kicking the shit out of them, the current crop of Democrats will reduce troop levels making them even more insuficient instead of actually saying "fuck being politically correct" in the eyes of the muslim world and WINNING the fucking war already like Bush would like to do.

*Act like you all aren't as corrupt of sleaze bags as the Republican majority you just replaced.

[Mommy]

ZING!

[Aaron]

*Pull the same thing Lynden B. Johnson did in the Vietnam war and don't fight it to win it. Johnson haulted the bombing of North Vietnam and we were kicking the shit out of them, the current crop of Democrats will reduce troop levels making them even more insuficient instead of actually saying "fuck being politically correct" in the eyes of the muslim world and WINNING the fucking war already like Bush would like to do.

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of this piece - that the United States did not fight the Vietnam Conflict as if they wanted to win it - but I do feel the need to correct a couple of things.

A) The United States assumed full responsibility for supporting the South Vietnamese Army under Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.

Lyndon Johnson stopped the bombing of North Vietnam twenty days after Eugene McCarthy, a Democratic challenger, won 42% in the Democratic New Hampshire Primary. Johnson announced that he would not seek or accept a second term and would devote his remaining months as President in a search for peace in Vietnam.

C) Richard Nixon resumed bombing North Vietnam in 1972, late into his first term as President; had he wanted to, or if it would have made a difference, he could have resumed bombing of North Vietnam immediately after taking office in 1969.

D) The United States was HARDLY "kicking the shit" out of the North Vietnamese in 1968. While America was victorious in pretty much every large-scale conventional battle during the Vietnam Conflict, the Vietnamese were very successful with guerrilla raids and clashes between individual units.

[Dogmeat]

D) The United States was HARDLY "kicking the shit" out of the North Vietnamese in 1968. While America was victorious in pretty much every large-scale conventional battle during the Vietnam Conflict, the Vietnamese were very successful with guerrilla raids and clashes between individual units.

The men who were over there fighting at that point in time would beg to differ I'd immagine ....

[Aaron]

The men who were over there fighting at that point in time would beg to differ I'd immagine ....

Exactly what part of 'D' are you disputing with this statement?

[jwttu]

i don't think we should raise the minimum wage that much at once, i say phase in gradual raises so it has less of a huge effect across the economy

[Dogmeat]

i don't think we should raise the minimum wage that much at once, i say phase in gradual raises so it has less of a huge effect across the economy

Oh god how could I forget that.


*Pander to the bottom-of-the-barrel most worthless citizens the US has for more votes because supposedly their drug hazed opinions matter

[Aaron]

Oh god how could I forget that.
*Pander to the bottom-of-the-barrel most worthless citizens the US has for more votes because supposedly their drug hazed opinions matter

The possibility that you actually believe that astounds me.

Read this: Life at $7.25

[impala454]

i don't think we should raise the minimum wage that much at once, i say phase in gradual raises so it has less of a huge effect across the economy

i'm not all that for raising it that high (or maybe not at all), but i'm pretty sure the raise to $7.25 would be over several years, not all at once.

imho raising it to $7.25 (even over time) will skyrocket unemployment. a 40% increase in the cost of minimum wage workers will put smaller companies out of business, and have larger companies raising prices on everything we buy. plus we'll have an all new group of workers (who previously made around $7.25) who were 40% above minimum wage, back to the minimum wage. everyone pays more for everything. minimum wage workers would probably be hurt the worst.

[Billy]

i'm not all that for raising it that high (or maybe not at all), but i'm pretty sure the raise to $7.25 would be over several years, not all at once.

imho raising it to $7.25 (even over time) will skyrocket unemployment. a 40% increase in the cost of minimum wage workers will put smaller companies out of business, and have larger companies raising prices on everything we buy. plus we'll have an all new group of workers (who previously made around $7.25) who were 40% above minimum wage, back to the minimum wage. everyone pays more for everything. minimum wage workers would probably be hurt the worst.

Yeah that seems to be the argument "minimum wage workers will be hurt the worse". That was the argument the last time minimum wage was increased. But yet, if anything, unemployment dropped after the wage increase. So what makes you think there will be the opposite this time?

[GOB]

it really doesn't affect enough people and won't be enough money to make any sort of huge impact on the economy.

personally, i don't think minimum wage jobs deserve any more money, but who fucking cares if they make another 4-5k per year (assuming they work full time)?

[woody]

i'm not all that for raising it that high (or maybe not at all), but i'm pretty sure the raise to $7.25 would be over several years, not all at once.

28 months

[Hartmann]

Man I need to find that study that states most Americans (something like 88%) make above minimum wage already...

[impala454]

That was the argument the last time minimum wage was increased. But yet, if anything, unemployment dropped after the wage increase.

I'm not sure where you get that unemployment dropped because of minimum wage increase. I'd be interested to see some actual numbers on that.

So what makes you think there will be the opposite this time?

well I don't necessarily believe your claim that unemployment dropped due to the minimum wage increasing. if you'd like to explain to me how that makes sense in terms of business I'd be interested to hear it.

here's the last few increases
1974: $2.00
1981: $3.35 (55% increase)
1991: $4.25 (26% increase)
1997: $5.15 (21% increase)
2009: $7.25 (41% increase)

now I don't know about you, but if you attribute minimum wage as some correlation to economy (which I don't necessarily believe, as there's tons of other factors, but since it seems to be what you believe I'll indulge you), then we're heading straight for an early 80s economy (which was a bad recession).

[Hartmann]

I don't want to get into the "Minimum Wage Increase Sucks" argument again but here is a decent article...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba499/

[jwttu]

I also dont think minimum wage should be increased the same nationwide. I think this should be a state issue since $1 goes alot further in some states than in others.

[Aaron]

I'm not too worried. The way I figure it, the proposed increase may affect things in the short term but will eventually even out in the long term.

Another thing that I like about the bill that contains the proposed increase is that it extends the Federal minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth in political union with the United States. On the other hand, I dislike the fact that it does not extend to American Samoa, where the average worker receives $3.60 per hour.

[Hartmann]

I also dont think minimum wage should be increased the same nationwide. I think this should be a state issue since $1 goes alot further in some states than in others.

You make an interesting point that hits the nail on the head... This is most certainly a state issue and that's how it's been handled in the past.

[Billy]

I'm not sure where you get that unemployment dropped because of minimum wage increase. I'd be interested to see some actual numbers on that.
well I don't necessarily believe your claim that unemployment dropped due to the minimum wage increasing. if you'd like to explain to me how that makes sense in terms of business I'd be interested to hear it.

here's the last few increases
1974: $2.00
1981: $3.35 (55% increase)
1991: $4.25 (26% increase)
1997: $5.15 (21% increase)
2009: $7.25 (41% increase)

now I don't know about you, but if you attribute minimum wage as some correlation to economy (which I don't necessarily believe, as there's tons of other factors, but since it seems to be what you believe I'll indulge you), then we're heading straight for an early 80s economy (which was a bad recession).

Wikipedia:

The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Krueger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.

Here is a real world example of why unemployment may not necessarily increase: My parents own a struggling business. It is in the service industry which means labor is typically more of an expense than other industries (it's roughly 30% of the expenses). Currently, since every business tries to be as efficient as possible, they only employ as many employees as they need. If minimum wage increases, they can not just start firing people, as that would cause their business to fail.

They are not alone. This is the scenario for many businesses. So what will they do to compensate? Probably raise prices in the short run, not fire people. Why just the short run? As the lower class has more money, spending increases. Companies will eventually realize they are not doomed, and will try to compete in price again, forcing the prices back down.

But that's just one theory. You can argue the validity of that all you want. But what you cannot do, is say with certainty, that if you increase the minimum wage you will increase unemployment. There is no data to support that claim. And using "common sense" on a complicated matter is very foolish, as any engineer knows, common sense isn't always right.

I do think the increase should not be as large as the democrats want all at once. It should be taken in small increments over a period of time.

So the point of this response is not to say "support minimum wage increase". It may indeed be damaging to the economy. But please stop saying as your argument it will increase unemployment. As there is not any hard correlation to indicate so.

[jwttu]

Pelosi started off her agenda today by banning smoking in part of the Capitol

[impala454]

But please stop saying as your argument it will increase unemployment. As there is not any hard correlation to indicate so.

here's a pretty interesting article:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/jan/...-have-negative/

The last major increase in the minimum wage was in 1996. After the increase, a survey of 1,000 restaurants by the National Restaurant Association concluded that more than 146,000 jobs were eliminated because of increased labor costs. These same restaurants delayed hiring an additional 106,000 people for a net loss of 252,000 employees in the restaurant industry alone.

Higher labor costs combined with high energy and raw material costs will accelerate inflation at a much higher rate than we are already experiencing. This means less purchasing power for everyone, hitting minimum-wage earners the hardest.

and this part nails it as far as my views on minimum wage:

Raising the minimum wage to help workers who earn it have a more comfortable lifestyle is no different from printing more money to pay off the national debt. It serves only to lower the value of the dollar, therefore hurting those that need help the most.

If workers earning the minimum wage truly desire to improve their standard of living, they must empower themselves by obtaining skills training rather than simply waiting for a federally mandated pay raise.

[Billy]

I guess my problem is that there are too many conflicting reports and studies on the subject to make any conclusions. You don't seem to have that problem.

[Trespass]

Wikipedia:
Here is a real world example of why unemployment may not necessarily increase: My parents own a struggling business. It is in the service industry which means labor is typically more of an expense than other industries (it's roughly 30% of the expenses). Currently, since every business tries to be as efficient as possible, they only employ as many employees as they need. If minimum wage increases, they can not just start firing people, as that would cause their business to fail.

They are not alone. This is the scenario for many businesses. So what will they do to compensate? Probably raise prices in the short run, not fire people. Why just the short run? As the lower class has more money, spending increases. Companies will eventually realize they are not doomed, and will try to compete in price again, forcing the prices back down.

But that's just one theory. You can argue the validity of that all you want. But what you cannot do, is say with certainty, that if you increase the minimum wage you will increase unemployment. There is no data to support that claim. And using "common sense" on a complicated matter is very foolish, as any engineer knows, common sense isn't always right.

I do think the increase should not be as large as the democrats want all at once. It should be taken in small increments over a period of time.

So the point of this response is not to say "support minimum wage increase". It may indeed be damaging to the economy. But please stop saying as your argument it will increase unemployment. As there is not any hard correlation to indicate so.

I think by its nature an increase in minimum wage would increase inflation on companies who don't already give higher than the proposed new wage. (so if movie theatre has to pay more to employees, ticket prices may rise to compensate).

But honestly i don't think it'll affect much of anything. People will most likely be able to buy the same amount as before (since most already make above it) and it won't effect the economy except for a little inflation which could be compensated for if the FED is on top of it.

I think this i more of an issue that supply and demand handles, and i don't think it'll do much good... or bad. Walmart will still not give employees benifits that people are bitching about, and in general they already pay above that amount for thier starting wage, so no real effect. I'd prefer it stay lower just for inflations sake, but then again if it helps a few people who can't even get to $7/hr live a little easier than its a decent thing to do.

[impala454]

I guess my problem is that there are too many conflicting reports and studies on the subject to make any conclusions. You don't seem to have that problem.

so what you're saying is if there's a conflicting report, you can't draw any conclusions? every issue out there has conflicting reports, it's which reports you want to believe and which ones present facts. i honestly haven't seen any reports showing facts and statistics that show minimum wage will help anyone. some of them say "well it won't hurt", but that's not a good reason to do vote something into law. Some say "well it's obviously good because they make more money", and do not analyze any other aspect of the issue (i.e. side effects like unemployment & inflation). From what I've read, the conclusions I've drawn are that a minimum wage increase is unnecessary and could have some negative effects on our economy.

[Hartmann]

From what I have read, most economists (conventional and unconventional) and business owners do not think a minimum wage increase is a good thing. Oddly, politicians do... hmmmm

[Testm0nkey]

im pretty sure most people living under $6/hr think its a good thing too

i hate economics and anything having to do with finance but dipping a little into huge companies profit margins is a bad thing how? small business owners arent hiring as many low wage unskilled workers as larger companies. id imagine banks/the goverment want to increase business and their profits so id imagine "small business opportunities" are going to increase even more.

[Hartmann]

im pretty sure most people living under $6/hr think its a good thing too

i hate economics and anything having to do with finance but dipping a little into huge companies profit margins is a bad thing how? small business owners arent hiring as many low wage unskilled workers as larger companies. id imagine banks/the goverment want to increase business and their profits so id imagine "small business opportunities" are going to increase even more.

Like I said before, the percentage of people making below minimum wage is actually very small and most of those people are younger than 22.

[Testm0nkey]

of course. but a lot of statistics leave out large populations of people. some dont even count part time workers, various people on disability, transient workers, illegal workers who are working minimum wage "legal" jobs

im sure living in a large city youll notice the huge amount of adult minimum wage workers who fit in one or more of those categories. its pretty easy to feel like they are more abundant then high school burger flippers

[Hartmann]

of course. but a lot of statistics leave out large populations of people. some dont even count part time workers, various people on disability, transient workers, illegal workers who are working minimum wage "legal" jobs

im sure living in a large city youll notice the huge amount of adult minimum wage workers who fit in one or more of those categories. its pretty easy to feel like they are more abundant then high school burger flippers

Well, part time workers aren't necessarily entitled to minimum wage.

Here's the problem. You want everyone to be treated monetarily equal when in fact they shouldn't be. Transient workers? Illegal workers? To me, neither of those deserve minimum wage. Yes, I said deserve. Illegal immigrants working legal jobs is a bigger problem. Transient workers are for the most part, transient for a reason.

My point is statistics leave those groups out for a reason, they aren't valid to the study. They are talking about full-time employees who are legally here and can hold down a job.

[impala454]

im pretty sure most people living under $6/hr think its a good thing too

i hate economics and anything having to do with finance but dipping a little into huge companies profit margins is a bad thing how? small business owners arent hiring as many low wage unskilled workers as larger companies. id imagine banks/the goverment want to increase business and their profits so id imagine "small business opportunities" are going to increase even more.

how good is it for them if they lose their job or have to pay X% more for their everyday items?

[Billy]

so what you're saying is if there's a conflicting report, you can't draw any conclusions? every issue out there has conflicting reports, it's which reports you want to believe and which ones present facts. i honestly haven't seen any reports showing facts and statistics that show minimum wage will help anyone. some of them say "well it won't hurt", but that's not a good reason to do vote something into law. Some say "well it's obviously good because they make more money", and do not analyze any other aspect of the issue (i.e. side effects like unemployment & inflation). From what I've read, the conclusions I've drawn are that a minimum wage increase is unnecessary and could have some negative effects on our economy.

You're essentially admitting you believe in what you want to believe, and care nothing for fact. The question is: Will raising the minimum wage increase unemployment? YOU CAN NOT ANSWER IT. The answer is: I don't know. So should we base our policy on I-don't-know's? Should we cut a potentially good policy, one that would help a lot of people because you believe it won't? I've said this before, but you're awfully arrogant to think you cannot be wrong. Basing policy on belief is incredibly immature and harmful to the population. If there were facts that showed that in the past, raising minimum wage increases unemployment, I would agree with you that maybe we shouldn't do it. But there aren't. The only thing out there is inclusive data that depending on which side you want to argue, can support either side. What that tells me is that there is no solid correlation between higher minimum wage and unemployment.

But the fact is, $5.15 in 2007 dollars is half of what $1.60 was in 1968 dollars as far as purchasing power is concerned ($9.12). That's a fact. And by this fact, minimum wage should be increased. Show me facts, not beliefs.

[Mommy]

You're essentially admitting you believe in what you want to believe, and care nothing for fact. The question is: Will raising the minimum wage increase unemployment? YOU CAN NOT ANSWER IT. The answer is: I don't know. So should we base our policy on I-don't-know's? Should we cut a potentially good policy, one that would help a lot of people because you believe it won't? I've said this before, but you're awfully arrogant to think you cannot be wrong. Basing policy on belief is incredibly immature and harmful to the population. If there were facts that showed that in the past, raising minimum wage increases unemployment, I would agree with you that maybe we shouldn't do it. But there aren't. The only thing out there is inclusive data that depending on which side you want to argue, can support either side. What that tells me is that there is no solid correlation between higher minimum wage and unemployment.

But the fact is, $5.15 in 2007 dollars is half of what $1.60 was in 1968 dollars as far as purchasing power is concerned ($9.12). That's a fact. And by this fact, minimum wage should be increased. Show me facts, not beliefs.

I agree with this

Most of you dont care or argue against it because you dont make that little.

[Dogmeat]

i think minimum wage needs to be LOWERED so we can make poor people even more poor and laugh at them and generate as much bad karma for ourselves as possible because we're all so goth and want to be miserable in this life and EVEN our next one

[impala454]

You're essentially admitting you believe in what you want to believe, and care nothing for fact.

no that's not what i'm admitting. you said that because there is conflicting reports you cannot come to any conclusion, and i told you there will always be conflicting reports with any issue. you have to use your brain to figure out which ones are wrong/misleading.

But the fact is, $5.15 in 2007 dollars is half of what $1.60 was in 1968 dollars as far as purchasing power is concerned ($9.12). That's a fact. And by this fact, minimum wage should be increased. Show me facts, not beliefs.

haha ok... go to wikipedia real quick and find the highest value minimum wage has ever held (and during vietnam no less) and compare it to that... great analysis. nevermind what the economic experts say.

Most of you dont care or argue against it because you dont make that little.

I don't agree with it because of all of the economic effects it could have on everyone. and this doesn't only affect minimum wage worker's wages, it affects everyone making less than $7.25.

bottom line is hartmann had it... only the politicians seem to be interested. gee i wonder why the democrats who just got hold of congress would want to raise minimum wage asap when we have presidential campaigns starting up soon.

[Billy]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.


By the way: Dun dun dun

[Dogmeat]

raising the minimum wage is going to give more money to drug dealers and drug smugglers because the vast majority of people who CONTINUALLY make minimum wage are drug users with poor attitudes towards life.

So effectivley the democrats are supporting drug users habits.

[impala454]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:

Show me facts, not beliefs.

anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

By the way: Dun dun dun

not really much of a shocker. as was already stated the politicians approve of it because it makes them look good in their elections ('vote for me I increased your wages').

[Seussninja]

raising the minimum wage is going to give more money to drug dealers and drug smugglers because the vast majority of people who CONTINUALLY make minimum wage are drug users with poor attitudes towards life.

So effectivley the democrats are supporting drug users habits.

Last time i checked Heroin and Cocaine were pretty expensive, but i digress.

What you're saying is that most junkies make minimum wage. HOWEVER, not everyone who makes minimum wage is a junkie, hell, probably not even the majority. It'd almost as easy to find coke heads in your preppy high school than workin at McDonalds (who actually pays above minimum wage in most cases, even as much as 6.50 or 7.00(Not like that's that much to make a decent living off of anyways.))

But hey if those lazy asses had just gone to college we wouldn't have this problem! If everyone has a college degree the menial jobs will be preformed themselves! MAGIC MOPS

[Billy]

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:
anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

[Hartmann]

Last time i checked Heroin and Cocaine were pretty expensive, but i digress.

What you're saying is that most junkies make minimum wage. HOWEVER, not everyone who makes minimum wage is a junkie, hell, probably not even the majority. It'd almost as easy to find coke heads in your preppy high school than workin at McDonalds (who actually pays above minimum wage in most cases, even as much as 6.50 or 7.00(Not like that's that much to make a decent living off of anyways.))

But hey if those lazy asses had just gone to college we wouldn't have this problem! If everyone has a college degree the menial jobs will be preformed themselves! MAGIC MOPS

Oddly enough, most crack and heroin dealers still live at home with their moms...

[Mommy]

MOM! MEATLOAF! FUCK!

[impala454]

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

this is a perfect example of the argument for the increase. every argument I've read so far, whether on here or some news report or website, takes this extremely narrow minded approach. it says "well they'll make more money so that's good right?" without looking at the effects it has on business. you think it's a take from the rich give to the poor thing? please. you believe someone can't live off the minimum wage at a full time job? this isn't about getting high school & college kids more beer money. Minimum wage is just that, the bare minimum. it's not a "minimum so everyone can have a decent apartment and cable & high speed internet". people who don't strive for more than the minimums won't get more than the minimum. and did you just skim over the part I pasted from that article? here it is again:

The last major increase in the minimum wage was in 1996. After the increase, a survey of 1,000 restaurants by the National Restaurant Association concluded that more than 146,000 jobs were eliminated because of increased labor costs. These same restaurants delayed hiring an additional 106,000 people for a net loss of 252,000 employees in the restaurant industry alone.

how's that for the 'human side' of things?

[impala454]

Oddly enough, most crack and heroin dealers still live at home with their moms...

not that i disagree... but where the hell did you pull this from?

[Billy]

I ignored it because there is another report that claims the opposite that I posted. A book by a couple of economist who did a survey and found jobs actually increased the last time the minimum wage was increased. And since we have two contradicting reports, I don't think either can be used. But I'm not going to go in circles with you.

[Hartmann]

not that i disagree... but where the hell did you pull this from?

Freakonomics. Not a great resource but he uses data collected during some of the worst gang violence in Chicago. He also talks a lot about minimum wage increases and how the peddlers in the drug industry made well below minimum wage just to have a chance at becoming a big dog, the same reason people take crappy paying jobs.

[impala454]

I ignored it because there is another report that claims the opposite that I posted. A book by a couple of economist who did a survey and found jobs actually increased the last time the minimum wage was increased. And since we have two contradicting reports, I don't think either can be used. But I'm not going to go in circles with you.

cool, which book?

[Billy]

It's in the thread. I even gave the ISBN number.

[impala454]

so the book was written in 1997... I guess they didn't see the data used in 1996 which showed 252,000 jobs lost in one industry alone.

and even in the quote from wikipedia you used... it says they showed there was little to no negative impact... so... was there a positive impact? that doesn't sell me to pass a bill- "hey lets pass a bill, it won't have any negative impacts!"

[Billy]

so the book was written in 1997... I guess they didn't see the data used in 1996 which showed 252,000 jobs lost in one industry alone.

and even in the quote from wikipedia you used... it says they showed there was little to no negative impact... so... was there a positive impact? that doesn't sell me to pass a bill- "hey lets pass a bill, it won't have any negative impacts!"

Are you for real? So if the bill doesn't effect you positively, it has no positive impact? I would imagine there is a positive impact on the people who go from making $5.15 to $7.25.

[Mommy]

this is the stupidest fucking argument ever...EVER

prices on shit have gone up enormously since 10 years ago. why the fuck would we not increase minimum wage?

oh and to be more clear....WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER IF LESS THAN 12% make less than $6? Unless its 0% there is something wrong. I dont know if any of you realize, but 5% of 300million people is still 15 million people. DURRRRRRR..... thats awful.

[Spectatrix]

lol @ a minimum wage increase. I won't vote for it, but it'll probably pass and then I'll just laugh when unemployment goes through the roof for a few months.

[GOB]

hey look this thread is still open

[Billy]

lol @ a minimum wage increase. I won't vote for it, but it'll probably pass and then I'll just laugh when unemployment goes through the roof for a few months.

And I'll laugh when that doesn't happen.

[Psykopath]

And I'll laugh when that doesn't happen.

seconded

[FORSAKENR320]

this is the stupidest fucking argument ever...EVER

prices on shit have gone up enormously since 10 years ago. why the fuck would we not increase minimum wage?

oh and to be more clear....WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER IF LESS THAN 12% make less than $6? Unless its 0% there is something wrong. I dont know if any of you realize, but 5% of 300million people is still 15 million people. DURRRRRRR..... thats awful.

yea, i read somewhere that even though the minimum wage is way higher than it used to be, because on inflation, people are actually making alot less money than they used to 10 years ago. it wasn't raised enough to stay with the rise in inflation.


ok, now that i agreed with you, will you post a picture of you nekkid straddling a bicycle helmet filled full of rainbow sherbert ice cream like you promised?

[Spectatrix]

And I'll laugh when that doesn't happen.

Mkay.

Better anyways to have a modern wide-scale experiment to settle the debate. Ya know, until a decade from now when people are talking about raising the minimum wage and arguing the fuck out of the issue and nobody remembers what happened this time (one way or another).

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jan 12 2007, 07:10 AM

[impala454]

Are you for real? So if the bill doesn't effect you positively, it has no positive impact? I would imagine there is a positive impact on the people who go from making $5.15 to $7.25.

i wasn't talking about me, i'm talking about everyone. and again with your extremely narrow view thinking "well they'll make more money so it must be good". it's a 40% increase over two years! do you think the cost of living for minimum wage workers will increase by 40% over the next two years? or hell do you even think it's increased 40% in the past ten!??! geezus man if you cannot see the economic impact of such a drastic raise for so many people, i guess i give up.

[Billy]

i wasn't talking about me, i'm talking about everyone. and again with your extremely narrow view thinking "well they'll make more money so it must be good". it's a 40% increase over two years! do you think the cost of living for minimum wage workers will increase by 40% over the next two years? or hell do you even think it's increased 40% in the past ten!??! geezus man if you cannot see the economic impact of such a drastic raise for so many people, i guess i give up.

Well I guess we'll find out soon enough if the sky really is falling.

[impala454]

or we could just watch unemployment rates

[Dogmeat]

>Subject: 2008 Democratic National Convention Agenda
>
>
>HOPE YOU ALL ENJOY THIS.
>
>
>Agenda
>
>7:00 Opening Flag burning.
>
>7:15 Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
>
>7:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>7:35 Non-religious prayer and worship - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
>
>8:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:05 Ceremonial tree hugging
>
>8:10 Gay Wedding - Barney Frank Presiding, Rosie - Witness
>
>8:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:35 Free SADAM Rally - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon
>
>9:00 Keynote Speech - "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender!" - French
>President
> Jacques Chirac
>
>9:15 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:20 Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
>
>9:30 Unveiling of plan to free "freedom fighters" from Guantanamo Bay -
>Sean Penn
>
>9:40 "Why I Hate the Military" A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
>
>9:45 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:50 Dan Rather - Truth in Broadcasting Award, presented by Michael Moore
>
>9:55 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>10:00 How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade
>Center
> Towers - Howard Dean.
>
>10:30 Nomination of Hillary Rohdam Clinton - by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
>
>11:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>11:05 Al Gore reinvents the Internet
>
>11:15 "Our Troops are War Criminals" - John Kerry
>
>11:30 Coronation of Hillary Rohdam Clinton
>
>12:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>12:05 Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.

[GOB]

>Subject: 2008 Democratic National Convention Agenda
>
>
>HOPE YOU ALL ENJOY THIS.
>
>
>Agenda
>
>7:00 Opening Flag burning.
>
>7:15 Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
>
>7:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>7:35 Non-religious prayer and worship - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
>
>8:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:05 Ceremonial tree hugging
>
>8:10 Gay Wedding - Barney Frank Presiding, Rosie - Witness
>
>8:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:35 Free SADAM Rally - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon
>
>9:00 Keynote Speech - "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender!" - French
>President
> Jacques Chirac
>
>9:15 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:20 Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
>
>9:30 Unveiling of plan to free "freedom fighters" from Guantanamo Bay -
>Sean Penn
>
>9:40 "Why I Hate the Military" A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
>
>9:45 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:50 Dan Rather - Truth in Broadcasting Award, presented by Michael Moore
>
>9:55 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>10:00 How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade
>Center
> Towers - Howard Dean.
>
>10:30 Nomination of Hillary Rohdam Clinton - by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
>
>11:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>11:05 Al Gore reinvents the Internet
>
>11:15 "Our Troops are War Criminals" - John Kerry
>
>11:30 Coronation of Hillary Rohdam Clinton
>
>12:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>12:05 Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.

awesome

[The Fanatic]

Raising the minimum wage is long overdue, at the same time it is only a temporary fix. While I am more left leaning on most issues. Increasing the minimum wage will only create more inflation...

If you want to make real steps toward fair wages, you have to institute a living wage.

Before we worry about increasing minimum wage, congress needs to do something about the U.S deficit.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Jan 17 2007, 06:53 PM

[The Fanatic]

>Subject: 2008 Democratic National Convention Agenda
>
>
>HOPE YOU ALL ENJOY THIS.
>
>
>Agenda
>
>7:00 Opening Flag burning.
>
>7:15 Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
>
>7:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>7:35 Non-religious prayer and worship - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
>
>8:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:05 Ceremonial tree hugging
>
>8:10 Gay Wedding - Barney Frank Presiding, Rosie - Witness
>
>8:30 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>8:35 Free SADAM Rally - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon
>
>9:00 Keynote Speech - "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender!" - French
>President
> Jacques Chirac
>
>9:15 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:20 Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
>
>9:30 Unveiling of plan to free "freedom fighters" from Guantanamo Bay -
>Sean Penn
>
>9:40 "Why I Hate the Military" A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
>
>9:45 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>9:50 Dan Rather - Truth in Broadcasting Award, presented by Michael Moore
>
>9:55 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>10:00 How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade
>Center
> Towers - Howard Dean.
>
>10:30 Nomination of Hillary Rohdam Clinton - by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
>
>11:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>11:05 Al Gore reinvents the Internet
>
>11:15 "Our Troops are War Criminals" - John Kerry
>
>11:30 Coronation of Hillary Rohdam Clinton
>
>12:00 Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>
>12:05 Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.

retarded, but semi-funny

[Mommy]

Raising the minimum wage is long overdue, at the same time it is only a temporary fix. While I am more left leaning on most issues. Increasing the minimum wage will only create more inflation...

If you want to make real steps toward fair wages, you have to institute a living wage.

Before we worry about increasing minimum wage, congress needs to do something about the U.S deficit.

Dont you think that raising minimum wage could be a small help to resolving the US deficit? It will bring in more revenue to the government because people are making more.

[The Fanatic]

Not if it increases inflation, which it will.

[Billy]

Not if it increases inflation, which it will.

Pure speculation. Generally, to have inflation, you need to actually have more money into the economy, not just change its hands. Competition will keep prices down. Minimum wage labor is usually one of the smallest expenses a company has and will not force companies to permanently raise prices, if even at all. And in fact, with the exception of the southern states like Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana, most companies already pay that $7.50 and higher to their "minimum wage" workers. So in the majority case, most companies will not even be affected by this law. In Texas, there are few business who pay less than $6 an hour. Those companies will be only minorly affected. To have the effect on the economy that opponents of the minimum wage hike claim, you'd need to affect a much larger area and a much larger population.

You are going to be happily surprised when this law does absolutely nothing harmful to the economy.

[Mommy]

Pure speculation. Generally, to have inflation, you need to actually have more money into the economy, not just change its hands. Competition will keep prices down. Minimum wage labor is usually one of the smallest expenses a company has and will not force companies to permanently raise prices, if even at all. And in fact, with the exception of the southern states like Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana, most companies already pay that $7.50 and higher to their "minimum wage" workers. So in the majority case, most companies will not even be affected by this law. In Texas, there are few business who pay less than $6 an hour. Those companies will be only minorly affected. To have the effect on the economy that opponents of the minimum wage hike claim, you'd need to affect a much larger area and a much larger population.

You are going to be happily surprised when this law does absolutely nothing harmful to the economy.

Definitely agree here. It will only affect certain businesses that are cheap asses and dont pay their employees well.

[Billy]

I do find it interesting that a lot of the people who defended the doubling in the price of gas are vehemently against the raising of the minimum wage. The rise in gas prices has destroyed the stock market, raised your electric bill, and caused huge amounts of inflation. And there wasn't even a good side benefit. Atleast raising the minimum wage has a good chance of stimulating it.

[GOB]

The rise in gas prices has destroyed the stock market

um?


if by "destroyed," you mean "didn't really affect because all the major indices have done nothing but go up significantly in the past three years," then you would be correct.

maybe i missed the thread on here where people "supported" the rise in gas/oil prices?

[Dogmeat]

Explain to me how the rise in gas prices have "destroyed" the stock market .... if anything they've been a partial cause of inflation, not any long term effects on the stock market ...

[The Fanatic]

Pure speculation. Generally, to have inflation, you need to actually have more money into the economy, not just change its hands. Competition will keep prices down. Minimum wage labor is usually one of the smallest expenses a company has and will not force companies to permanently raise prices, if even at all. And in fact, with the exception of the southern states like Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana, most companies already pay that $7.50 and higher to their "minimum wage" workers. So in the majority case, most companies will not even be affected by this law. In Texas, there are few business who pay less than $6 an hour. Those companies will be only minorly affected. To have the effect on the economy that opponents of the minimum wage hike claim, you'd need to affect a much larger area and a much larger population.

You are going to be happily surprised when this law does absolutely nothing harmful to the economy.

Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done. I just think that simply raising the min. wage is not enough. If they do increase the min wage, at least I will get a pay raise (currently making 6.50)...

I do find it interesting that a lot of the people who defended the doubling in the price of gas are vehemently against the raising of the minimum wage. The rise in gas prices has destroyed the stock market, raised your electric bill, and caused huge amounts of inflation. And there wasn't even a good side benefit. Atleast raising the minimum wage has a good chance of stimulating it.

While i agree that raising gas prices has had A HUGE impact on inflation, it has not destroyed the stock market. Please back up this speculation with evidence...

[Billy]

Almost any investor you can talk to will tell you the rise in energy costs has kept the market down.

Ok, I should not have said "destroyed". Maybe instead "heaftily hindered". Get over it. This thread is about minimum wage, not gas.

And btw, the 2005 dow jones, is at the same level as 2000. Nasdaq, is significantly lower than 2000. S&P 500 is also only at the same level as 2000. Please, dear god, explain how you got the major indices have done nothing but go up significantly.





Oh, that's right, because you misleadingly said "past 3 years". Though that statement is true, that's not when gas prices started to rise (the price began it's steep inclimation in 2002, source), and for the market to keep up on par with its past, it would have had to rise much higher than it has. The stock market is not in all that great shape. Believe me, investors have not been too impressed with the past 7 years.

Some supporting links to my claim:

http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/con.../OIL15_COX.html
http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/20...rtr1382512.html

Not claiming it's the end of the world. But energy prices have indeed, dealt a blow to the market. Nothing it won't recover from (in fact, two the three major indices have, at this point in time, recovered), and honestly, it is not the only factor. But there is no denying it was a significant contributor.


Now, back to minimum wage.

[Billy]

maybe i missed the thread on here where people "supported" the rise in gas/oil prices?

You must have. I think hartman and impala defended the rise in gas prices.

[The Fanatic]

Ummm, the U.S. did enter a recession??

[Billy]

Hey look man, you can disagree with higher energy prices hurting the stock market. But, every Finance PhD in the world will call you an idiot.

But maybe they're wrong!

But that's beside the point. I still want to know how anyone can justify the price of gas (via inflation and real dollars), but then can turn around and claim that minimum wage, which hasn't seen in an increase in 10 years, shouldn't be raised (in other words, why do the same economic rules not apply to the minimum wage as they do to the price of gas?).

[GOB]

you're drawing it back to 00-01 which is absolutely not when gas prices were high. the market was shitty at that point due to the tech bust, and it's done nothing but rise since then; "destroyed" would be not improving at all.

one of your oil articles was written in the middle of last summer when the barrel was at its' highest ever. hmm, there weren't any nutcase market speculators at that time, were there? and the farm economy? right, that hasn't been tanking for the past 20 years...

did you actually look at the values of these indices, or are you just looking at the graphs? there was a huge gap to overcome after the late 99-01 recession, and the market has done just that. the scale of the graphs you posted are misleading because they date back to the inception of the index-- look at a 5 year historical chart and the change is much more clear. you're arguing that historical, actual, real (as in, it really, really, really did actually happen) positive returns are bad.


at this point in 2002 compared to today:

the s&p is roughly 300 points higher now
the dow is about 2000 points higher (not that this index matters for most average investors unless you're a strictly blue chip douche)
the nasdaq is about 500 higher
wilshire 5000 is about 4000 points higher
russell 1000 is almost 200 higher
russell 2000 is about 300 higher
russell 3000 is 200 higher

i could list all of them, if you would like. or how about an excel spreadsheet with the historical returns so you can take a closer look?



edit: i'm not arguing against your views on minimum wage increase, but it's ridiculous to say that the economy sucks when it's doing quite well. companies are making money, jobs are available, i don't see the problem.

[Dogmeat]

Hey look man, you can disagree with higher energy prices hurting the stock market. But, every Finance PhD in the world will call you an idiot.

But maybe they're wrong!

But that's beside the point. I still want to know how anyone can justify the price of gas (via inflation and real dollars), but then can turn around and claim that minimum wage, which hasn't seen in an increase in 10 years, shouldn't be raised (in other words, why do the same economic rules not apply to the minimum wage as they do to the price of gas?).

because the market should dictate what the job somone does is worth, not the government

[Jim]

because the market should dictate what the job somone does is worth, not the government

Don't you know, the government has to tell us what to do on everything. Including wipe our ass and talk on the internt.

[GOB]

Leading Indicators Point To Economic Acceleration
By ISABELLE LINDENMAYER
January 23, 2007 10:32 a.m.

U.S. economic activity is set to accelerate slightly in the coming months, according to a report released Tuesday by the Conference Board.

The private research group said its composite index of leading indicators rose 0.3% to 138.0 in December, from a downwardly revised flat reading in November. The December reading was on target with analysts' expectations. The index was equal to 100 in 1996.

"The latest data for the Leading Economic Index is pointing to continued moderate growth or even a little acceleration," Ken Goldstein, labor economist at the Conference Board said. "Energy prices are again on the decline. The housing slump does not appear to be deepening. Inflation remains relatively in check at the moment," he said. "Consumer income growth appears to be picking up … as wage growth improves and job generation does not appear to be slowing."

In its report, the group said its coincident indicators index rose by 0.2% to 123.3 last month, echoing November's 0.2% gain, while the lagging index for December rose by 0.9% to 127.3, compared with a 0.6% rise the prior month.

The Conference Board noted that for the month, six of the 10 components making up the leading index rose, lifted by building permits, average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance, real money supply and stock prices. The biggest negative contributors included interest-rate spreads and the index of consumer expectations.

The report said that, from June to December, the leading index rose by 0.1%, which represents a 0.3% annual rate of increase.

The Conference Board is a nonprofit research and business membership group, which computes the composite indexes from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169564872..._lead_story_lsc



the release of the leading economic indicators was delayed for some reason until this morning at 9am. odd, but good news. (examples of economic indicators = s&p500 stock prices, avg weekly work hours, avg unemployment claims, inflation adj orders for consumer goods, vendor performance, new building permits, t-bill rates, and consumer expectations-- which, oddly enough, includes many finance PhDs)

[Spectatrix]

because the market should dictate what the job somone does is worth, not the government

I concur. My main opposition to minimum wage is that it makes it so that businesses can't pay a training wage. An unskilled worker just starting out is not usually worth $7.50/hr, though they likely will be after training. Training costs are already high for business and being forced to pay an inflated wage worsens the situation. Teenagers and other entry-level workers are hurt as a result because businesses look for people that are experienced and will require little training because the training period will be shorter and they're actually worth the higher wage.

I would have much less of a problem with minimum wage legislation if there were a minimum regular wage and a minimum training wage, where the training wage could only be paid for some limited amount of time (3 weeks, for instance).

[The Fanatic]

working in fast food I have to agree, most employees are worthless when they start out work. Some of them quit within the first couple of weeks...

[Hartmann]

I would just like a chance to defend myself. I do not support the intentional increase in energy prices, however, I do not think the current oil and gas prices have a negative affect on the areas that I was referring to at the time. Everything has a reaction, so a higher gas price (which, by the way have been on the drop) may lead to less pollution but in turn could hurt people's pocketbooks. Though I do not want intentional hikes in the energy prices, I am not going to shed a tear when prices go up because someone blows up a pipeline and production plummets.

I am for an increase in public transportation in this country and a decrease in the current urbanization that we are seeing.

My problem with minimum wage is that I have not seen any research that says a significant (majority) number of 21+ aged workers make minimum wage. Everything that I have seen states that the majority of minimum wage workers are temporary and youth help. Both of which, in my mind, do not need more than $5.15 an hour. Why? Because the temporary worker is probably working 2+ jobs or is doing the current job for a few months, so why should the employer be forced to pay someone more even though they will lose them in the same amount of time? You're punishing the many (small business) to protect a few minority stats of full-time minimum wage workers.

[Billy]

source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169564872..._lead_story_lsc
the release of the leading economic indicators was delayed for some reason until this morning at 9am. odd, but good news. (examples of economic indicators = s&p500 stock prices, avg weekly work hours, avg unemployment claims, inflation adj orders for consumer goods, vendor performance, new building permits, t-bill rates, and consumer expectations-- which, oddly enough, includes many finance PhDs)

Read the article again. You just blew your whole argument. Even they throw in energy prices correlates with the market.

Anyway, stop arguing about it. If you do not believe the change in energy prices influences the market, it's not my problem. Perhaps they do not. That's all the finance professors would talk about when I was a finance undergrad (2003 and 2004), were the rising energy prices and the negative effects it would have on the market. But I am not necessarily partial to it. The data you showed definitely made their claim questionable. So who knows.

[Mommy]

I have come to the conclusion that arguing a certain way because thats what college professors taught is absolutely bogus. All too often the professors teach their opinion rather than fact. Professors have agendas too. I dont know. Maybe this is just my opinion because I was a philosophy major and most of the professors should be in the loony bin, but I still think that using "well the professors say its this way" isnt a very good way to argue....not that Im picking on anything or anyone in this thread, but I have seen it before and just wanted to comment about that since its on my mind.

[GOB]

Read the article again. You just blew your whole argument. Even they throw in energy prices correlates with the market.

Anyway, stop arguing about it. If you do not believe the change in energy prices influences the market, it's not my problem. Perhaps they do not. That's all the finance professors would talk about when I was a finance undergrad (2003 and 2004), were the rising energy prices and the negative effects it would have on the market. But I am not necessarily partial to it. The data you showed definitely made their claim questionable. So who knows.

how did the article blow my whole argument? it says that one of the reasons the market is doing well is because of the decrease in energy prices. i never said that the change in energy prices didn't affect the market, i think that was brandon-- you had brought the market strength-energy price correlation back to 2000-01 when the market dropped because of the technology bust, among other things, and before oil started going crazy. the tech sector eventually recovered and grew with the rest of the market, at the same time when energy prices started to rise, which did have a part in slowing possible growth, but wasn't the only factor.

[The Fanatic]

I have come to the conclusion that arguing a certain way because thats what college professors taught is absolutely bogus. All too often the professors teach their opinion rather than fact. Professors have agendas too. I dont know. Maybe this is just my opinion because I was a philosophy major and most of the professors should be in the loony bin, but I still think that using "well the professors say its this way" isnt a very good way to argue....not that Im picking on anything or anyone in this thread, but I have seen it before and just wanted to comment about that since its on my mind.

tools