Democratic agenda Options

[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