Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (217783)	2/11/2007 10:26:51 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

The people who are suffer the worst when wages are raised by legislative fiat above the prevailing wage are the ones for whom employers do not wish to increase their wages, so let them go. That is to say, teenagers, especially black teenagers, part time workers, especially mothers of very young children, and unskilled laborers, especially people without much education, as well as illegal immigrants, and recent but legal immigrants. At one point in my life I would have been surprised that Democrats really didn't give a damn about these workers, but I've learned a lot over time. The people who benefit the most are union workers and skilled laborers, who were already making more than minimum wage, and contribute heavily to Democrat coffers. I used to think you just didn't realize the harm you were doing, now I know you're feathering the nests of your constituents. Kids, poor blacks, and other marginal workers don't vote, and don't send money to Washington. Got to keep the gravy train rolling.

To: Katelew who wrote (217783)	2/11/2007 10:49:52 PM
From: mistermj	Respond to of 281500

So nearly 10% layoffs AND decreased hours for those retained is acceptable to you. Easy for you to say I guess. And you somehow think this is a net gain that will build itself through the economy? You seem so locked into the idea of a raise that you do not consider the lost wages and economic activity caused by the layoffs,decreased hours,and higher prices. Your comments about price controls and tax refunds are so far out there I will let you regroup and try again. Mj, your own article said layoffs following min. wage increases ranged from 1 to 3%. Those numbers are an acceptable trade-off

To: Katelew who wrote (217783)	2/11/2007 11:04:16 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mj, your own article said layoffs following min. wage increases .. You're being excessively generous in referring to that particular piece of propaganda as an article. It's list of cherry-picked studies with cherry-picked conclusions... The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks. Bauer (1959). South Africa in 1959. How about apartheid? "In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. In 1960, a large group of blacks in Sharpeville refused to carry their passes; the government declared a state of emergency. The emergency lasted for 156 days, leaving 69 people dead and 187 people wounded. Wielding the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the white regime had no intention of changing the unjust laws of apartheid." www-cs-students.stanford.edu Apartheid was no big deal for blacks in SA for ye 'old white Republicans and mj....it's raising the minimum wage that hurt blacks. jttmab