Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:28 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fc11e03f06bbb69989af7(a)news.individual.net... > In article <1eWdnc1_CsAzoMvYRVnyvA(a)pipex.net>, > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ej4l1b$8ss_033(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> > In article <4555374F.EF500B95(a)hotmail.com>, >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>krw wrote: >> >> >> >>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >> >>> > >> >>> > Why ? >> >>> >> >>> Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? >> >>> > >> >>> > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >> >>> >> >>> The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher >> >>> (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works >> >>> for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). >> >> >> >>So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional >> >>minimum ? >> >> >> > >> > You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual >> > style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. AS minimum >> > wage goes skyhigh, so do property taxes, real estate, food, other >> > taxes, and other things needed for survival. >> >> You both have claimed that "hardly anyone" would work for the minimum >> wage. >> If this is the case, it will have no impact at all. > > "Hardly anyone" who needed that job to live on. There are others > that don't "need" a "living wage". True, yet not really relevant. Are you saying someone who lives at home should be worth less than some one who doesnt? A minimum wage sets the baseline, below which work can be considered unfair. Your objections to it are as mindless as the socialist / communist insults you throw out. >> As it stands, the evidence in capitalist countries is that increases to >> the >> minimum wage does not cause "everything" to become more expensive. The >> advantage of having more people with disposable income, is that they buy >> more things. The market is a powerful and resilient beast. >> >> We could always go back to pre-black death serfdom. That kept the price >> of >> _everything_ low. > > Yeah, *that's* a logical argument. Really? Why not? What is different from the pre 14th century English employment system and what you suggest? You state that people who do not need to live on their earning do not need to earn as much - this was the case in the thirteenth century. There was no minimum wage and prices were rock bottom. Surely this is your idea of economic paradise?
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 15:29 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. > >> > >> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth > >> of housecleaning and they get it. > > > > They do ? > > > > I'm sure they wouldn't here. > > They do in some places - mainly where people are inordinately rich and > strapped for time. I know people who pay for their laundry to be washed and > ironed for them. The mind does, indeed, boggle. I can't see the 'going rate' being $200 / hour though. Graham
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:31 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fc2635137d2e15989b05(a)news.individual.net... > In article <4558681B.FD55F6D9(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >krw wrote: >> > > >> > >> There are others that don't "need" a "living wage". >> > > >> > >Very rich ppl ? >> > >> > Dependents. >> >> I doubt there are many who fit into that category any more who could >> afford to >> work for peanuts. > > Afford? Don't be stupid. >> >> > As in children and teenagers and humans who >> > are about to have to support themselves or be forever >> > on welfare. >> >> Eh ? > > You'd prefer they not work, thus not gain those skills, because the > jobs aren't worth the "living wage". Next step; welfare office. This is a myth which is disproven day in and day out in countries with minimum wages. In the UK the minimum wage is twice that in the US, and yet people do get part time jobs and do minimum wage work for experience. The market is much more robust than you and BAH care to admit to. I suspect you are both nurturing communist leanings and doubt the ability of capitalism to adapt to the circumstances.
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 15:34 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > Nationalised health care does not suffer from the problems you mentioned so > > I have no idea why you think it would make it worse. > > Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. There are > those of us who hold the well supported understanding > that delf-regulating competitive capitalism works better. Not in all cases. It's a plain fact. Graham
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:33
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:i3chl2llc2cuav4dlg18h6bcfvu8ls1658(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:41:50 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:cdnbl2tfs917t21jv0tvvl07dldnqoe6vq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >>>>> > >>>>> >Not that we're >>>>> > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >>>>> > snacks either. >>>>> >>>>> How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from >>>>> our >>>>> high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus >>>>> unum" >>>>> to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" >>>> >>>>Fields has warranted a nickname. >>>> >>>>Impaler ! >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>> --- >>> No doubt that came to mind because of your often finding yourself >>> dangling from the end of my lance. >>> >> >>Is this supposed to be homoerotic or some flash back to the days of >>knights? > > Do you _really_ need help in figuring it out or are you just writing > to hear yourself talk? No, I am fairly sure it is homoerotic. I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt. |