birdog1960

more evidence against a negative effect on the economy: http://prospect.org/...-affect-economy. note that the cost to employers for an increase to $9/hour is $11billion. compared to the bank bailouts that's a pittance. and i'd go for his idea of increasing the earned income tax credit too. so where's the contrarian evidence of any type regardless of size of minimum wage increase? i don't think it exists other than that mentioned in this article which was not statistically significant. the other sides argument appears to be "because we say so".

did you read the analysis i linked to. historically, increases in minimum wage has not been accompanied by significant inflation or unemployment, even among teens. why would you expect this time to be any different? what is the evidence to the contrary? but returing to the micro analysis, even making the ridiculous assumption that 100% of production and sale of the burger (including raw materials) was attributable to minimum wage labor and the minimum wage increases 30%, its still only a $1.30 cheeseburger. this will be more than offset by the minimum wage workers increased wages

he signed up out of a sense of patriotism and the belief that our leaders would chart a wise and effective course. if that sense and those beliefs are deemed ultimately and permanently foolish, i'd say it's time to call the system a failure.

not at all. only that to utilize them as cannon fodder in a futile war is.

unfortunately your assertions in regards to unemploytment and inflation are not borne out by history: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_min_wage_bp/

not at all sure that's true. most that i see appear to be over 18. maybe out in the posh suburbs. in rural area it's different.

all volunteer x if you're poor, have no good alternatives and see a realistic opportunity to improve youy place.

you rude mechanical, show me where a large group of economists predict rampant inflation based on a minimum wage hike. many predict a stimulative effect to the economy as dollars in the lowest socioeconomic group will be spent and not saved unlike what happens when money is pumped into big banks and businesses. additionally it won't be money printed by the govt but taken from profits of the same individuals that for the last 5 years have been sitting on piles of cash.

from your link "make no mistake about it, the iraq war belongs to president george bush". just like the bay of pigs belongs to kennedy. were the others all lying? maybe. misinformed or misled? possibly. just plain wrong? probably but they saw their mistake much sooner than the wars principal architects.

just responding to darin's assertion of the price of a happy meal on the micro level that he established. maybe tomorrow i'll link to some macro arguments i alluded to earlier that industries that predominantly sell to these workers would actually do better after a minimum wage increase.

you mean like your comments on non reproducing, engineered grain? perhaps adding something to the debate other than an ad hominem attack would be productive? it's clear that there is an agenda to make it difficult for some in this demographic to vote. apparently you support this.

you picked one of the few industries where higher minimum wages might have a very significant price effect. so what's your guess. what proportion of the cost of a cheeseburger is represented by the wages of minimum wage workers? 30%? 40? so raising the minimum wage 30% raises the cost of a cheeseburger 12%. you're going to be paying $1.12 for your 99 cent double cheese burger. the horror! and what would we all do without fast food? probably be much healthier.

i'll bet the guy writing that letter read (or heard) some of these: http://zfacts.com/iraq-war-quotes

you know what they say about statistics...it's clearly true that different people can look at the same numbers and draw different conclusions. looking at the demographics part of this page http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2012 a few statistics stand out to me (and very likely the authors of the repub report being discussed here): romney lost by almost 5 million votes. how many dems didn't vote in comparison to the 4 million repubs u cite? self avowed liberals and moderates both significantly favored o with only cons supporting r. makes you wonder what independent really means. all races favored o x whites gays overwhelmingly favored o with heterosexuals equally divided (one might conclude o won on the gay vote in this limited regard) all education levels x college grads supported o including those with post grad education all religions reported here favored o x protestants (with evangelicals widely favoring r) and mormons. in summary, r won a majority of the vote from a rather homogeneous demographic base that is decreasing relative to the remainder of the us population. the writers of the report would have had to be stupid or in denial to miss these findings.

for what it's worth, i saw a bit of an early episode and most of last nights episode and thought it a very good production. the fear and then shock of mary and joseph to be visited and then honored by the "wise men" was cool. i thought, of course, it would likely have been like that but hadn't ever thought of it before. the satan thing is long tailed red herring.

i think much of it does have to do with parental expectations but some with teacher expectations. i went to catholic school grades 1-8. then went to public high school where i felt ahead of most everyone that didn't go to parochial school. i will never forget my father coming home from the first parent teacher meeting at the high school. he was livid. apparently, one of my teachers said i was an overachiever. i thought that was kind of cool. after thinking about i understood hia anger. why would you ever tell a student that? anyway, i think the differences between objective measures of success in the different schools is multifactorial. but i don't think anyone seriousy argues that public schools can't or shouldn't be improved.

wait, con = neocon? my understanding was that they were distinct points on the bell curve, one correlating with "wingnut".

sorry. meant to link to dc tom. he said it recently in reply to my question whether he supposed liberals enjoyed paying high taxzes any more than cons

isn't his argument virtually the mirror image of yours against liberals who enjoy paying higher taxes so that they can feel superior? there's some truth to both parables but i like the source for meathead's better.

some hipsters are just fine. cute girls in short skirts, loose shirts and cowboy boots...well, yeah. what's not to like. skinny, hairy guys in skinny jeans...hell no. i agree that the avetts are somewhat patchy but overall very good. should be a great show at artpark. here's another overlooked band in the genre that i really like: . apparently garnered a lot of talk at SXSW.

i guess schoenberg, buffet and others like them are fools as well.

so now you're fighting with the republican elites...and i suppose the majority of dems are elite, as well. if you represent a majority of the country, you're not representing an elite position, by definition. seems like some of the party is reading the tea leaves and some are blissfully ignorant. i really hope the clairvoyant repubs win out. i think they will. i might even be able to vote republican again.

well said. i don't mind either except that so many masters of the universe pay little as a percentage in comparison. that really pi$$e$ me off. at least some in that category also find it ridiculous: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/16/465195/wealthy-banker-raise-taxes/?mobile=nc. but, i'm sure there are those on the other side who feel they're wallowing in their guilt and somehow enjoying it. warren buffet's got nothin if you take away that wallowing, don't ya know.

the point of the exercise was to know yourself better...strengths and weaknesses. and probably, more importantly, to understand that different personalities think in different ways and require different approaches to manage or co exist. we did an exercise where our fictiitious business had low morale and hence, low productivity. 4 teams were comprised of whoever wanted to join them : N, F, S and T. there weren't enough self avowed F's (though i suspect some true F's felt disclosing it would be seen as weak) so some people played that character. we had a budget to address the problems but no other requirements. the solutions of the different groups were very different in terms of detail, scope and focus. i went with the N's but so did some S's claiming they just wanted to see what N's were all about. pretty interesting stuff. still think that there's at least a weak correlation to political affiliation, however.

do you cons actually imagine us libs enjoy paying high taxes any more than you do?