birdog1960

so you are saying there are opportunists that exploit illegals? well, yeah. so is the most effective way to disincentivize the exploitation to use big, expensive walls, military presence and weapons? are would it be cheaper and likely more efficient and effective to increase the minimum wage? i'd bet a lot on the latter. and while were at it we'll be improving the lot for many of the underclass. win - win.

well, maybe you'll like mark brooks' analysis better: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/shieldsbrooks_03-15.html. doubtful, but the observation on cpacs ability to pick a winner is at least interesting. i think he's nailed it: 3 seperate republican teams that don't much care for each other - rubio camp, rand paul camp and jeb bush camp. these a 3 very different visions and will be very difficult to reconcile. even with reconciliation can any of them beat hillary?

this assumes that the cost of milk is tied penny for penny to lower wage employees wages. that the marginal cost of each minimum wage workers increase will be reflected penny for penny in the cost of each widget produced. so for milk, minimum wage labor costs represent 100% of the cost of producing and selling milk? i don't think so. in reality, it's likely a small fraction of the cost of putting a gallon on the shelf. for argument sake llets make a ridiculous assumption that it represents 25% of the cost to sell that milk. then a 30% increase in that production cost should increase the sale price of the milk by 30% of 25 or 7.5%. btw, some folks with very nice business degrees have concluded that wal mart would do better with a minimum wage increase using what amounts to more sophisticated bicycle economy reasoning. and i'll bet you complain about the "illegals"...you ever consider that if those jobs paid a livable wage there wouldn't be a need for illegals to fill those spots and with few job prospects, fewer illegals might seek entry? but the current system works really well for the unscrupulous business owner. he can hire them under the table, pay no benefits or fica or unemployment etc and then act outraged that they're allowed to stay.

go back a read my posts. arguing against my reasoning is fine. being unable to comprehend straightforward statements isn't.

well for all but you as you're clearly just deranged, the n/s test seems to be holding up re liberal/conservative.

well, um, no.

did you actually read this article? it argues that perry, who by the authors appraisal a true conservative, couldn't win a majority of latinos in texas and that he probably wouldn't nationally. i fully agree. i can't fathom how you'd find this analysis optimistic for the path repubs are currently taking. "forget whether general election voters would elect a conservative over obama if they had a chance"...really? brilliant strategy. keep it up cons.

and you demonstrate where the previous minimum wage increases meet my criteria and i'll refrain from considering you an arrogant, ignorant simpleton...which i consider a worse designation.

hmm, that weakens my hypothesis. i think the I/S dichotomy would be somewhat predictive of political affiliation. there appears to be some data to support this but it's not a slam dunk. intuitively it seems likely, however. sorry, my mistake. intuitive =N not I. it fits! signed ENTJ.

just did this http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html as a corporate exercise (much more in depth questionairre than shown here). i'm told it's common practice in corporate cultures so i expect many that post here have done it. i asked the consultant administering it if there was correlation to political affiliation and she quickly said no. a little web searching revealed that many disagree with her. so what are you? hard to believe 4 categories can describe a personality but the descriptions seemed fairly accurate. signed, EITJ. i'm guessing on you alls but it's an educated guess.

i did, actually. poverty level for family of 3 is about 21k for the 48 contiguous states. the family values crowd (read republicans) is all about mom raising the kids at home and even the chinese allow 1 child per household for the proletariate, so i figure 21k outta do it. what did obama propose? $9? make it $11 and were good to go.

and you wonder why the differential between rich and poor is increasing? i also don't believe that it's limited to these employers.

if this is true (and i certainly don't concede it) then why the profound resistance to increasing the minimum wage?

it wouldn't matter if the sides swapped plans. ryan is negotiating from a weak position and is acting like he's in a dominant position.

let's start with tasker's servants or ex servants (i'm not sure). then we add fast food workers, many kitchen workers, housekeeping staff, elderly or child care workers, farm workers and plenty of folks at wal mart (which i believe is the nations largest employer)...just a few examples. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-companies-with-the-most-low-wage-workers-2013-2

what do you suppose the unemployment rate would be without minimum wage jobs? full employment at your approved qualifying level of jobs aren't near plentiful enough to result in anything but eugenics using your model. and who decided what minimum wage jobs are supposed to be or not be? great oz...is that you?

generally those in a more powerful position negotiate from the top down and the weaker parties from the bottom up. ryan has it reversed and therefore, to many, looks ridiculous. i wasn't aware til just now that i was breaking the rules.

well, since you asked....i'd first mandate a minimum wage that provided for income for a full work week higher than the federal poverty level. then i'd mandate basic health insurance coverage either through employers or the gov't -preferably the govt via single payer. i'm sure you're happy that i'm not omnipotent. i almost always choose to vote for the candidate who i perceive to place the most relative import here, all other issues being equal.

the difference being, given the political realities (president and senate), this can serve as a starting point for negotiations. ryan's plan cannot.

had lunch today at a conference with (among others) a highly regarded teacher, a very senior medical educator/clinician at a well known, national university. he was asking me about providing care for underserved patients in my community practice as opposed to his academic practice. as the conversation inevitably turned to politics and policy, he interjected that the problem, as he saw it, was that policy makers eating $200 meals in d.c. or nyc or wherever had no idea of the life of someone making little more than that in a week. out of respect, i didn't argue. but i thought to myself "they do. they just consider them unimportant".

no, i'm talking about the fact that in real terms, ryan is shooting political blanks right now and will be for the foreseeable future excepting the unlikely event of a republican prez in 4 or 8 years that decides to give him a cabinet position a la john kerry. why repubs allow him to be a standard bearer at this moment in history is beyond me. as a progressive, i see an up side to the stupidity. as an american that really would like to see some compromise, i'm not amused.

except that his plan has no chance in hell and he knows it. here's an example of political swimming against a very strong tide: healthcare reform. there was plenty of mudslinging from both sides leading up to the election. i think most people saw through it but i'll agree, it was a factor. a bigger factor imo was that a majority of americans didn't like the tickets vision for america. i'm not sure ryan was as big of a mistake as palin but it was close. .btw, some are characterizing ryan's misstatement as a freudian slip - maybe, maybe not but it was dumb.

i read the content that he apparently meant to say as well. when do you suppose he'll realize that his party just lost got smoked in an election, with him and others just like him responsible for a sizable part of the outcome? it wasn't that funny but it did make me chuckle while shaking my head back and forth.

http://maddowblog.ms...unate-slip?lite how very appropriate...

if 10% less of gdp is spent on healthcare, most people will be wealthier.