birdog1960

honestly, i don't think the number of minimum wage jobs would decrease significantly if the min wage went up 2-3 dollars. here's why: these aren't discretionary jobs. they're a necessity or they wouldn't exist. companies aren't hiring low wage workers for a lifetime of loyalty. they hire them when and if they need them. and lay them off without a backward glance when things slow down. for reasons i earlier detailed, these workers aren't a massive percentage of variable cost in comp[arison to other fixed and variable costs. price increases for goods and services in many cases would be small.in answer, to NO reason question: if it was felt likely that such a move would destroy the economy (in the same way the sequester or failure to raise the debt limit does) then i would oppose it. i don't bel;ieve that to be the case and feel their are much more serious threats to the economy than this.yes. i believe everones labor should be valued at a level that a full time employee at any job can afford the basic necessities:food, shelter, basic health care that wasn't aimed at you. i owned a small business for almost 20 uyears. i have some experience with personnel issues.

so we've gone through all the tired, old, lame excuses for not increasing the minimum wage: 1.deny the existence of the working poor 2.put forth that those making minimum wage are not trying to support a family on their wages. it's just kids working for pocket money 3. demonize the working poor. they're all useless workers. don't earn their pay. untrainable. lazy, etc.4. admit that there are some working poor but that a very tiny group of people are affected. 5.ad hominem attacks (but living in a glass house in this thread, i'll keep my stones to myself on this one).6. and finally, taa daaaaa, the good ole strawman of a living wage must equal a middle class wage. it's important to remember that none of these excuses are remotely true. in fact, they're patently false. but that won't stop you the next time this comes up from spouting them off. maybe you could come up with something of real substance and surprise everyone. i won't hold my breath.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2010/04/27/backyard-seed-vault/the answer to same old bills question is an unequivocal "yes". it's called an F1 hybrid and will not reproduce "true to seed" from year to year. the example given in this article is the "early girl" tomato owned, interestingly enough, by monsanto. won't be growing those in my garden this year.

i don i don't expect biden to be an expert on shotguns anymore than i expect dick cheney or sarah palin to be. which one of those 3 shot a friend in the face? the point is, the use of a shotgun for self defense is recommended by many well versed law enforcement groups and individuals.

so, he's correct. it's just that you don't like hearing him (or me, who has made the same point here repeatedly) say it. guess what? we'll keep saying it just to wind people like you up. well, that and the fact that it's a salient argument on an important and high priority issue.

keep telling yourself that if it soothes whatever vestiges of conscience remain in your vacuous soul. have you never seen/met any working poor people?

any botanists onboard? we bought a stirped squash we really liked at the farmers market this fall. next week, we asked the grower for some hints and he said the seeds will dehybidize and revert to a boring, not nearly as good wild type. we'll experiment but i bet he's correct. what stops monsanto from engineering such a seed? i've certainly seen it happen with "volunteer" plants from other vegetable hybrids especially tomatoes that usually reemerge as cherry types.

just when i started bumming about sitting on the investment sidelines through the debt limit deal this ugly head pops up even more prominently. still think deadlock is a good financial bet but will see. sad that intransigence/stupidity of the warring sides and speculating on the outcomes has become an investment strategy but it surely has..and a rational, if unpredictable one, at that.

wow, sayres law explains a lot...like what stories are featured on drudge and what important stories are not. seems like a reasonable theory. but i beg to differ on the importance of nobel prizes as a recent game of the uk version of trivial pursuits taught me that adolph hitler was once nominated for the peace prize,in 1938, i believe. quickly rescinded but a definite black mark for the institution. they can and do sometimes get it wrong. but not in krugman's case it appears. tasker will never have to avoid the controversy involved in such nominations/awards. good for everyone.

care to explain: http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=6019. pretty sure, in this case, asexual reproduction means exclusive of seeds and requiring grafting.

good question. yes, i'm fairly sure "sterile", nonreproducing seeds can be engineered a la your seedless orange (watermelon) example. wonder if the any of the supremes asked this question. if not they should. i sure hope david (or everyman) wins this battle with goliath but i'm not really hopeful.

we'll see. the lower court found for monsanto. the supremes agreed to hear it so at least some there think it's not cut and dry.. the legal experts i listened to on both sides last night on pbs admitted the complexities and myriad implications of the decision and the question.

your examples are part of the point. by monsanto's reckoning, if the seeds blow into a neighbors field and grow, then the neighbor farmer can be accused of stealing from monsanto (hence kagan's line of questioning). also, monsanto didn't specifically produce the seed the farmer used a season later. it was produced by plants he grew.ie: one can make the argument that the farmerproduced the second generation seeds. does their patent last for infinite plant generations? what if they self mutate or dehybridize? the real question is whether the law is keeping up with technology advances. if monsanto wins and "natural" or heirloom seeds get more and more scarce, one can envision a country where companies like monsanto have nearly absolute say over what is grown and ultimately eaten in the country.

seeing as this story has garnered more interest than a supreme court deliberation with implications for the national food supply and chinese hacking with national security implications, i can say i'm a bit disappointed as well.

people wouldn't need 2 jobs if they were paid a living wage for 1. then unemployment goes down. 2 birds with one stone.

so it's ok for those 3% of workers who aren't kids yet make minimum wage to continue making $7.25/hr? is 3% of american workers over 25 a number you're comfortable with discarding to the junk heap of living standards? if it's so few people, why worry about increasing the cost of goods by raising wages? this entire line of argument is disingenuous. and why the arbitrary age of 25? can you not be head of household/primary bread winner before age 25? because as a fraction of overall production costs in many industries, wages paid to low earning workers don't amount to much. how many 20% raises on workers making $7.25/hr equals a 2% raise for a worker making 7 figures? or a 2% increase in insurance premiums or electric rates, etc.

you're making an invalid assumption that cost wil go up proportionallt to minimum wage increases. for these wages to increase 25% (7 to 9 dollars) shouldn't result in anywhere near a 25% inc in production/service costs and thus shouldn't result in a large inc in the price of goods.

i think it would if the minimum wage was set at a livable level. and $9 probably isn't that (especially without health insurance). but this requires a true paradigm shift in the thinking of americans. admittedly, it's a hard sell (x to those making minimum wage now).

really? $10/hour over a full work year equates to $20k...so a small business increasing wages $2/hr for it's 5 workers incurs this additional expense. all other similar businesses do as well. and prices go up marginally to compensate. alternatively, carve out an exception for businesses employing less than say, 10 employees as has been done on other labor issues (eg "right to work"). irrespective of that, it's a moral question from my perspective: should all full time workers be paid subsistence wages thus eliminating the need for taxpayer support of these workers? my answer is a very clear "yes".

a very important case in my view http://rt.com/usa/news/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/. kagen brought up the likelihood of seed spreading spontaneously. what happens when all or most seed is patented if monsanto wins here (which is looking to likely be the case). thoughts?

watched this pbs newshour expert discussion this am: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/china2_02-19.html. extremely interesting especially about one successful mode of attack: phony fishing emails to high level execs. the other thing that came to mind was the cascade effect: chinese soldiers trained in these techniques using them systematically for private gain outside their "barracks".

remove the "take over production" part and i don't find it funny at all....our gov't is meant to protect the citizenry. and maybe a $2 or 3 increase in minimum wage would spur wal mart sales while not hurting business in aspen our pebble beach too much.

i pondered this minimum wage question a fair amount while there and concluded this: the low minimum wage in the US is a major form of govt sponsored corporate welfare. those workers not making a subsistence wage are subsidized by the govt in the form of foodstamps, rent subsidies, medicaid etc. in switzerland, the employers pay those cost through higher wages. here, those costs are paid by the taxpayers. and yes, they have mandatory, private paid and supplied medical insurance coverage there. seems a bad deal for the taxpayers and a good one for minimum wage paying companies, here. on the other hand, everday swiss pay for these wages with a high cost of living...but it's the real cost. not an artificially determined one afforded by money borrowed by ther govt for subsidies.

just back from Zurich (with all bones, ligaments and tendons apparently intact) but cut off from PPP ("you are not authorized to access this area" - from TBD, not the swiss.. is this a result of some ideologic disagreement withTBD? possibly the proposed $9 an hour US minimum wage proposal that would be laughed at there as woefully inadequate to free their citizens from things like food stamps. you really don't see many swiss beggars. even the ski lift workers ski (some amazingly well) and i'm pretty sure they buy their own groceries. but Switzerland's just another example of european socialism....or is it really?

last episode rocked! the hill people were awesome. scary, but awesome "ya think i'da give him a working gun? firing pin's out" or some such words. love this show. and, yup, kin is thicker than water.