Breeders. That's an actual job title at many seed companies.

Usually they pick a particular trait that they would like to develop, preferably one that's easy to test for. They measure plants in the field, measure their output, scan the resulting product with near-infrared spectroscopy or nuclear magnetic resonance scans to find composition, and even look at genetic markers. Then they ship the seed for the next generation to be planted somewhere warm to shorten the generation time. Monsanto and Syngenta have labs a short drive from where I live that do NIR, MR, and PCR/marker testing for breeders, and there are lots of small fields full of odd-looking plants around here.

Exactly! So when someone is forced to pay a higher wage it makes it more likely that they will take advantage of other options.

You don't think it's possible to replace some janitors with "mop and wax" versions of Roomba, Teflon coatings, and by making employees empty their own trash?

You can buy automated "self checkout" systems from China. I'm pretty sure that if wages go up enough stores will turn into giant vending machines.

Is your argument that because government does one thing that is wrong it's OK if it does other things that are wrong? Really?

If this is the best evidence that people (on both sides) can give me I'm going to have to stay neutral. Give me peer reviewed material from several sources and I'll be convinced, but usually the only reason to reference an article in Salon is because you don't have anything better.

So a bit like Lisp?

He was born black?

While you won't get any money from the Nigerian prince, and your penis will never be any more impressive than it is now, your date really is a French bodybuilding model. But be warned, he likes to play rough.

I don't, it was a rhetorical question. IOW: If you can't prove a negative, you shouldn't claim a negative.

But to bring this out of nitpick-land - I'd take almost anything reliable as evidence that an example hasn't been found.

No I don't, I haven't made a claim.

Again, to avoid the nitpick - If this is true, I'd like to know it's true to a reasonable degree of certainty. I'd have to be insane to believe everything I've read on an internet forum.

While that's true in the short term, I don't think that many effects from CAFE standards would be described as 'short term'. There's no reason that demand can't be inelastic in the short term (filling up) and elastic in the long term (auto purchases).

Never? That's quite an assertion you've got there, son. Care to let the rest of us in on your sources?

Well, clearly the first person had to be wrong. There's no other explanation.

One person said: "Wages in the US are amongst the top of ANY other country."
Which is true.
Another person said: "No."
Which is a false.

The fact that you came up with a much more intelligent response, pointing out that that fact wasn't that important, and has to be interpreted in light of other facts, doesn't mean that the original statement was incorrect.

Throwing money into a broken system doesn't magically stop the broken system being broken.

I agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that they really are throwing the most money (per capita) into their system.

My point was the no matter how bad their system is or what issue you look at, a general lack of money can't possibly be at the root of the problem, because every society in the history of the world has managed to get by with less.

Possibly because they read the correct wikipedia article...

I'm sorry, but I tried to make clear that I was not talking about outcomes at all, only spending. The fact that the US's literacy rate sucks doesn't mean that they didn't spend the money.

As you note, they'll soon be making $100+k per year. Creditors and a bankruptcy judge would have that in mind.

You'd think so, but in some actual cases that didn't happen, and students managed to walk away from significant debt with very valuable degrees. Which is why the law was changed in the first place (or at least that was the argument that was used to sell it).

But I do agree with you in that a less drastic 'tweak' to the law would have been wiser.