Like the U.S. itself? (Trust me, people here know it's pretty lame and nowhere near adequate for the actual cost of living.)

Oh I'm sure many, if not most Americans realise that.

But the US is one of the very few places where it appears to be considered a legitimate political argument to defend the practice of minimum wage jobs by claiming business would otherwise not be able to employ, or that the people in such jobs simply wouldn't be able to work at a reasonable wage.

I agree completely, and the Scandinavian model is one I wish the rest of the world would hurry up and get to.

When companies have complained about Australia having 'Scandinavian labour costs' I've always found that to be a positive indication that even if we're not doing it perfectly, we're doing it a whole lot better than a lot of other places! :)

What I love even more, is when US companies make such complaints, then after cleaning up their act a bit for their Australian operations find that they are actually *even more profitable*.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/franchising/dominos-defies-scandinavian-labour-costs-20110810-1ilog.html

Minimum wages are a sham, we can pay people good money for their time, to do the jobs we don't want to do. :p

Not in British English.

There are underemployment issues in most economies and there always has been, it's just that 20 years ago those people were completely invisible, and today some people will talk about them.

The situation in Japan is no worse due to automation, the issue Japan does have is an ageing population.

The relatively severe ageing problem Japan will have is certainly an issue, but it has nothing to do with automation, or the assertion that they have high unemployment.

They don't have high unemployment, they have a high number of people unable to work due to age and a low birth rate resulting in a negative population trend.

No, and I mean NO! because central wealth distribution has been shown time and again to disincentivise people from actually doing something useful with their lives. If you earn enough from benefits, and your benefits reduce if you work/produce value, then why do anything useful? And Benefit Dependency is a really nasty pernicious place to be in.

There are a number of places in the world outside the US that show this to be untrue.

Australian benefits are greater than US minimum wage (in most states) at full time. Yet somehow the unemployment in Australia is lower and all those minimum wage jobs seem to be filled.

Perhaps it's a little more complicated than forcing people to work with the threat of poverty?

Not everywhere has the incredible income disparity of the US, so you're making a lot of assumptions that while valid for the US, don't apply to the rest of the world as equally.

Probably the take away from that is that other nations are evidence that there are other ways and perhaps the US should start looking at them.

When I go out for dinner here in Australia, my waiter isn't on minimum wage, we don't have a culture of tipping because they actually get paid enough to live.

No, no one needs to be paid the minimum wage, and the minimum wage conditions of the US are frightening to me and evidence of serious social inequality and damage.

The unemployment benefits in Australia are larger than a full time job on minimum wage in most states of the US. That's how stark the difference is.

The problem is not that 'someone needs to be paid minimum wage'. Because there are nations where the US concept of minimum wage would be considered poverty.

I think you must be talking about a totally different Japan, because the Japanese unemployment is significantly lower than most other developed nations.

First google result, that easy to find...
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/unemployment-rate

So what's the considerable problem?

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there, the "loss of nutrients" stuff is complete bunk, and I am passionately against the whole 'organic' insanity.

I'm just saying, these aren't the only sources, that you can have fresh produce that isn't months old, and it's probably easier to find than you expect.

In fact, for purely economic and social reasons I choose to source most of my food skipping the middle-man in the distribution process.

Here's an option I love locally: http://www.aussiefarmers.com.au/sustainable_shopping/

We source locally and within each state as much as possible. This allows us to deliver our fruit and vegetables within 24-48 hours of picking.

They deliver to my door, on their schedule.
I take what's seasonal, available, and local where possible.
http://www.aussiefarmers.com.au/products/greengrocer.php

I'm also under no illusion that every single item is locally sourced or absolutely fresh, but the vast majority is, and it's a real way that I can help support farmers directly.

I just think it's a little inane for people to blame corporations when they still choose to buy their products from the local mega-supermarket.
That's their choice, they decided that paying less was more important than quality, sustainability, and the farmers that produce their goods.

I decided differently, and had very little problem finding a way to support my own decisions on this.

Not looking for alternatives is not the same as none existing.

Or you could buy seasonal produce instead of eating the same thing all year round. It's also cheaper.

Not at a farmers market, or did you just fail to read my post at all?

Really? Because most places here have options on the source of the tomatos, or bread.

You want bread baked today, you buy the one that says "baked today".
If people are willing to buy 30 day old bread, it's not really the fault of corporations, there are plenty of independent bakeries that could cater to your needs.

See the organic food supply for the same effect in action. Or a local farmers market. etc

I will often give people behind me a brake check too.

However if the car behind you is a police car, they can decide that your sudden braking without cause was in fact reckless driving.

You might win that insurance claim, but you can still lose your licence in the process.

It's worth noting that signs are not always visible with sufficient distance to change speed before them.
The laws here state that you're supposed to have time after a change of limit sign to adjust speed before you can be fined.
In that case it was a suburban area that entered a shopping strip and the signs had recently been changed. It used to be 60 along the whole stretch.
The 50 sign was not visible until you were very close to it.

With speeding tickets here you are assumed at fault unless you can prove otherwise, so despite the fact these things had changed and there was no signage to indicate that, and also the sign was not visible until too close, and that my speed was acceptable by the legal distance after the sign, the cost to dispute it without being sure of victory (and costs) was prohibitive for me at the time - this was years ago.

Beside that, I said it was harsh, and believe it was, but I paid the fine and don't gripe about it because it was an unmarked car. In that stretch braking would have been unsafe and I would have done the same with a marked car behind.

Thing is though, marked cars almost never pull you over for that stuff, because they actually have priorities other than revenue.
Given that I didn't actually break a law, and they waited until well after I was at the right speed before pulling me over, it was a quota system in play and they were under quota and I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I object in principle to the unmarked cars, my ticket was just an example of how they are sometimes misused. But even beside that misuse, they are still a waste of police resources, and I objected to them long before my own personal experience with them.

I should actually add a little more to that and point out that I have seen (and also been subject to, but did not speed up) unmarked police cars tailgating on freeways in an attempt to make people speed up to just over the limit and pull them over.

That's not only fairly dangerous, but should say a little more about the intent of the cars when they resort to such tactics.

I do agree with you, though I do think my fine for not hitting the brakes after a sign change was a bit harsh.
You're supposed to adjust speed slowly to avoid increased danger. Everyone hitting the breaks at the 50 sign wouldn't be safer at all.

But the point is actually that the cops in such cars are out there to raise revenue.

I'm not complaining about any fines, I used to pay them and get on with life - I now live in the inner city and don't even own a car.

I'm saying these cars are pretty much exclusively for the purpose of raising money, not for making the place safer, as police should be doing.
Objecting to unmarked cars because their purpose is counter-productive and a waste of police resources is not the same as whining about a speeding fine.

I object in principle to the laws on speeding, but when you speed you know the possible consequences and must accept them. We have speed cameras all over the place here that get a hell of a lot of people for it.
You speed, you pay the fine.

Unmarked police cars are a completely different issue. They do not contribute to safer roads, and do not contribute to a safer society. They are a waste of police power.