Pretty bad business model. If you have to rely on illegal labor, then you not only have a bad business model, but you are a criminal to boot.

Of course, because I was being terribly facetious. But the argument that higher minimum wage causes unemployment is based on ideology, not math.

The exact same concept would be true if average wages went up. Not completely linearly, of course. because the poorest workers tend to spend more of their income on necessities, while the wealthiest tend to save or invest more.

But the argument, when reduced to it's basics, is that the higher the average wage, the higher the unemployment rate. Utter bullshit. At least in my case, the more I made, the more I spent, and the more I saved. I'll bet it's the same for other people.

Which argument, oddly enough, completely ignores that the consumer is the largest driver of the economy. How can the largest driver of the economy dive the economy when they don't have the money to do it. The early 2000's credit fest probably won't be repeated, as people tried desperately to hold on to their standard of living by going further into debt.

This is not complicated math. If on average, people buy new cars every 5 years, there will be more cars bought than if they bought on average every 10 years.

Another very simple example - My sister has bought exactly 1 computer since 2001. I've bought 10. Who has pumped more money into the economy? Even if the fact that a lot of that goes to China, it still helps with the employment of the sales people at the store. I used that example for that reason.

Call it the trickle up theory if you like. People making money buy stuff. The more stuff bought, the more people work.

Even more, with Government inefficiencies, does it make any sense to allow businesses to pay a wage that requires it's workers to be on the government dole?

I might have much better things to do with my decreased taxes.

This is what I've been preaching for years. What is pushed as "modern capitalism", is pretty much slash and burn. Make no mistake, the real beneficiaries of the working poor are their employers. Via a socialistic program that takes money from you and me, and redistributes it to the employers profit.

Amazingly enough people put up with it.

I am against wage restrictions in general. If you look at Europe, the countries with stronger economies tend to have the fewest working restrictions,

I am against them in principle. Problem is, the minimum wage has been kept artificially low for a long time now. That has created a completely skewed economy, and when a company is allowed to direct it's employees to the welfare system, that just isn't right. The existence of that is a serious symptom of an underlying problem. SO they might be a necessary evil.

You think that Germany's economic system isn't very restricted? The only country among the top ten with a triple-A rating (they are number 4) utilizes a "social Market economy, which is very interesting, but completely impossible in the USAat present. Parts of it are in line with what I preach as the best way to run an economy. It's Capitalism with a moral underpinning.

It's a great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Rhine Capitalism. is pretty active in regulatory measures, considered the direct highway to hell in our system. And no one plans and implements with greater precision and effect than the Germans. It also takes the people in it's country into account. Yet another great read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Basically, it doesn't require it's citizens to be the main enemy of the economy. And damned if it isn't working well. In a system like that you don't need to force employers to pay their employees. They are all pretty much pointed all in the same direction. I think it is a good model. Any "ism" - socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, will fail and fail big when people try to make it pure. It's because no 'ism is perfect.

But capitalism tempered with moral underpinnings? Pretty much the best thing going in my book.

Because cheap. Becausd they value the cheap more than their fellow citizens. Frankly, I think that any employer that knowingly employes an illegal alien should be stripped of their citizenship, then put on the plane with all the drugged deportees. Land them in in whatever country we're shipping them to at the moment .

Then they can come back into America as an illegal alien. If they get shot by border patrol trying to cross into the US Fucking excellent!! Rough justice, most fitting.

You did answer your own question. The subsidies allow WalMart ot pay lower rates than tehy would otherwise have to. If no one could survive on WalMart pay, they wouldn't work there, and th reates would automatically go up.

Once again, you answerd the question. They don't have to pay enough to live on, and part time jobs will allow the employer to not pay any benefits

Lest ye put the part time situation at the feet of the current administration, it has been going on for years. I remember when Sears turned most of their employees into part timers in the early 1980's.

The part time/no benefits model is something that companies use that can really give the shareholders big boners. But it does tend to come at a cost - it burns a big bridge, and is therfore used as a last resort, because it you use part time employees, you get part time employees.

So in this recession, people are desperate to work at whatever they can get. So they take those 32 hour a week, no benefit, not full time jobs.

Frankly, I think that puts the lie to the "lazy American won't work" meme.

So anyhow, waddya want? The companies won't stop until you tell them you won't accept any less pay and benefits, and we have a surprising number of people that think they need to get poorer in order to get the money they deserve. If they could get you to work for the wages they pay the illegals, they would. Or less.

It's a sad day when so many people buy lottery tickets as their retirement plan.

Umm, entertainment? Like going to a party and chatting with friends, I learn something everywhere, but mostly here, I just discuss, sometimes argue. But seriously, most of it is just entertainment.

There is a whole world out there of people playing with obsolete technology. It's not always nostalgia either.

How about hit and miss engines? Now there's some obsolete tech. But people are still messing with them

Home made engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And since hoomins always take things to the semi - insane level, a Fairbanks Morse monster that someone is restoring for viewing pleasure and/or horror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There is more to life than Windows 8 and smartphones. All we wanna do, is have some fun, I got the feeling, I'm not the only one.

Well, there is the matter of today's internet. Anything that is posted pisses someone off. Mention Global warming, or gay marriage, or gun control, or Guvmint intrusion, or Tesla's and those folks will descend on you like carrion flies.

That being said, I used W8 for a year, and it elevates Suck to a new level. The Start menu? Meh, that's just one itty bitty step into that cesspool of suck.

W8 Works. It really does. But as a UI, and for system maintenance the verdict is in - Do Not Want. And the fanbois can call the rest of us stupid assholes all they want.

After all, we all do put Slashdot use on our resume don't we?

After all, we could be checking out our Facebook pages, or maybe playing Angry Birds.

You know - important stuff that shows our amazing productivity, focus on what counts in life, and wise use of our time instead of screwing around with an old Amiga.

Rush Limbaugh called. He wanted us to tell you that you're a little over the top.

Well okay, but then I'm going to claim that lowering the minimum wage raises employment linearly the whole way down to 0, when everyone is employed, and all social problems are cured.

Prove me wrong?

You can get B-yatches at Amazon? I better scoot on over there.

Absolutely. To me, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a 1 per center, but I do okay. Any tax breaks I get go into investments.

Which only supports trickle down in the most abstract way - meaning almost not at all

How much more efficient that a person that is working a full time job can make enough to support themselves, and not live on the dole?

That is the canard of this whole process. A person cannot be against raising the minimum wage, without being very much appreciative and in favor of Their Tax dollars going to the people who cannot support themselves because they are making it. You can't without making weird gyrations athat come close enough to being lies ..... well they are lies.

Because, just like trickle down, and job creators theory. There is a basic truth

You don't survive on minmum wage without Government assistance. Artificially Low minimum wage means support of your tax dollars and mine being taken from us, and given to poor people.

Was that in reply to my asking for numbers?

I hope not, or else Slashdot is just turning into Yahoo comment boards. I ask for statistics, I get Neeneenr neener neener, Your wrong,I'm right.

Otherwise, got them stats?

This isn't rocket surgery folks. If higher wages kills jobs, then the numbers must exist somewhere, There are distinct differneces in minimum wage between states.

If it kills jobs, the states with higher minimum wage will have higher unemployment. Simple as that. Otherwise we're just blowing idealistic dogmatic smoke up people's asses. p.

Dude! The monetary redistribution already happened. We won, man, now get out there and enjoy.

I personally find the idea of getting a hundred dollars in quarters and throwing themn upon the ground.

Those stupid poor fuckers go apeshit, sometimes figting each other. One time one bit another, and then broke his arm. It was so enjoyable, I got another hundred dollars worth. We laughed about it at dinner.

It's really fun. In a few years we're going to need your money too, so be a good boy about it - You'll get your quarters.

Henry Ford thaought that the employees should be able to but th product.

Today, that is apprantly no longer true. The employee must be paid as absolutely little as possible, so that the sharholders are served.

But what happens when no one buys the product any more?

Here is the http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...

Although WalMart points to a 2005 report to invalidate those socialists at Forbes. I know WalMart employees who haven't had a raise since then.

McDonald's cost's us 1.2 billion dollars in Government support.

THere is even more data, but I figured you would just say that Huffpost and Daily Kos were tools of the liberal elite. You can Google it if you like

Now that we are here, I would like to talk about how my Tax dollars and yours are going to support the low wages that these companies say they have to pay their workers?

I thought that Government was inefficient, and spends the money poorly. So why should we subsidize McDonalds and WalMart so that they can pay their employees less? Would it not make sense to pay the employees directly? 6.2 Billion dollars is one fucking gobsmack of a tax break for WalMart. And it's semi hidden, allowing them to act like the free market superstars while they are secretly socialist redistribution of your money and mine to thos epoor people w e've been trained to know are the source of all their problems.

As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

Those fucking lazy poor people really frost my cupcakes too. Skiiled trades. Let us talk about them.

Because the person who is laid off at say 50, is going to spend 4 years leaning a new trade, to apply for a job they won't get hired for because they are "too old"? Because the person laid off from their factory job will just become an investment broker or open a machine shop?

I like Mike Rowe a lot, and agree with his idea that the blue collar workers don't get the respect they deserve.

But there is an elephant in this room.

You are not going to just plug in anyone anywhere. Isn't going to happen. Some people can make fundamental shifts in what they do, others cannot. I can and have. I've been a lifeguard, a cable TV technician, a linesman, a printed circuit manufacturer, a Digital programmer, a photographer, a videographer, and computer support to Suits. I'm the person who shifts careers as need be.

My better half, who is every bit as smart as I am, doesn't adapt as well - she's pretty much been stable in her work life.

I'd say 80 percent of people retrain only under great duress, and with very mixed success.

Thern there are the other people. Whether we want to admit it or not, a whole lot of people are just not cut out to do much that is complicated. They just aren't. But they need to support themselves.

Unless you want to support them through socialist programs, or remove them from the food chain, that is.

Trickle down economics concept is that it you give the wealthiest people large enough meals, that some food will fall of the edges of their plate, and poor people below will eat some of it.

I still await the evidence that a high minimum wage job equals a large illegal labor force.

But I'm not holding my breath.