From: John Mayson on 15 May 2007 12:37
Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> If the minimum wage were adjusted at the same rate as CEOs salaries
>> over the past decade, it would now be at $21.00 an hour.
> There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys employment and
> hurts poor people.
I don't know if there should or should not be one. But if you're trying
to "raise a family" on minimum wage, something is seriously wrong with
your life. Even lazy high school kids get paid better than minimum
wage. And if you only make minimum wage, what are you doing having a
family? And no, you can't convince me very people go from making good
money to making $5.15 an hour after starting a family.
John Mayson <john(a)mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
From: Michael Ejercito on 15 May 2007 12:44
On May 15, 5:53 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...(a)localnet.com> wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Brent P wrote:
> >>>In article <134fm3nrs0es...(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>AirRaid wrote:
> >>>>>>High gas prices
> >>>>>You people haven't a clue what high gas prices are !
> >>>>>You want to pay less ? Drive a car with better mileage.
> >>>>Idiot Reagan supporters backed gutting the CAFE standards.
> >>>CAFE could only be a failure. CAFE was an attempt to tell US car buyers
> >>>what they had to buy. This doesn't work out well, ever.
> >>Of course it would have worked. The auto makers would have built
> >>high-mileage cars and Americans wouldn't have had a choice but to buy
> > Abortion is a needed choice but not the choice of what car you want to
> > buy?
> If a woman has an abortion it has absolutely no effect on my life. On
> the other hand, the consequences for the planet, as well as U.S. foreign
> policy, of uncontrolled fossil fuel consumption are serious enough to
> warrant restrictions. Or do you like funding the people who fund
Canadians and Mexicans are funding terrorism?
> >>>CAFE is something supported ultimately by people who want government to make
> >>>decisions for them. There has always been a choice to buy cars with
> >>>better fuel economy.
> >>You don't have a choice if those cars aren't being made or are very
> >>expensive. If all cars were required to get good mileage then there
> >>would be inexpensive cars that got good mileage. Just because you're
> >>lazy and selfish doesn't mean the gov't shouldn't require better gas
> >>mileage standards.
> > People should be free to buy whatever vehicles they want. You views are
> > clearly authoritarian.
> My views are clearly responsible. Your views are, strangely, along the
> lines of "if it feels good, do it" - not in the bedroom, where it has no
> effect on anyone else, but in the public sphere where consequences are
The mere possession of a motor vehicle does not affect the public
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 15 May 2007 14:23
> Rube Neo-Conniving Bozo wrote:
> > Of course, the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline in
> > 1967, in 2007 dollars, was closer to $2.50 a gallon -
> > cheaper than today, for sure, but not as cheap as an
> > economics-illiterate like you would like to imagine.
> I'll have what Rube's having -- Jugglery all round !
> If the minimum wage were adjusted at the same rate as CEOs salaries
> over the past decade, it would now be at $21.00 an hour.
> Also in real terms: a gallon of gasoline, a gallon of milk or a pack
> of cigarettes (take your pick, all going for $4+ a pop) are worse
> quality and cost people more now than ever before.
The high cost of gasoline, if you believe that it is really high, the
high cost of ciggies, those should decrease consumption and for those
two products, that's a good thing. I don't know where you buy milk but
it is more like $1.99 a gallon.
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Gary V on 15 May 2007 14:33
On May 15, 12:33 pm, hc23hc <hc23...(a)mac.com> wrote:
> Gary VD wrote:
> > MB didn't import the smart to the US - because they
> > figured out that they wouldn't sell enough to make the effort
> > profitable. Because not enough people would want to buy them.
> > And which regulations are you speaking of? European exhaust
> > regulations, while different from those in the US, are essentially of
> > the same magnitude of difficulty to achieve. The differences in
> > signals and lighting have minimal impact on cost. Those European
> > makers could certify for the US market if they chose to - and a number
> > of them have chosen to do so, after weighing the costs and benefits.
> Here's another great car you can't buy here (or anywhere else now) due
> to American automotive isolationism.
> 95.3 miles per gallon
> 81g/km CO2 emissions
> 0.228g/km CO emissions
> 0.240g/km Nox emissions
> 0.261g/km HC/Nox emissions
> 0.0021g/km Particulate emissions
> 0-60mph: 14 seconds
> Top speed: 106mph (where permitted)
> Coefficient drag: 0.25
> Weight: 930kg (empty) 1225kg (max)
> I wanted to buy one of those here in California in 2003. No way.
> "Prohibited By Law" was the excuse.
Why is it prohibited? Not because CA doesn't want you to have it.
Rather, because Audi has decided NOT to certify it for the US market.
Note in that link you provided it's also not certified for the UK
If you think you can make money selling this vehicle in the US, there
is nothing prohibiting you from negotiating with Audi for sales rights
(VW probably already owns the rights, you may have to pay them off as
well) and then certify it to EPA, CARB and NHTSA standards. That's
all there is to it. Go for it - and see how many you can sell. If
it's a good idea, you'll get rich. Oh wait, if it was a good idea,
Audi would be doing it already, wouldn't they?
From: Magnulus on 15 May 2007 16:35
On May 15, 12:03 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> Of course some people want to deal with these issues in a market based
> manner, preserving personal freedom of choice. Other people want to take
> an authoritarian posture, having government define the sorts of vehicles
> that people can buy. Not only is the latter absurdly unrealistic, it's a
> poor way to deal with the problem.
Gas taxes a decade ago would be far more transparent and fair, IMO,
and woudl stimulate demand for more efficient transportation choices-
not just more efficient cars. But it is too late now. Maybe
governments should start uniformly taxing gas to $3 per gallon, just
so people know there is a floor through which gas will not be allowed
to fall, so they can't plan on prices going down to a point that a
Ford Explorer would be a good option. The proceedes would be used to
pay for bus services and improvements to roads. It's a start. But it
won't be politically popular at all. Most Americans are just blind to
> I think people should have freedom of choice when buying vehicles. I
> think this because people should generally be free and because people
> have legitimately different needs that they most understand what are.
> Someone who lives in the country and has to regularly deal with unplowed
> snow-covered roadway would need, say, an SUV.
A Subaru Imprezza or Outback would be a far better choice in that
situation. SUV's are just a crappy idea all 'round. There ought to
be a tax on engine displacement, European style, again, to pay for
road repairs and public transportation. It won't affect the wealthy
as much who want genuine toys, but why should the middle class get a
> There are things that could be done to provide impetus to better decide
> what is needed. I've previously discussed right-sized vehicles, which
> basically means choosing the car or truck that fits the specific job you
> are doing at the time. This likely means not buying the lowest gas
> mileage common denominator vehicles as is often done today but instead
> having two or several. This could be incentivized by letting people pay
> for insurance at costs defined by the most expensive to insure vehicle,
> or letting them piggy back an EV's insurance on another vehicle.
Most insurance gives you discounts for owning multiple vehicles.
I know with my motorcycle insurance, I own 1 motorcycle and 2
scooters- I get substantial discounts on the motorcycle and scooter
because it is assumed that I can't ride two bikes at once.
> You don't think that high insurance costs hurt those same people? And by
> forcing them to drive one car, optimized for nothing so it's going to be
> the lowest common denominator, you make the cost of gas more difficult
> to deal with.
Most people really don't need a truck or SUV. Stores will deliver,
at a minimal cost, certainly cheaper than owning a truck or large
SUV.... there is simply no good reason for 90 percent of the US
population to own a truck, SUV, or even minivan. I have little
sympathy at all for somebody driving a truck or SUV to their median-
wage, subsistence job and complaining about gas prices, when there are
a ton of good used cars out there to buy.
> I've talked about this before, that the people who buy used, even only a
> couple of years, aren't the people that the automakers are building for.
This is true to some extent. But automakers do occasionally make
starter cars. Scions and Saturns being an example. It's just not
where the money is.