From: Eeyore on 16 May 2007 10:42 "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > >>There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys > >>employment and hurts poor people. > > > > > > LMAO ! > > > > Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! > > That would be better than being unenmployed. Could *you* live on it ? > But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. That's not why it exists though is it ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 May 2007 10:44 "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > >>Models such as? 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. > > > > They are about to start selling the Smart in the US actually. > > I actually thought they were already being sold (or at least they were > trying to sell them). They're on sale in Canada (including the diesel version I believe) and I think you can get 'grey imports' in the USA but MB haven't sold them in the US yet AIUI. > I've seen one on the streets here and a co-worker was considering one and had > sales brochures. She decided she didn't want to drive a roller-skate though. Did she try one ? They're great. Graham
From: Rudy Canoza on 16 May 2007 11:19 Eeyore wrote: > > "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>>> There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys >>>> employment and hurts poor people. >>> >>> LMAO ! >>> >>> Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! >> That would be better than being unenmployed. > > Could *you* live on it ? The choice isn't between $3.00 an hour (or whatever wage the person can get) and some artificially pegged higher wage; the choice is between $3.00 an hour and ZERO dollars an hour. If the work a person does only brings in $3.00 an hour in revenue, the employer isn't going to pay $7.50 an hour, thereby losing $4.50 an hour (actually, much more after payroll taxes) for every hour the doofus works; the doofus will be fired. Advocates of minimum wage laws just don't get it: they destroy employment. If you really don't think they do, then why don't you advocate a $50 an hour minimum wage? >> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > > That's not why it exists though is it ? It exists to help labor unions. It reduces the competition faced by unionized employees.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 16 May 2007 12:46 Eeyore wrote: > > "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > >>There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys > > >>employment and hurts poor people. > > > > > > > > > LMAO ! > > > > > > Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! > > > > That would be better than being unenmployed. > > Could *you* live on it ? > If the two choices are $3 per hour and no dollars per hour, which are you more likely to survive on? > > But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > > That's not why it exists though is it ? > Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due to some misguided altruism at other's expense. -- "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: Jeffrey Turner on 16 May 2007 17:18
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Eeyore wrote: >> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>> Eeyore wrote: >>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> >>>>> There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys >>>>> employment and hurts poor people. >>>> >>>> LMAO ! >>>> >>>> Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! >>> >>> That would be better than being unenmployed. >> >> Could *you* live on it ? > > The choice isn't between $3.00 an hour (or whatever wage the person can > get) and some artificially pegged higher wage; the choice is between > $3.00 an hour and ZERO dollars an hour. If the work a person does only > brings in $3.00 an hour in revenue, the employer isn't going to pay > $7.50 an hour, thereby losing $4.50 an hour (actually, much more after > payroll taxes) for every hour the doofus works; the doofus will be fired. > > Advocates of minimum wage laws just don't get it: they destroy > employment. If you really don't think they do, then why don't you > advocate a $50 an hour minimum wage? It destroys sub-poverty employment. And keeps other wages from being ratcheted down. >>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >> >> That's not why it exists though is it ? > > It exists to help labor unions. It reduces the competition faced by > unionized employees. You want to be an exploited worker? But even states with "right to [exploitation]" laws have minimum wages. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |