From: Eeyore on


"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


"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
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


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
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