> Dana wrote: > My position is that since there is one, it might as well be realistic. >
To me you're making an ethical argument that attempts to justify the government's manipulation of the labor market with economic theories. You may have noticed that Sen Kennedy's minimum wage amendment (Sen. Amdt 2063) was defeated when Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) called an unfunded mandates point of order (i.e., the MW would impose costs on state and local governments beyond a specific threshold). The vote was 47-51. The ironic part is Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart, lobbied for the minimum wage INCREASE! So which one of us is right? Here are a few facts: 1.) The minimum wage was last raised in 1996. 2.) The number of people below the poverty line is roughly the same as it was in 1996. 3.) The population, however, has grown by millions. Result: the poverty rate is a full percentage point lower than in 1996 even though the minimum wage hasn't changed with inflation. Translation: the facts do not support your economic theories. You're justification seems based on compassion. Well, let's say a person is willing to take a $5.25/hr job but since your MW bill passed a small business has had to eliminate a job to accommodate it. Now that person is unemployed due to your manipulation of the labor market. Who has compassion for him? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:179759 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
