The Inconvenient Truth...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb, 06:32 PM) [snapback]397507[/snapback]</div>

I was hoping someone would read (and I think you did) between the lines of my previous satirical post. The minimum wage itself is an absurd concept and only serves to boost the careers of politicians who pretend to cater to the "working poor".

For every penny the minimum wage increases, "x" amount of jobs will simply go out of country. For jobs in the service sector which are difficult to outsource (but did you know some McDonalds drive in windows are staffed by Indians in India via VOIP) the costs of such items a business sells will simply increase to cover the cost of the increased wages which leads a country into the proverbial Catch 22.

Want to have a sluggish, inflationary economy that many European countries have? Then increase minimum wages and government mandated perks to unsustainable levels. Business owners (the "evil people" to many on Priuschat) cannot print money and will simply move production to countries offshore as they have been doing vigorously for the last 30 years or so. That would have not been the case if we did not have a government mandated minimum wage.

Think the minimum wage (which is often tied to higher wages in many union contracts) will not significantly affect the US? Please present your case to the now non-existent US textile industry. Present your case to the many manufacturers of products who now outsource much if not all of their production to China and other countries.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb, 04:03 PM) [snapback]397521[/snapback]</div>

These aren't problems with the minimum wage, although I guess it's related. They are more accurately characterized as problems with tariffs and trade laws.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb, 07:18 PM) [snapback]397527[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that's absolutely correct. But tariffs, trade laws, and the minimum wage all work together (or against each other).

To put it simply the absolute common denominator is money. If you tinker with one the something will change with regards to employment and standards of living unless the other factors are adjusted.

For example, if we want to raise the minimum wage and wish not have inflationary pressures knock on our door we must then make it easier for companies to outsource jobs in order to keep the cost of the product constant. But then unemployment increases.

Politicians want to convince you a minimum wage increase will not have any effect on the economy. In reality that is not the case. Any minimum wage only serves to further decrease the manufacturing autonomy of our country, create inflationary pressures, and/or shift more jobs out of the country.

Which leads me to my first post. $5.15/hr, $7.25/hr, or $25.00/hr, mean nothing. The buying power of anyone making the "minimum wage" will always be relatively constant no matter what the wage. The economy will simply adjust to these artificial wages to the detriment of these wage earners and the country.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Again... it all comes down to money. Whether its politicians or those business/corporation owners who choose to out-source (and be anti-American).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]397495[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the link... it's unfortunate .

 

i'm by no means opposed to the idea of global warming... but come on! that is just excessive.

the yearly dollar amount posted in another thread is more than many people make in a year!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]397409[/snapback]</div>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17369241/

Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," which chronicled his campaign against global warming, won an Academy Award on Sunday.

The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research put out a news release saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own consumption of electricity. The group disputes whether global warming is a serious problem.

The think tank said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.

Parker said Gore has been purchasing the "green power" for $432 a month since November. The Gore home is also under renovation to add solar panels, Kreider said.



http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.