Post by thread:[OT] Why minimum wage laws are bad

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Why minimum wage laws are bad'
2008\08\22@053133 by Vitaliy

Vitaliy wrote: >> While often well-intentioned, the minimum wage laws hurt the very people >> they're supposed to help: those at the bottom of the food chain -- the >> young, the unskilled, and the uneducated. > > And perhaps those a little higher on the food chain sometimes? Absolutely. You pay more for everything from food, to clothes, to hamburgers at your local MacDonalds. {Quote hidden}> With practically no education or training, Jim, the young guy who does > jet ski maintenance is lucky to have a job, and quietly dreams of > someday being able to own a jet ski, or even rent one. Until then, he > doesn't care if the baffles and ductwork are put back correctly, he just > wants to get through the day without injuring himself. And after he lost > his job at the restaurant when they traced the e coli outbreak to his > bad sanitary habits, he secretly blames anyone who has more than him, > and practices tiny bits of sabotage whenever he can. But right now he > can barely hold a wrench, due the the raging buzz he got from smoking > that fat reefer during his lunch break. Bob, the problem with your sob story is that I am not the exploiting rich capitalist s.o.b. that you seem to make me out to be. I came to the States as a teenager. I bought my first PC with the money I made working for a a schoolteacher, mowing the lawn, weeding the plants, and doing all kinds of work around the house. Then I worked as a bagger at Safeway. I won't bore you with the dozen other jobs (from tech support to pizza driver) that I held at one point or another. When my friend and I started ScanTool.net in 2002, we were both freshmen in college. That year, we routinely worked 40-50 hour weeks, while going to college. I got married the year before, my daughter was born in September 2002, so I juggled family and college life with running a business for five years (instead of the three years it was supposed to take, because I had to drop out so many times). I still put in 50 hours/week on average, although at various points in time 60 hours (Mon-Sat) was the norm. My wife and I are still paying our school loans, since our immigrant parents weren't able to assist us financially (nor did we ever expect them to). I know what hard work is, and I know financial hardship. Your hypothetical Jim is your own invention, by the way -- because the real Jim is nothing like the dope-smoking lazyass you dreamed up. Although the story perfectly illustrates the attitude of many people: poor people's problems are always somebody else's fault. > So your answer would be to pay less to the guys who did the maintenance > on your jet ski? I'd say pay more and you might get better work. If he > earns more, he's got more to lose if he screws up. "Economists connected with the Left -orientated Economic Policy Institute and the Clinton Administration have concocted a rational for minimum wage increases. According to these economists higher wages make employees more content with their jobs, and this leads to higher worker productivity. Thus workers will be worth paying a minimum wage once their employers are forced to pay these wages. Of course, if this were true - if employers could get higher productivity out of less educated and experienced workers by paying higher wages - they would be willing to do this without minimum wage legislation." [http://mises.org/story/2130] Give me one instance, when you paid more and got better work. My experience was that increasing the salary of a sloppy or lazy worker doesn't make them work harder. Salary matters, but for a different reason -- unless the pay is competitive (at or above the market rate), the best workers will find employment elsewhere. Put another way, productivity drives wages -- wages do not drive productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! Vitaliy P.S. As far as the real Jim is concerned, he'd be better off if there was no minimum wage: his salary wouldn't be affected, but he would be able to buy more with his money.

2008\08\22@064728 by Jeff Findley

"Vitaliy" <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmaksimov.org> wrote in message news:070501c90439$cbc43410$6f02a8c0@ws11... > Put another way, productivity drives wages -- wages do not drive > productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! All other things being equal this is true. Unfortunately, many of us are now competing with off shore jobs that upper management sees as being 1/4 the cost of our jobs. In order to become more productive, and earn more pay, you've got to be at least 4x as productive as the offshore employee. There are precious few developers who are *that* productive, and they're the ones with 20+ years of experience. Luckily, the off shore employees currently have little experience (five years or less compared to an average of at least 20 years here). They're in such high demand they hop from job to job, never truly gaining much applicable experience. So, management wants to keep you on for now. They give you just enough of a raise each year to keep you employed, so you can keep training the off shore workers. I've no doubt that the long term goal of management is to eliminate development in the US. Whether they can ever reach that goal, due to the extreme difficulties of working with off shore developers half way around the world, is uncertain. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

2008\08\22@075643 by Vitaliy

Jeff Findley wrote: >> productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! > > All other things being equal this is true. Unfortunately, many of us are > now competing with off shore jobs that upper management sees as being 1/4 > the cost of our jobs. In order to become more productive, and earn more > pay, you've got to be at least 4x as productive as the offshore employee. > There are precious few developers who are *that* productive, and they're > the > ones with 20+ years of experience. Jeff, this may sound cruel -- but in all fairness, if a worker in India or China can do your job for 1/4 of the cost, why shouldn't he have it? After all, your job is not your birthright, and it's not guaranteed by the Constitution. Restricting companies' access to foreign labor won't solve the problem -- if people on the other side of the world are capable of doing the same job at 1/4 the cost, what would prevent them from competing with your company, and driving it out of business? In all honestly, I don't think the situation is nearly as bad as you think. Overall, US programmers are still more productive than their counterparts elsewhere. If the Chinese or the Russians had the human capital and the right environment to write Windows, or invent a Segway, they already would have. > Luckily, the off shore employees currently have little experience (five > years or less compared to an average of at least 20 years here). They're > in > such high demand they hop from job to job, never truly gaining much > applicable experience. So, management wants to keep you on for now. They > give you just enough of a raise each year to keep you employed, so you can > keep training the off shore workers. Boy, you have a grim view of management! :) Most companies nowadays understand the value of face-to-face communication. The overhead associated with outsourcing is far from negligible. You have a huge advantage over foreign workers: you are here! And it's not about experience, it's about skills and education (see for example Microchip's "merit pay"). Continue learning and improving yourself, and you will be fine. If worst comes to worst, become a consultant, or start your own company. Another good news is that the living standard in developing countries is improving at a much faster pace than in the US and other developed nations. There are many reasons for this, but the two main ones is that there's a lot of room for improving productivity, and their economies are reaping the benefits of the transfer of technology. Salaries of Indian developers continue to go up, and eventually there will be little incentive for companies to outsource. > I've no doubt that the long term goal of management is to eliminate > development in the US. Whether they can ever reach that goal, due to the > extreme difficulties of working with off shore developers half way around > the world, is uncertain. What makes you say that? Do you mean the management of your company, or management in general? Vitaliy

2008\08\22@101107 by Peter

Minimal wages are a necessary evil in countries where the free market (aka the invisible hand) does not work, for whatever reason. Communist and Capitalist countries both need it. If the invisible hand would be left alone then minimal wage laws would not be needed. If the invisible hand cannot work, for example because the borders are closed (inwards and/or outwards), or because there are restrictive union or other trade association laws, and the workforce cannot migrate (or organize, when it is pushed too far) legally, then the minimum wage law is needed to prevent slavery-like conditions, and labor wage dumping. It is probably not an accident that there are no minimum wage laws in most advanced countries where the freedom to migrate and to organize is taken for granted. They are not needed. Peter

2008\08\22@105717 by Bob Blick

Vitaliy wrote: >> And perhaps those a little higher on the food chain sometimes? > > Absolutely. You pay more for everything from food, to clothes, to hamburgers > at your local MacDonalds. And what is wrong with that? > Bob, the problem with your sob story is that I am not the exploiting rich > capitalist s.o.b. that you seem to make me out to be. In relative terms you are rich, because you are smart and talented, and make enough money for some luxuries. How about the teeming masses who have no talent, a low IQ, etc. etc? Do we just let them suffere and die, or do we act like citizens of a first world country and do something about it? {Quote hidden}> I came to the States as a teenager. I bought my first PC with the money I > made working for a a schoolteacher, mowing the lawn, weeding the plants, and > doing all kinds of work around the house. Then I worked as a bagger at > Safeway. I won't bore you with the dozen other jobs (from tech support to > pizza driver) that I held at one point or another. > > When my friend and I started ScanTool.net in 2002, we were both freshmen in > college. That year, we routinely worked 40-50 hour weeks, while going to > college. I got married the year before, my daughter was born in September > 2002, so I juggled family and college life with running a business for five > years (instead of the three years it was supposed to take, because I had to > drop out so many times). I still put in 50 hours/week on average, although > at various points in time 60 hours (Mon-Sat) was the norm. My wife and I are > still paying our school loans, since our immigrant parents weren't able to > assist us financially (nor did we ever expect them to). > > I know what hard work is, and I know financial hardship. I believe you. But you have talent, too. Lots of hardworking people will never be able to achieve what you have, and will be stuck with minimum wage all their lives. Your hypothetical > Jim is your own invention, by the way -- because the real Jim is nothing > like the dope-smoking lazyass you dreamed up. Although the story perfectly > illustrates the attitude of many people: poor people's problems are always > somebody else's fault. The same with everybody else who won't take some responsibility > "Economists connected with the Left -orientated Economic Policy Institute > and the Clinton Administration have concocted a rational for minimum wage > increases. According to these economists higher wages make employees more > content with their jobs, and this leads to higher worker productivity. Thus > workers will be worth paying a minimum wage once their employers are forced > to pay these wages. Of course, if this were true - if employers could get > higher productivity out of less educated and experienced workers by paying > higher wages - they would be willing to do this without minimum wage > legislation." [http://mises.org/story/2130] Ahh, Ron Paul :) Libertarian thinking has no place for human suffering. It is ignored. > Give me one instance, when you paid more and got better work. My experience > was that increasing the salary of a sloppy or lazy worker doesn't make them > work harder. Salary matters, but for a different reason -- unless the pay is > competitive (at or above the market rate), the best workers will find > employment elsewhere. I think people who work low-end jobs need a living wage. If better work is a side-effect, fine. > Put another way, productivity drives wages -- wages do not drive > productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! Actually I'm happy where I am. But you seem to base everything solely on an economic model(one that I don't agree with) and don't seem to care about the huddled masses or social justice. Not everyone has an IQ of 140 or the ambition of a CEO or the body of an athlete/supermodel, but they are still human beings and deserve to be treated as such. Cheerful regards, Bob P.S. Jim Anchower is from The Onion and quite a laugh to read.

2008\08\22@114803 by Walter Banks

Vitaliy wrote: > Clipped long set of comments I agree with a lot of the description of what you are saying. The political factor (if you can call it that) is that most major changes in either a society or country seems to take a generation. I am not sure why but it is very often true. The distance between cheap copies and quality products for example is about 25 years. This seems to occur on a lot of levels. The political factor is an attempt to change this time constant to extend the status quo or speed up change through (dis)incentives. Coffee's ready... w..

2008\08\22@115552 by Bob Blick

Oops, politics, strike that. :) Bob Bob Blick wrote: > Vitaliy wrote: >> legislation." [http://mises.org/story/2130] > > Ahh, Ron Paul :) Libertarian thinking has no place for human suffering. > It is ignored.

2008\08\22@203020 by Vitaliy

Peter wrote: > Minimal wages are a necessary evil in countries where the free market (aka > the > invisible hand) does not work, for whatever reason. There are other ways to address the "social injustice". The problem I have with minimum wage, is that it makes it look like the government is doing something good, but in reality is pushes the cost on (mostly) small businesses, and it doesn't solve the problem. Not only does it create unemployment among the poorest people, it hurts them in other ways as well. It contributes to crime (think of all those teenagers with nothing to do), and the poor folks end up paying more for food and other necessities. {Quote hidden}> Communist and Capitalist > countries both need it. If the invisible hand would be left alone then > minimal > wage laws would not be needed. If the invisible hand cannot work, for > example > because the borders are closed (inwards and/or outwards), or because there > are > restrictive union or other trade association laws, and the workforce > cannot > migrate (or organize, when it is pushed too far) legally, then the minimum > wage > law is needed to prevent slavery-like conditions, and labor wage dumping. > It is > probably not an accident that there are no minimum wage laws in most > advanced > countries where the freedom to migrate and to organize is taken for > granted. > They are not needed. I wasn't aware such countries existed. Can you name a few? VItaliy

2008\08\22@231440 by Peter Todd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:56:49AM -0700, Bob Blick wrote: {Quote hidden}> Vitaliy wrote: > > >> And perhaps those a little higher on the food chain sometimes? > > > > Absolutely. You pay more for everything from food, to clothes, to hamburgers > > at your local MacDonalds. > > And what is wrong with that? > > > Bob, the problem with your sob story is that I am not the exploiting rich > > capitalist s.o.b. that you seem to make me out to be. > > In relative terms you are rich, because you are smart and talented, and > make enough money for some luxuries. > > How about the teeming masses who have no talent, a low IQ, etc. etc? Do > we just let them suffere and die, or do we act like citizens of a first > world country and do something about it? Minimum wage laws have to be coupled with social infrastructure for the unemployed. The whole point of minimum wage laws is to *increase* unemployment, amoung those people who would otherwise earn so little that our society has decided they do not earn a livable living. But, if that social infrastructure, such as welfare, isn't there, instead they are simply forced out of jobs into absolute poverty. Assuming adequate social infrastructure, if the minimum wage is too low you end up with people spending their lives for unlivable wages. On the other hand when the minimum wage is too high a different problem happens. My brother lives in Australia, the first country in the world to enact a minimum wage along with New Zealand. Currently the minimum is $13.74 (rising to $14.31 October 1st) verses Ontario's $8.75 and the US's ~$5-$8. What happens in Australia though, is that employers with jobs paying minimum wage can't afford to risk hiring potentially below average workers, and instead hire relatively bright, skilled youth who would otherwise go to college or university. If you truely have no skills, and never will, you're never going to get a job. Essentially your flattening the work-vs-reward curve at the low end. Here I went from $9.10/hour work at university to a $17/hour entry-level job generally requiring a degree, almost doubling my income. In Australia you'd go from a $15/hour job to a $20/hour job. Who wants to put in four years for that? My brother knows a lot of people who didn't bother, and university tuition is free there. (it's actually taken out of your taxes, but only if you pay taxes...) Of course, those numbers in themseleves are misleading in many ways, Australia has had quite a bit of inflation due to that high minimum wage, anything involving service tends to be very expensive, but again the real test is what additional rewards hard work gets you, and it's not as much as it would be, if the minimum wage was a low lower. - -- http://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIr4Bz3bMhDbI9xWQRApUrAKCK+eBiVfoHxvwVKLF/3hL+9BRC5gCgih83 h+0qor30/JlK/RBLhW18lU8= =xhJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\08\23@033700 by Vitaliy

Bob Blick wrote: >>> And perhaps those a little higher on the food chain sometimes? >> >> Absolutely. You pay more for everything from food, to clothes, to >> hamburgers >> at your local MacDonalds. > > And what is wrong with that? I was agreeing with you that it doesn't negatively affect just the people at the bottom of the food chain. Most people will agree that paying a higher price for something is generally a bad thing. >> Bob, the problem with your sob story is that I am not the exploiting rich >> capitalist s.o.b. that you seem to make me out to be. > > In relative terms you are rich, because you are smart and talented, and > make enough money for some luxuries. > > How about the teeming masses who have no talent, a low IQ, etc. etc? Do > we just let them suffere and die, or do we act like citizens of a first > world country and do something about it? "Teeming masses"? "Just let them suffer and die?" :) You know what it reminded me of? Arise ye workers from your slumbers Arise ye prisoners of want For reason in revolt now thunders And at last ends the age of cant. Away with all your superstitions Servile masses arise, arise We'll change henceforth the old tradition And spurn the dust to win the prize. http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/international.htm But seriously, Bob. I'm all for helping the less fortunate, minimum wage isn't going to help. There are much better ways to help people lift themselves out of poverty. >> I know what hard work is, and I know financial hardship. > > I believe you. But you have talent, too. Lots of hardworking people will > never be able to achieve what you have, and will be stuck with minimum > wage all their lives. What is your solution? >> the story perfectly >> illustrates the attitude of many people: poor people's problems are >> always >> somebody else's fault. > > The same with everybody else who won't take some responsibility Are you suggesting that I am not taking responsibility? {Quote hidden}>> "Economists connected with the Left -orientated Economic Policy Institute >> and the Clinton Administration have concocted a rational for minimum wage >> increases. According to these economists higher wages make employees more >> content with their jobs, and this leads to higher worker productivity. >> Thus >> workers will be worth paying a minimum wage once their employers are >> forced >> to pay these wages. Of course, if this were true - if employers could get >> higher productivity out of less educated and experienced workers by >> paying >> higher wages - they would be willing to do this without minimum wage >> legislation." [http://mises.org/story/2130] > > Ahh, Ron Paul :) Libertarian thinking has no place for human suffering. > It is ignored. It's easy to label and dismiss. Easier than answering the question: if paying workers more improves productivity, why do you need minimum wage legislation? {Quote hidden}>> Give me one instance, when you paid more and got better work. My >> experience >> was that increasing the salary of a sloppy or lazy worker doesn't make >> them >> work harder. Salary matters, but for a different reason -- unless the pay >> is >> competitive (at or above the market rate), the best workers will find >> employment elsewhere. > > I think people who work low-end jobs need a living wage. If better work > is a side-effect, fine. Fine, then let's give them money. I would support a negative tax. Minimum wage keeps poor people out of jobs, and unfairly placed the bulk of the burden on small businesses. >> Put another way, productivity drives wages -- wages do not drive >> productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! > > Actually I'm happy where I am. That's great. I'm also quite content with my situation. :) > But you seem to base everything solely on > an economic model(one that I don't agree with) and don't seem to care > about the huddled masses or social justice. I'm sorry you got that impression. I do care about the less fortunate, I think we just disagree on how to best help them. > Not everyone has an IQ of > 140 or the ambition of a CEO or the body of an athlete/supermodel, but > they are still human beings and deserve to be treated as such. What do you mean when you say that someone "deserves to be treated as a human being"? > P.S. Jim Anchower is from The Onion and quite a laugh to read. So you've been pulling my leg all this time? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37330

2008\08\23@055541 by Vitaliy

Peter Todd wrote: {Quote hidden}> [...]On the > other hand when the minimum wage is too high a different problem > happens. My brother lives in Australia, the first country in the world > to enact a minimum wage along with New Zealand. Currently the minimum is > $13.74 (rising to $14.31 October 1st) verses Ontario's $8.75 and the > US's ~$5-$8. What happens in Australia though, is that employers with > jobs paying minimum wage can't afford to risk hiring potentially below > average workers, and instead hire relatively bright, skilled youth who > would otherwise go to college or university. If you truely have no > skills, and never will, you're never going to get a job. Essentially > your flattening the work-vs-reward curve at the low end. Here I went > from $9.10/hour work at university to a $17/hour entry-level job > generally requiring a degree, almost doubling my income. In Australia > you'd go from a $15/hour job to a $20/hour job. Who wants to put in four > years for that? My brother knows a lot of people who didn't bother, and > university tuition is free there. (it's actually taken out of your > taxes, but only if you pay taxes...) > > Of course, those numbers in themseleves are misleading in many ways, > Australia has had quite a bit of inflation due to that high minimum > wage, anything involving service tends to be very expensive, but again > the real test is what additional rewards hard work gets you, and it's > not as much as it would be, if the minimum wage was a low lower. Excellent story, thanks Peter. I heard a very similar account from a Danish acquaintance. According to him, in Denmark there are lots of people on welfare, who work and get paid under the table. The combined tax (income + sales tax) is around 60-70%. Vitaliy

2008\08\23@080114 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> > your flattening the work-vs-reward curve at the low end. > Here I went > > from $9.10/hour work at university to a $17/hour entry-level job > > generally requiring a degree, almost doubling my income. In > Australia > > you'd go from a $15/hour job to a $20/hour job. Who wants to put in > > four years for that? My brother knows a lot of people who didn't > > bother, and university tuition is free there. (it's > actually taken out > > of your taxes, but only if you pay taxes...) > > > > Of course, those numbers in themseleves are misleading in > many ways, > > Australia has had quite a bit of inflation due to that high minimum > > wage, anything involving service tends to be very > expensive, but again > > the real test is what additional rewards hard work gets > you, and it's > > not as much as it would be, if the minimum wage was a low lower. > > Excellent story, thanks Peter. > > I heard a very similar account from a Danish acquaintance. > According to him, in Denmark there are lots of people on > welfare, who work and get paid under the table. The combined > tax (income + sales tax) is around 60-70%. > > Vitaliy Well, you take those stories with a large grain of salt. Declaring a minimum wage doesn't guarantee that anyone will turn up to do the job anyway, and if they averge colledge graduate thinks they're much worth more than that, they're usually wrong. In Australia there's currently a discussion about importing labour from a few Pacific islands in order to pick fruit (about 2,500 people), presumably they'll be paid minimum wage, and presumably because no Australians want to. IIRC, unemployment is about 3-4%, and it's always higher in rural areas, oddly enough where one grows fruit. Weird. The capitalist would probably point out that's the problem with welfare, the socialist would complain about poor working conditions on farms, and the communists are quiet because what they say doesn't matter much these days. There are some that say everything will working out fine in the end, so don't worry about it. Fruit gets picked, people get paid, I get some bananas. Yay for all! On a side note, I recently did my income tax, and discoved I was entitled to a 'low income allowance'. "WTF LOL" was pretty much my reaction. It was only about $40, but still. Dumb-arse government has found yet another dumb-arse way to give people money. I do wish they would stop things like that. Tony

2008\08\23@125442 by Byron Jeff

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 03:35:07AM -0400, Vitaliy wrote: Thought to self: why am I wandering into this minefield? {Quote hidden}> Bob Blick wrote: > >>> And perhaps those a little higher on the food chain sometimes? > >> > >> Absolutely. You pay more for everything from food, to clothes, to > >> hamburgers > >> at your local MacDonalds. > > > > And what is wrong with that? > > I was agreeing with you that it doesn't negatively affect just the people at > the bottom of the food chain. Most people will agree that paying a higher > price for something is generally a bad thing. What's missing is that there's a cost for paying lower prices too, but it's hidden. It comes in the export inequity. But it's an infrastructure issue that's hard for individuals to see. It shows up in areas what used to have manufacturing and other jobs that have moved overseas. {Quote hidden}> >> Bob, the problem with your sob story is that I am not the exploiting rich > >> capitalist s.o.b. that you seem to make me out to be. > > > > In relative terms you are rich, because you are smart and talented, and > > make enough money for some luxuries. > > > > How about the teeming masses who have no talent, a low IQ, etc. etc? Do > > we just let them suffere and die, or do we act like citizens of a first > > world country and do something about it? > [snippage of Marxist lyrics] > > www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/international.htm > > But seriously, Bob. I'm all for helping the less fortunate, minimum wage > isn't going to help. There are much better ways to help people lift > themselves out of poverty. This is what brought me into this thread. How exactly do you help those who have neither the capability nor interest to help themselves? > >> I know what hard work is, and I know financial hardship. > > > > I believe you. But you have talent, too. Lots of hardworking people will > > never be able to achieve what you have, and will be stuck with minimum > > wage all their lives. > > What is your solution? For some, it's presenting an opportunity to change their station. That may be further educational opportunities, business loans, or other infrastructure support. But there are unfortunately, as Bob pointed out, many who are unwilling or unable to seize upon such opportunities. Then you get a multitude of directions, none of them too terribly good: 1) Welfare where you give them support they require. This perpetuates a generational cycle of unproductivity. 2) Do nothing, which because the need stills requires filling often leads to illicit activity. In short if you won't give it to them, then they'll try to take it from you. 3) Make them work for it. The problem here is that if the money isn't sufficient, they'll either take one or the other of the two options above. > >> the story perfectly > >> illustrates the attitude of many people: poor people's problems are > >> always > >> somebody else's fault. > > > > The same with everybody else who won't take some responsibility > > Are you suggesting that I am not taking responsibility? I'll leave that for Bob to address. {Quote hidden}> >> "Economists connected with the Left -orientated Economic Policy Institute > >> and the Clinton Administration have concocted a rational for minimum wage > >> increases. According to these economists higher wages make employees more > >> content with their jobs, and this leads to higher worker productivity. > >> Thus > >> workers will be worth paying a minimum wage once their employers are > >> forced > >> to pay these wages. Of course, if this were true - if employers could get > >> higher productivity out of less educated and experienced workers by > >> paying > >> higher wages - they would be willing to do this without minimum wage > >> legislation." [http://mises.org/story/2130] > > > > Ahh, Ron Paul :) Libertarian thinking has no place for human suffering. > > It is ignored. > > It's easy to label and dismiss. Easier than answering the question: if > paying workers more improves productivity, why do you need minimum wage > legislation? Agreed. So let me ask a different question: If you did not have minimum wage laws, what do you think would be the balance point for wages? Pay too low and no one will do the job, pay too high and your competitors run you out of business. So what would you do for labor if their costs were unfixed? {Quote hidden}> >> Give me one instance, when you paid more and got better work. My > >> experience > >> was that increasing the salary of a sloppy or lazy worker doesn't make > >> them > >> work harder. Salary matters, but for a different reason -- unless the pay > >> is > >> competitive (at or above the market rate), the best workers will find > >> employment elsewhere. > > > > I think people who work low-end jobs need a living wage. If better work > > is a side-effect, fine. > > Fine, then let's give them money. I would support a negative tax. But that's back to a welfare system, which is designed to make people idle. > Minimum wage keeps poor people out of jobs, and unfairly placed the bulk of > the burden on small businesses. Tough choice, welfare or minimum wage. You say you support a negative tax, then how about this: 1) Have a minimum wage. 2) For small businesses under a certain size, subsizide those businesses with minimum wage tax breaks. So instead of giving the money directly to individuals, you subsizide the small business that gives them jobs. 3) When you get to be a big business, you lose the tax break. Now small businesses are incentivized to hire, workers make enough money that they don't need to be on welfare, the government is going to tax their wages, which will help fund the tax breaks, and maybe by showing the unwilling how working can improve their living standard, that future generations will be more motivated and more capable of contributing to the overall economy. {Quote hidden}> >> Put another way, productivity drives wages -- wages do not drive > >> productivity. Want to make more money? Make yourself more productive! > > > > Actually I'm happy where I am. > > That's great. I'm also quite content with my situation. :) > > > But you seem to base everything solely on > > an economic model(one that I don't agree with) and don't seem to care > > about the huddled masses or social justice. > > I'm sorry you got that impression. I do care about the less fortunate, I > think we just disagree on how to best help them. Again can you outline your thoughts on that? BAJ

2008\08\23@135457 by Peter

> There are other ways to address the "social injustice". The problem I have Minimal wage laws do not address social injustice at all. They may help create it. 'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) work usually does not exist where wage laws do not exist, and where workers can migrate freely (in *AND* out). Wage laws are a part of trade barriers imposed by states and/or locally by unions in certain industries. They create a niche where the usual economic forces cannot work. This can serve immediate financial interests or political powers. The 'political success' of imposing or raising a minimal wage is a very powerful populist political platform that has been used by union officials and by politicians likewise. It is interesting to notice that in most developed countries that do not actually have a minimal wage law, other local organizations, such as huge unions, impose such laws nevertheless, with additional barriers against the entry of others into the job market they control. F.ex. non union workers cannot work in a unionized place, lawyers cannot practice without joining the bar and accepting its minimal wages policy, and so on. The worst possible kind of minimal wages laws are those imposed by developing countries that have no separation between state, judicial and industry. There, minimal wages are just digits in a five year plan. They do not reflect anything tangible or meaningful outside the commitee that dreamed them up. Peter

2008\08\23@144056 by Peter Todd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:00:04PM +1000, Tony Smith wrote: {Quote hidden}> Well, you take those stories with a large grain of salt. > > Declaring a minimum wage doesn't guarantee that anyone will turn up to do > the job anyway, and if they averge colledge graduate thinks they're much > worth more than that, they're usually wrong. > > In Australia there's currently a discussion about importing labour from a > few Pacific islands in order to pick fruit (about 2,500 people), presumably > they'll be paid minimum wage, and presumably because no Australians want to. > IIRC, unemployment is about 3-4%, and it's always higher in rural areas, > oddly enough where one grows fruit. Why would you bother picking fruit when you could just collect welfare/unemployment insurance and spend that 30 hours a week looking for a decent job instead? (or just lie to your caseworker) Besides, frankly picking fruit is a hard physical job that lots of people just can't realisticly do. Obesity and other forms of poor health is much more common in the poor, and the cause and effect go both ways. Again, it's a work-vs-reward thing, if the alternative was starving to death, more people would do it, but the whole point of social safety nets is we don't leave that as an option. - -- http://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIsFmS3bMhDbI9xWQRAlKjAJ9AJOAKPf9w5+nA++AcH4zJCLlsBACcCC+K G1ZZq2UDflgYFWfUUTl1NEQ= =l/gt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\08\24@005759 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> > Declaring a minimum wage doesn't guarantee that anyone will > turn up to > > do the job anyway, and if they averge colledge graduate > thinks they're > > much worth more than that, they're usually wrong. > > > > In Australia there's currently a discussion about importing labour > > from a few Pacific islands in order to pick fruit (about 2,500 > > people), presumably they'll be paid minimum wage, and > presumably because no Australians want to. > > IIRC, unemployment is about 3-4%, and it's always higher in rural > > areas, oddly enough where one grows fruit. > > Why would you bother picking fruit when you could just > collect welfare/unemployment insurance and spend that 30 > hours a week looking for a decent job instead? (or just lie > to your caseworker) > > Besides, frankly picking fruit is a hard physical job that > lots of people just can't realisticly do. Obesity and other > forms of poor health is much more common in the poor, and the > cause and effect go both ways. > Again, it's a work-vs-reward thing, if the alternative was > starving to death, more people would do it, but the whole > point of social safety nets is we don't leave that as an option. That sounds like what I said... Fruit picking might be hard work, but so is mining. Nothing seems to be stopping people travelling 4,000km across the country to go dig iron ore. I wonder why that is. Oh right, mining boom, big money. So why don't the growers raise the wages? Because that increases the price of the produce, and they have contracts with supermarkets etc that have fixed prices. The buyers won't pay over a certain amount. Or the supermarkets play one grower against the other, or against imports. There ya go, it's all the capitalists fault, or the consumer who won't pay a decent price. It's always someones fault. Ah hell, let's just blame the guvmint as usual. Tony

2008\08\30@110140 by Gerhard Fiedler

Peter wrote: > 'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) work usually does not exist where wage > laws do not exist, and where workers can migrate freely (in *AND* out). I agree in principle with most of your post, but I think this is not correct -- however, I don't have any facts to cite, just a few observations and thoughts. In Brazil, there are many people informally "employed" below the official minimum wage -- and of course without the legal benefits that go with formal employment. I don't think that a substantial part of these workers would be formally employed (that is, receiving legal employment benefits) if there was no minimum wage. I don't even think that anybody would actually bother to formalize their employment if there weren't any legal benefits attached to formal employment. I also think that this is nothing really special about Brazil, but that it is symptomatic for any society with a large number of workers without a certain degree of general education. (As a side note, I think that income tax on the wages is a non-issue for the wages we're talking about. They are IME way below the threshold for paying income taxes.) So I have difficulty accepting this statement of yours. Do you have any examples or whatever else to show that this is in fact so? Is there actually a single example? (Let alone so many that one can rightfully use the term "usually".) Thanks, Gerhard

2008\08\30@112019 by Gerhard Fiedler

Byron Jeff wrote: >> It's easy to label and dismiss. Easier than answering the question: if >> paying workers more improves productivity, why do you need minimum wage >> legislation? > > Agreed. So let me ask a different question: If you did not have minimum > wage laws, what do you think would be the balance point for wages? Pay > too low and no one will do the job, pay too high and your competitors > run you out of business. So what would you do for labor if their costs > were unfixed? Can't speak for Vitaliy, but I think he'd just pay something between what he needs to pay to get the quality of work he needs and what he can pay while still selling his products at a competitive price. Sometimes the latter is lower than the former, for whatever reason, and that's when you have trouble with your business model :) -- no minimum wage law will change that. I think one problem with minimum wages is that people often think of themselves as employees, dependent workers. I don't think there's a way where a society can "provide work" for everybody. IMO people should get used to the approach that if you want to receive something, you have to trade with something -- which leads you to the question "what do I have to trade?" In that situation, you need to look at yourself and ask "what can I do that makes someone pay me X?" The key point here is that what I can and what I want doesn't really matter for itself, what matters is what any of that is worth to someone else, and who that is. I think looking at working from this perspective helps a good deal, and getting used to looking at it from that perspective as early as possible may help some. Gerhard

2008\08\30@130522 by Peter

Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes: > > 'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) work usually does not exist where wage > > laws do not exist, and where workers can migrate freely (in *AND* out). > > I agree in principle with most of your post, but I think this is not > correct -- however, I don't have any facts to cite, just a few observations > and thoughts. > So I have difficulty accepting this statement of yours. Do you have any > examples or whatever else to show that this is in fact so? Is there > actually a single example? (Let alone so many that one can rightfully use > the term "usually".) Examples (also by counter example): Germany, has no minimum wages but the social system implements them nevertheless, supplementing the income of certain underpaid persons. There are also very extensive social benefits supported by very heavy taxes. As a result, the unemployment rate is sky high, growth is negative, and factories close and move to Eastern Europe and to China (and even to America). Also, most menial jobs are done by foreigners who work below what is considered minimal pay. That includes Polish plumbers, Czech cleaning ladies, Turkish garbage truck operators and much more, many of them likely doing 'gray' work and/or paying taxes in their countries of origin (at a lower rate than the extortionate rates practiced by Germany). The newest German 'Green Card' equivalent even stipulates that a worker who can come on that program to work in Germany must have earned a ridiculous salary for a number of years previously abroad, and must be paid a certain minimum salary (that is also relatively ridiculous). Compare to H1Bs for the USA. In Eastern Europe things work the other way. The collapse of the quasi-inexistent health care and pensions system at the end of the COCOM era 20 years ago left these states in shambles, many of them with badly tainted and still red leadership and policies which discouraged foreign investment for 15 years, and they have started to come out of it only very recently, with 2-digit annual growth rates. The result is a daily conflict between free-for-all Capitalism and the vestiges of state-enforced economies. In Romania, a recent newspaper article said that 47% of de polled Romanians who work legally say that they do not receive their pay as recorded in their work documents. There is a nationally enforced minimal wages system and another enforced by large unions. Worker mobility is very low, they cannot migrate elsewhere easily due to restrictive work laws imposed by the EC (this country is a recent EC member). As a result, the wages can be kept almost as low as it goes, and periodic symbolic 'minimal wage rises' are practiced. In reality, Romanians who work abroad can earn 5 times more than at home doing the same job. It's an artifically maintained cheap worker pool. Of course, whoever can leave and work abroad does so. As a result there is a severe shortage of skilled workers, yet unemployment is relatively high because nobody will work for the minimal salaries dreamed up by the unions. >From what I read, California has a 'Mexican' problem in the sense that the border cannot be enforced. The result is almost free Capitalism in the lower end job market, but with wages set by the standard of living of the Mexican laborers who accept to work for very low wages. As you can see it's always the same picture. A place that calls itself '*istic', but in fact has some very strange local 'modifications' of the *ism it claims to belong to, and as a result there is imbalance in the system. The result seems to be invariably a mess. One could argue whether this kind of mess is better or worse than the mess that is 'free for all Capitalism', and in what way. But it's clearly a mess. And the imposed wage system is almost always (i.e. usually) a part of the mess, as you can see above. Sorry for the long posting, Peter

2008\08\30@141947 by Byron Jeff

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:53AM -0400, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > Byron Jeff wrote: > > >> It's easy to label and dismiss. Easier than answering the question: if > >> paying workers more improves productivity, why do you need minimum wage > >> legislation? > > > > Agreed. So let me ask a different question: If you did not have minimum > > wage laws, what do you think would be the balance point for wages? Pay > > too low and no one will do the job, pay too high and your competitors > > run you out of business. So what would you do for labor if their costs > > were unfixed? > > Can't speak for Vitaliy, but I think he'd just pay something between what > he needs to pay to get the quality of work he needs and what he can pay > while still selling his products at a competitive price. Sometimes the > latter is lower than the former, for whatever reason, and that's when you > have trouble with your business model :) -- no minimum wage law will change > that. And the business goes under. Understood. {Quote hidden}> > I think one problem with minimum wages is that people often think of > themselves as employees, dependent workers. I don't think there's a way > where a society can "provide work" for everybody. IMO people should get > used to the approach that if you want to receive something, you have to > trade with something -- which leads you to the question "what do I have to > trade?" In that situation, you need to look at yourself and ask "what can I > do that makes someone pay me X?" The key point here is that what I can and > what I want doesn't really matter for itself, what matters is what any of > that is worth to someone else, and who that is. I think looking at working > from this perspective helps a good deal, and getting used to looking at it > from that perspective as early as possible may help some. Rightly or wrongly I still see minimum wages as a pacification systen in a civilized society. The bottom line is that those who cannot see a useful and legal trade scenario will turn to illegal and dangerous activity. It devolves into lawlessness. Welfare is one solution but does not require any activity on the part of the recipient. Offer enough for a decent standard of living, and folks will be inclined to work for it. BAJ

'[OT] Why minimum wage laws are bad'
2008\09\02@091720 by Gerhard Fiedler

Peter wrote: > Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes: > >>> 'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) work usually does not exist where wage >>> laws do not exist, and where workers can migrate freely (in *AND* >>> out). >> >> I agree in principle with most of your post, but I think this is not >> correct -- however, I don't have any facts to cite, just a few >> observations and thoughts. > >> So I have difficulty accepting this statement of yours. Do you have any >> examples or whatever else to show that this is in fact so? Is there >> actually a single example? (Let alone so many that one can rightfully >> use the term "usually".) > > Examples (also by counter example): [Snipped counter examples Germany, Romania, California] > As you can see it's always the same picture. A place that calls itself > '*istic', but in fact has some very strange local 'modifications' of the > *ism it claims to belong to, and as a result there is imbalance in the > system. The result seems to be invariably a mess. One could argue > whether this kind of mess is better or worse than the mess that is 'free > for all Capitalism', and in what way. But it's clearly a mess. And the > imposed wage system is almost always (i.e. usually) a part of the mess, > as you can see above. Again, I don't really disagree with your interpretation of the examples. But I still don't see how this shows that "'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) work usually does not exist where wage laws do not exist, and where workers can migrate freely (in *AND* out)" -- your original statement for which I would like to see where it actually works that way. You having used "usually" implies that you know places where it works that way -- but I have a hard time imagining a place without any wage laws, no migration restrictions, and no illegal and no non-tax-paying work. Gerhard

2008\09\02@093100 by Gerhard Fiedler

Byron Jeff wrote: > Rightly or wrongly I still see minimum wages as a pacification systen in > a civilized society. The bottom line is that those who cannot see a > useful and legal trade scenario will turn to illegal and dangerous > activity. It devolves into lawlessness. Welfare is one solution but does > not require any activity on the part of the recipient. Offer enough for > a decent standard of living, and folks will be inclined to work for it. Maybe, and in some circumstances, given the right balance of values, it may work to some degree. But it's a difficult balance; make the minimum wage too high, and you get exactly the contrary: low-wage jobs (which often don't provide essential services) just vanish as the minimum wage gets too high to pay for these non-essential services, so they get cut or the workers are employed illegally for lower wages. The latter of course is always some sort of "agreement" between the "employer" and the "employee": the "employee" needs a job and can't find one that pays the official minimum wage (plus official benefits), the "employer" wants something done but can't or doesn't want to pay the official minimum wage (plus official benefits), so both agree that this has to be done illegally, paying whatever the market rate and market benefits (usually none, in this range) are... It's difficult to explain to someone desperately looking for something to work and make /some/ money why he/she shouldn't work for X dollars just because that's below minimum wage and not officially registered... once you're desperate enough, you take anything you can get. And that's again something that won't be changed by minimum wage laws. I think the problem with minimum wage is not the intent (which I agree with), it's the unintended consequences and distortions. I think the only ones who are helped by minimum wage laws are the ones holding jobs that make a little bit less; their wages probably get increased and so they make more. But they didn't make much less than the set value to start with, so the effect is probably marginal (even though it can be substantial for an individual). All others are either above (and not affected) or way below (and their jobs just go away). Gerhard

2008\09\02@150934 by Peter

Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes: > Again, I don't really disagree with your interpretation of the examples. > But I still don't see how this shows that "'Illegal' (and non-tax-paying) > work usually does not exist where wage laws do not exist, and where workers > can migrate freely (in *AND* out)" -- your original statement for which I > would like to see where it actually works that way. You having used > "usually" implies that you know places where it works that way -- but I > have a hard time imagining a place without any wage laws, no migration > restrictions, and no illegal and no non-tax-paying work. The counter-examples pretty much showed that there seems to be no place without minimum wages, even if they are not called that or are not enforced nationally. They also showed that in general where something resembling minimal wages does exist (such as in California), 'gray' work abounds and very often economic pressures cause factories to close and move elsewhere, where the local minimal wages are lower. Example: the unionized workers at a Nokia cell phone plant in Bochum, Germany, recently got laid off, because the factory moved in corporem to a unionized place with lower "minimal wages", namely to Cluj (Klausenburg) in Romania. To top that, the German Parliament recently (2007, during or after the move) voted against introducing minimum wages "because they would cause job losses". So you have an example of a highly developed country that has-no-minimum-wages yet loses jobs to another country that has-minimal-wages (Romania has them) but where they are massively lower than in Germany. Apparently at the time of the move (2007) some German workers moved to Klausenburg as they were told that they could keep their jobs if they moved with the factory. But they found the conditions unfit and went back. I do not have the full details of this latter story, it may be folklore. Peter

2008\09\02@155934 by Paul Anderson

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Bob Blick <.....bobblickKILLspam@spam@ftml.net> wrote: > > > I think people who work low-end jobs need a living wage. If better work > is a side-effect, fine. > Something that is commonly ignored is that increasing the severity of poverty impacts crime. The worse off people are, the more lucrative crime becomes. People who argue against minimum wages usually aren't in a place to be on the wrong end of their beliefs. Having the guy around the corner make 70 cents a day is fine as long as you're comfortable. When you find yourself in that position, it's altogether less pleasant. -- Paul Anderson VE3HOP wackyvorlonKILLspamgmail.com http://www.oldschoolhacker.com QRP ARCI #13228, GQRP #12447

2008\09\03@085802 by Gerhard Fiedler

Peter wrote: > The counter-examples pretty much showed that there seems to be no place > without minimum wages, even if they are not called that or are not > enforced nationally. Right... if nothing else, there is the general wage level that provides some kind of minimum for what people get up and go to work, enforced by whatever social security system there is in place. > They also showed that in general where something resembling minimal wages > does exist (such as in California), 'gray' work abounds and very often > economic pressures cause factories to close and move elsewhere, where > the local minimal wages are lower. Agreed. However, they don't show how it would be if there wasn't something resembling minimum wages. In fact, I'd say that there is /always/ something like minimum wages, from the perspective of both the employer and the employee. If a certain job is generally paid $20/h in your area, you'd probably have difficulties finding someone who really can do this job to work for $2/h; somewhere in between is the de-facto minimum wage for this job in this area. > Example: the unionized workers at a Nokia cell phone plant in Bochum, > Germany, recently got laid off, because the factory moved in corporem to > a unionized place with lower "minimal wages", namely to Cluj > (Klausenburg) in Romania. Shows exactly my point. If he can (and wants to) move, that's probably what the employer would do to lower the de-facto minimum wage. I don't think that this picture changes drastically with or without legal minimum wages; IMO the only thing a legal minimum wage does is distort the market a bit for jobs that have a de-facto minimum wage not too far away from the legal minimum wage. Wages way below generally mean informal/illegal employment (these jobs probably have been or would be informal even without a minimum wage); wages way above are not affected at all. Gerhard

2008\09\03@090638 by Gerhard Fiedler

Paul Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Bob Blick <.....bobblickKILLspam.....ftml.net> wrote: >> >> I think people who work low-end jobs need a living wage. If better work >> is a side-effect, fine. >> > Something that is commonly ignored is that increasing the severity of > poverty impacts crime. The worse off people are, the more lucrative > crime becomes. People who argue against minimum wages usually aren't in > a place to be on the wrong end of their beliefs. Having the guy around > the corner make 70 cents a day is fine as long as you're comfortable. > When you find yourself in that position, it's altogether less pleasant. Of course... but what makes you think that just because there is a legal minimum wage, someone would all of a sudden pay this guy $20 a day to do the same job? The job then just doesn't exist anymore. Or the guy continues to work for the same wage, but now illegally... which may be even worse for him. I don't see how the people who make way less than the legal minimum wage are positively affected by it. IMO the only ones who are positively affected are the ones who hold a formal job (with all legal benefits) and a wage that's slightly below. They probably will get a raise and continue to get a raise as the minimum wage increases. The ones who make far less simply either lose their job (when a legal minimum wage is introduced) or go illegal -- because the fact that they make far less shows that they can't find a job in the neighborhood of the legal minimum wage, and no minimum wage law creates those jobs for them. Gerhard

2008\09\03@130752 by Paul Anderson

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Gerhard Fiedler <EraseMElistsspam_OUTTakeThisOuTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote: > > > Of course... but what makes you think that just because there is a legal > minimum wage, someone would all of a sudden pay this guy $20 a day to do > the same job? The job then just doesn't exist anymore. Or the guy continues > to work for the same wage, but now illegally... which may be even worse for > him. > Not necessarily. It's a question of profitability. The increase doesn't necessarily make it unprofitable to have the fellow working. If we compare labour to any other cost in a business, for example oil, it becomes clearer. Shell doesn't shut down refineries just because oil went from $100 to $120. Similarily, they don't shut down refineries just because the cost of labour goes from $26/hr to $28/hr. The effects are more complicated. Sometimes they result in increased prices, sometimes not. There are a huge number of factors that influence these prices. It is also true that while an increase in labour costs does not directly translate into an increase in prices, a decrease in labour costs does not directly translate to a decrease in prices. Places like Walmart argue that increasing minimum wage will increase prices, but do you honestly think a decrease would result in a direct decrease in prices? The notion is, in my opinion, silly. They would be just as happy to keep the prices the same and rake in more profit. -- Paul Anderson VE3HOP wackyvorlonspam_OUTgmail.com http://www.oldschoolhacker.com QRP ARCI #13228, GQRP #12447

2008\09\04@091306 by Gerhard Fiedler

Paul Anderson wrote: >> Of course... but what makes you think that just because there is a legal >> minimum wage, someone would all of a sudden pay this guy $20 a day to >> do the same job? The job then just doesn't exist anymore. Or the guy >> continues to work for the same wage, but now illegally... which may be >> even worse for him. >> > Not necessarily. It's a question of profitability. The increase doesn't > necessarily make it unprofitable to have the fellow working. If we > compare labour to any other cost in a business, for example oil, it > becomes clearer. Shell doesn't shut down refineries just because oil > went from $100 to $120. Similarily, they don't shut down refineries > just because the cost of labour goes from $26/hr to $28/hr. Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who makes 70 cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are talking about the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas with some $20 per day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum wage, which is around $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's the purpose of having a state minimum wage that's lower... ?) The differences you are talking about is exactly what I was talking about: if someone makes $50 a day, raising the minimum wage to $55 a day probably gives the guy a rise and he gets to keep his job. That's why I was saying that I think the ones that would make a little less than the minimum wage profit from it. (That's the part of my reply that you snipped :) But they are not the example you started out with: 70 cents a day (always assuming USA). > The effects are more complicated. Sometimes they result in increased > prices, sometimes not. There are a huge number of factors that > influence these prices. Most markets would probably be influenced by an 80fold increase in labor cost ($0.70/d to $55/d), but I wasn't talking about prices. I was talking about jobs. Do you really, really think that someone hiring a guy for 70 cents a day to do something worth that little would be willing to pay $55 for the same job after introducing a legal minimum wage? Do you have an example? What kinds of job do you see people do for 70c a day, that you (yes, you personally, not some anonymous employer -- it is always a good thing to put things into perspective) would pay the same guy for the same job $55 a day? I personally know that there are limits, from my own experience: there is only so much I'm willing to pay for someone unskilled to occasionally help me out with odd jobs around the house. I usually end up hiring someone reasonably skilled who makes more than minimum wage anyway, because of the skills, because that ends up being less expensive than hiring someone really cheap who doesn't have any skills. There are many low-wage jobs here in Brazil, and many people hold a job below the legal minimum wage. Many of these informal jobs are some form of help in the household: maid, nanny, gardener, handyman, almost all not particularly skilled or else they'd not work below minimum wage without legal benefits. (There are people working in these jobs who make much more than minimum wage, but many if not most make way less.) Many of these jobs also are not essential (due to lack of skills) and simply would cease to exist if people were forced to decide between hiring the same person for the same job, paying legal minimum wage and benefits (which often would end up being 2 or 3 or 4 times more), or not hiring anybody at all. Now I agree that it would be best if these people could get the general and specific skills that allowed them to do work that pays better, but as long as they don't have these skills, there is no minimum wage law that can get them a minimum wage job -- if the law (that exists) were rigorously enforced (which it isn't), most of them simply would be without a job, while a small portion of them would get a rise and legal benefits and keep their job. So I'm not sure whether strictly enforced minimum wage laws really would do good for a majority of these people. Better public education probably would, but that's a different story. FWIW, the comparison chart in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States shows a weak correlation between higher minimum wage and higher teenager unemployment. Which makes sense... if you have to pay a wage that gets you someone with a certain experience, you probably are less inclined to hire someone with less experience for the same money. A minimum wage law doesn't strongly affect the worth of work, it just tries to fight it -- and it does so, with intended and unintended consequences. > It is also true that while an increase in labour costs does not directly > translate into an increase in prices, a decrease in labour costs does > not directly translate to a decrease in prices. Places like Walmart > argue that increasing minimum wage will increase prices, but do you > honestly think a decrease would result in a direct decrease in prices? I'm not Walmart, I'm not arguing their perspective, and I never talked about prices of goods, so you'd have to ask Walmart, not me, to get your question answered :) For me, minimum wage is not about prices of goods, it is about prices of work. Prices of goods may or may not be a secondary consequence, but the primary issue is the work, and what it is worth to both the hiree and the hirer. Gerhard

2008\09\04@114646 by Paul Hutchinson

> -----Original Message----- > From: @spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:12 AM > > Paul Anderson wrote: > >> Of course... but what makes you think that just because there is a legal <snip> > > Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who makes 70 > cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are talking about > the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas with some $20 per > day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum wage, which is around > $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's the purpose of having a > state minimum wage that's lower... ?) U.S. federal minimum wage only applies to jobs that are tied to interstate commerce in some way. Waiters, waitresses, janitors, etc. who work for companies not involved in interstate commerce are exempt from federal minimum wage. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm Five states have no minimum wage law so, in those states exempt employees can be paid whatever the employer desires. http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm Paul Hutch <huge snip>

2008\09\04@121845 by Apptech

> Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who makes > 70 > cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are talking > about > the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas with some $20 per > day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum wage, which is around > $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's the purpose of having a > state minimum wage that's lower... ?) 70 cents aday sounds like 'outer exploit them for all the market will bear ville.' Worst case China is perhaps about $US2/day for a sensible full time job. And people in areas where that is acceptable can live well enough on that!. NEVER ask for a level playing field ! :-) - (just like you should never ask God for justice for yourself :-) ). Russell

2008\09\04@161028 by Youda He

Ever since China post there minimum wage, plus raising currency exchange rate to dollar, a lot of factories moved from China to Vietnam, any info on minimum wage on Vietnam? -- Youda On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Apptech <KILLspamapptechKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote: {Quote hidden}>> Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who makes >> 70 >> cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are talking >> about >> the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas with some $20 per >> day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum wage, which is around >> $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's the purpose of having a >> state minimum wage that's lower... ?) > > > 70 cents aday sounds like 'outer exploit them for all the market will bear > ville.' Worst case China is perhaps about $US2/day for a sensible full time > job. And people in areas where that is acceptable can live well enough on > that!. NEVER ask for a level playing field ! :-) - (just like you should > never ask God for justice for yourself :-) ). > > > > Russell > > -

2008\09\04@163411 by Spehro Pefhany

Quoting Youda He <RemoveMEyoudaTakeThisOuTgeometrysystems.com>: > Ever since China post there minimum wage, plus raising currency > exchange rate to dollar, Ever since the Olympics were announced to be in Beijing too.. maybe there is some connection? > a lot of factories moved from China to Vietnam, any info on minimum > wage on Vietnam? > > -- Youda libcom.org/news/vietnemese-minimum-wage-set-rise-16052007 http://www.pacificbridge.com/publication.asp?id=100 China has been discouraging (or at least not encouraging) low value-added industry for quite some time (maybe 10 years), starting in the most developed areas and SEZs. {Quote hidden}> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz> wrote: >>> Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who makes >>> 70 >>> cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are talking >>> about >>> the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas with some $20 per >>> day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum wage, which is around >>> $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's the purpose of having a >>> state minimum wage that's lower... ?) >> >> >> 70 cents aday sounds like 'outer exploit them for all the market will bear >> ville.' Worst case China is perhaps about $US2/day for a sensible full time >> job. And people in areas where that is acceptable can live well enough on >> that!. NEVER ask for a level playing field ! :-) - (just like you should >> never ask God for justice for yourself :-) ). >> >> >> >> Russell >> >> --

2008\09\04@172539 by Apptech

>> Ever since China post there minimum wage, plus raising currency >> exchange rate to dollar, > Ever since the Olympics were announced to be in Beijing too.. maybe there > is some connection? >> a lot of factories moved from China to Vietnam, any info on minimum >> wage on Vietnam? ie About $US45/month for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs). Rather less for local companies. Below market rates, they say. So $US45/ 4.33 weeks/ /6 days ~~~= $US1.75/day. The Chinese mimimum rate varies but is AFAIK still under $US1/hour. And I know of people still paying far less than that. Russell McMahon > libcom.org/news/vietnemese-minimum-wage-set-rise-16052007 > www.pacificbridge.com/publication.asp?id=100 > > China has been discouraging (or at least not encouraging) low value-added > industry for quite some time (maybe 10 years), starting in the most > developed areas and SEZs.

2008\09\05@065659 by Gerhard Fiedler

Paul Hutchinson wrote: >>> Of course... but what makes you think that just because there is a legal > <snip> >> >> Remember, you (and I) were talking about your example of a guy who >> makes 70 cents a day. I don't know where you are, but assuming you are >> talking about the USA, it seems the lowest minimum wage is in Kansas >> with some $20 per day. (OTOH, it also seems that the federal minimum >> wage, which is around $55/day, overrides this, so I don't know what's >> the purpose of having a state minimum wage that's lower... ?) > > U.S. federal minimum wage only applies to jobs that are tied to interstate > commerce in some way. Waiters, waitresses, janitors, etc. who work for > companies not involved in interstate commerce are exempt from federal > minimum wage. > www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm > > Five states have no minimum wage law so, in those states exempt employees > can be paid whatever the employer desires. > http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm Thanks, Paul, that makes sense. Given this, the USA must be a good showcase for the effect of minimum wage laws. It should be relatively easy to find similar (!) places in states with high minimum wage, low minimum wage and no minimum wage and see whether there is a drastic difference in what and for how much the poor work. FWIW, the CA minimum wage is not much more than a piece of paper. There is a huge population that earns way less. Gerhard

2008\09\05@071936 by Lindy Mayfield

How are minimum wage laws different from a "living wage"? If there is one. -----Original Message----- From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspam_OUTmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler Sent: 5. syyskuuta 2008 13:56 To: piclistEraseME.....mit.edu Subject: Re: [OT] Why minimum wage laws are bad Given this, the USA must be a good showcase for the effect of minimum wage laws. It should be relatively easy to find similar (!) places in states with high minimum wage, low minimum wage and no minimum wage and see whether there is a drastic difference in what and for how much the poor work. FWIW, the CA minimum wage is not much more than a piece of paper. There is a huge population that earns way less. Gerhard

2008\09\06@100038 by Gerhard Fiedler

Lindy Mayfield wrote: > How are minimum wage laws different from a "living wage"? If there is > one. IMO: A (legal) minimum wage is defined by law, and you can't get formally employed with a lower wage, even if you wanted to. There's no guarantee that you actually can live with minimum wage. A living wage is whatever you can live with, and as such depends a lot on many things. I think there are people who can't imagine living with less than $10k/month, while others may be able to manage with much less... and it has nothing to do with whether that is from a formal employment or not. I think there may be the use of 'living wage' to indicate how much a certain minimum level of living costs in a certain place, used to get a measure of how many people live below that line. But again, it depends a lot on what you consider as 'living'. Gerhard

2008\09\06@111147 by Lindy Mayfield

The reason I was asking about that, Gerhard, is because I live in Finland and although I don't have any hard facts about it, it seems that anyone who works (and many who do not) get what I assume to be a "living wage". I base this on the fact that there are no slums or housing projects in Finland. It is impossible to find drug dealers on street corners. There are no gang related drive-by shootings. An office worker who answers the phones or a person who works in a kiosk can afford a decent place to live. Now while I cannot attribute all of this to salaries, it is hard to believe that how much people make doesn't play some major role. Taxes are also high here, but I don't have to look more than out my window to see that I get what I pay for. Lindy {Original Message removed}

2008\09\07@090508 by Gerhard Fiedler

Lindy Mayfield wrote: > Taxes are also high here, but I don't have to look more than out my > window to see that I get what I pay for. I always felt (more than knew, because I never spent any significant time there) that the Skandinavian countries have quite silently developed a form of social capitalism or socialism (in the eyes of the more hardcore capitalists:) that works pretty well. I wonder what it is that makes this work there and not almost anywhere else. Gerhard

2008\09\07@114303 by Bob Blick

It's cold and they snuggle together to stay warm. One thing leads to another, and you have a cooperative society. In the mideast, they have rocks, so they throw rocks. Need any more oversimplifications? I got 'em :) Here in the U.S. we have lots of cars and cheap appliances, so we have innovation like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd876iqGdT4 Cheerful regards, Bob Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> Lindy Mayfield wrote: > >> Taxes are also high here, but I don't have to look more than out my >> window to see that I get what I pay for. > > I always felt (more than knew, because I never spent any significant time > there) that the Skandinavian countries have quite silently developed a form > of social capitalism or socialism (in the eyes of the more hardcore > capitalists:) that works pretty well. > > I wonder what it is that makes this work there and not almost anywhere > else. > > Gerhard >

2008\09\07@114851 by Chris Smolinski

>Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> Lindy Mayfield wrote: >> >>> Taxes are also high here, but I don't have to look more than out my >>> window to see that I get what I pay for. >> >> I always felt (more than knew, because I never spent any significant time >> there) that the Skandinavian countries have quite silently developed a form >> of social capitalism or socialism (in the eyes of the more hardcore >> capitalists:) that works pretty well. >> >> I wonder what it is that makes this work there and not almost anywhere > > else. How well will it continue to work as the populate ages, and there are fewer workers to support it? -- --- Chris Smolinski Black Cat Systems http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\09\07@182207 by Dave Joyce

Here in Australia we have minimum wage laws, along with government funded medical, I don't think it is a bad thing. It stops a lot of exploitation of vulnerable people, and it works quite well. Dave... Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> Lindy Mayfield wrote: > > >> Taxes are also high here, but I don't have to look more than out my >> window to see that I get what I pay for. >> > > I always felt (more than knew, because I never spent any significant time > there) that the Skandinavian countries have quite silently developed a form > of social capitalism or socialism (in the eyes of the more hardcore > capitalists:) that works pretty well. > > I wonder what it is that makes this work there and not almost anywhere > else. > > Gerhard > >

2008\09\07@220152 by Rich

I do not know where Lindy lives, but I can look out of my window and wonder what I am getting for my money, and I am not looking forward to $845 Billion in additional taxes to give to the UN when I am already over taxed to the point that I have to do without things I need. {Original Message removed}

2008\09\08@024258 by Lindy Mayfield

About 35 kilometers outside of Helsinki. And Finland is famous for not sticking their nose into other countries business. (-; And don't forget, if you are in the US, that there are two current wars to pay for plus all the occupation in other countries like S. Korea, Germany, and so on. {Original Message removed}

2008\09\08@235959 by Rich

Hi Lindy. Glad to know where you are from. Actually, I would love to visit Helsinki. I had a client in Helsinki years ago but I never made the trip. You are right, of course, there is an expense associated with maintaining security forces. But the even greater expenses from corruption like the rip off by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the Pork deals and so-called community organizations that suck up billions and are a virtual "Bridge to Nowhere." These community organizations achieve nothing but political organization. And, that political organization does nothing but beget more funding, and more spending on political organizations to do more of the same. At least one of the community organizations uses taxpayer money to train political activists. When you look at the military budget in perspective it pales by comparison. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and some valuable community organizations arise. But by and large these are the exceptions and not the rule. It would be wonderful to have a world at peace with no threats from others. I would like to include America in that secure group with no threats against it but we all know that at least two major powers continue threaten America and America's allies with war, aside from the threat of Terrorism. But again, it would be wonderful if there were no need to make alliances for the sake of national security or commitment to the security of smaller more defenseless nations. I am more afraid, however, that America will crumble under the weight of internal greed and corruption among certain politicians in congress, than from war. Fighting a war has proven to be easier than eliminating the greed and corruption among some politicians (but thankfully not all) in Congress. I am all for taking away the opportunity for business to get in bed with congress and line the politician's pockets at the expense of the citizen. Caveat Emptor, it seems, is appropriate regarding politicians. It seems like we work for them when they should be working for us. Lindy, everything I have said here needs considerable expansion and explanation. There are so many complexities that obscure truth that it is no longer possible to state something political simply. Also, I like to qualify what I say lest someone take offense where none is intended. I hope you do not. I would like to know what you say, and if possible, why you say it. This is a tremendous learning experience for me. Would you be willing to tell me what newspaper(s) you read regularly? Respectfully, yours

2008\09\09@003104 by Bob Blick

Please stay calm, everybody! As some of you may recall, this is the PICLIST, and one of the things we don't want is politics, even in OT. There is a lot of red meat here that could be easy to run with, and I'm just not up for dealing with the fallout from it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Rich, thanks for your opinion, but we don't need it or the inevitable counterarguments. In other words, thanks for nothing. You could have asked more about Finland, which I am actually interested in :) Cheerful regards, Bob "your happy moderator and 1/2 Finn" Blick Rich wrote: > Hi Lindy. Glad to know where you are from. Actually, I would love to visit > Helsinki. I had a client in Helsinki years ago but I never made the trip. > You are right, of course, there is an expense associated with maintaining -- LONG Economic/political thread snipped --

2008\09\09@144307 by Lindy Mayfield

Yes, Helsinki is a wonderful city for a visit. It's amazing how high quality everything is, including the people. And while there is quite a presence of security people watching over stores, hotels, pubs, etc. there is no heavy-handedness from them or the police. I understand exactly what you say and of course I don't take offense. I have my opinions about things internally in the US but they are a bit radical and not appropriate for this forum. But now that I live in Europe (for going on 9 years now) I look at things from a different angle. You make good points about greed and corruption. I'm not exactly sure about the thread of terrorism though. While the 911 attack was extremely tragic (and graphic, that's the key) there were only 3,000 people. (As opposed to what it could have been, I mean.) One estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq is 577 billion. That works out to $192,333,333 per person. And about 34 Iraqis for each one. Again, no disrespect meant, but a war on homelessness, or a war on cancer, or a war on poverty etc. would make more sense. The War on Terror (tm) should really just be a criminal matter. IMHO. According to cancer.org each year 483,000 people die from illnesses related to cigarette smoking. They'll spend 577 billion to kill 100,000 Iraqis because Saudi Arabians flew jets into the WTC and killed 3000 people, while allowing a substance more addictive than crack to kill 483,000 people per year. If they eradicated tobacco like they attempt to eradicate smack then... Well. I'm kind of on a tangent now, huh? I normally get my news from web sites, NPR, The Daily Show, BBC World, things like that. The things that are important to me are the macho mumble peg games with Russians, a new "Cuban Missile Crisis" the Polish edition, and the general destabilizing effect. I watch the cops mace and beat the crap out of a kid for asking a rambling question and think things really aren't too bad where I'm living now. (-: And I really think that this isn't a ramble-off-topic from what we were discussing. Getting people up to a higher standard of living would make everyone's life in the US better. It's the old "clean up your own yard before complaining about the neighbor's." And seriously, the world won't fall apart if the US isn't there to keep an eye on everything. As an example, they left Viet Nam and they are doing just fine. As you said things are a bit more complex than I too am able to convey, and I hope I haven't said anything that offends. I was very, very careful not to. Lindy {Original Message removed}

2008\09\10@135133 by Rich

Thank you for the reply, Lindy. I am happy that we can discuss such things in a civil and even pleasant and respectful way. I believe it is a mark of civil maturity. Yes, things are very complex. I find that being informed is a matter of careful research. I also listen to NPR and BBC and too many resources to mention. I find NPR to be one of the major outlets of misinformation. Also, I recently read a book by Joyce Davis entitled "Between Jihad and Salaam." She is from NPR. I was totally amazed at her complete lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign policy and especially American foreign policy. I will not generalize that to the greater population of her camp without good evidence. I have found that the mass media does not necessarily present valid information. Sometimes it is valid when it supports the political view of the organ. Disseminating valid information is not their purpose; though it may have been at one time. The mass media presents an image of events according to a political alignment with some ideological agenda. The New York Times is notorious for that. It is important to understand at AT LEAST two things; what is the political position that a particular media is promoting, and how that will affect your own understanding of the actual events with respect to their purpose and impact. It is a mistake not to include the media propaganda in one's research because it would be like trying to understand color with only two of the three primary colors. I like what you say about "clean up your own back yard." How true, how obvious and yet how difficult. There is a lot of cleaning to be done in the American back yard. Drugs, gangs, and neighborhoods that fertilize criminal opportunity, and now illegal aliens have created a new wave of crime. But there are monumental problems and the socio-political landscape is ill-equipped to solve real problems. One difficulty is that some politicians believe tor pretend to believe that money will solve all problems: Fund It!! Fund It!! Fund It!! Just blind funding. That may create the illusion that they have acted responsibly but the problems are not resolved. Social issues that need to be addressed directly are couched in obtuse political language to suit one party or another and in the end mask the real cause of the problem in "political correctness." Things get worse. I liked it better when we had a real two party system (in reality not just image) and each party had the same goal of American prosperity, progress and opportunity for ALL. The war on terrorism is not a war on America it is a war on everyone and the American government has not been aware of the dangers of radical Islam as it should have been. The idea that the American government carried out the attack on the twin towers is the kind of political obstructionism that I am opposed to. Ignorance? Perhaps, but by whom? The Carter Administration through ignorance or otherwise was very instrumental in the effecting overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which unleashed a reign of terror that affected the entire world. It is the product of American Liberalism and it's world agenda of superficial harmony. And when I say American liberalism I do not restrict it to the democrats but I include the liberal republicans. I am not convinced that sprinkling the magic dust of liberalism over every nation of the world will bring harmony and and peace between nations. I believe that nations look to self-interest and that peace is more likely to rest on such conditions as mutual agreements that look to national interests and not exploitation. But we cannot write a treatise on the list so please be aware that I leave this open to many challenges that cannot be answered in brief. I noticed that you referenced the dollars spent on security (military). I will posit that world hunger cannot be solved if all "wealthy" nations contributed 75% of their wealth to the problem. The problem is not money, it is greed and political ambition that is not an American trademark; it is an international trademark. Finger pointing is easy because it avoids national introspection. It takes more than money to solve world hunger and it takes involvement in the nations of the hungry. You may be interested in this link. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265 though it is tangential. Thank you for allowing me to discuss with you what appears to be different perspectives, in a mutually respectful way without any hint of animosity. And yet, we are free to express our individual ideas. It would be great if it could become contagious. :-) :-) Consider me as a friend ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lindy Mayfield" <EraseMElindy.mayfieldssf.sas.com> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEEraseMEmit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [OT] Why minimum wage laws are bad {Quote hidden}> Yes, Helsinki is a wonderful city for a visit. It's amazing how high > quality everything is, including the people. And while there is quite a > presence of security people watching over stores, hotels, pubs, etc. > there is no heavy-handedness from them or the police. > > I understand exactly what you say and of course I don't take offense. I > have my opinions about things internally in the US but they are a bit > radical and not appropriate for this forum. But now that I live in > Europe (for going on 9 years now) I look at things from a different > angle. > > You make good points about greed and corruption. I'm not exactly sure > about the thread of terrorism though. While the 911 attack was > extremely tragic (and graphic, that's the key) there were only 3,000 > people. (As opposed to what it could have been, I mean.) > > One estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq is 577 billion. That works > out to $192,333,333 per person. And about 34 Iraqis for each one. > Again, no disrespect meant, but a war on homelessness, or a war on > cancer, or a war on poverty etc. would make more sense. The War on > Terror (tm) should really just be a criminal matter. IMHO. > > According to cancer.org each year 483,000 people die from illnesses > related to cigarette smoking. They'll spend 577 billion to kill 100,000 > Iraqis because Saudi Arabians flew jets into the WTC and killed 3000 > people, while allowing a substance more addictive than crack to kill > 483,000 people per year. If they eradicated tobacco like they attempt to > eradicate smack then... Well. I'm kind of on a tangent now, huh? > > I normally get my news from web sites, NPR, The Daily Show, BBC World, > things like that. The things that are important to me are the macho > mumble peg games with Russians, a new "Cuban Missile Crisis" the Polish > edition, and the general destabilizing effect. I watch the cops mace > and beat the crap out of a kid for asking a rambling question and think > things really aren't too bad where I'm living now. (-: > > And I really think that this isn't a ramble-off-topic from what we were > discussing. Getting people up to a higher standard of living would make > everyone's life in the US better. It's the old "clean up your own yard > before complaining about the neighbor's." > > And seriously, the world won't fall apart if the US isn't there to keep > an eye on everything. As an example, they left Viet Nam and they are > doing just fine. > > As you said things are a bit more complex than I too am able to convey, > and I hope I haven't said anything that offends. I was very, very > careful not to. > > Lindy > > > {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...