"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:k4luh39tl56p7oh1dcnsg7htcfukini89q{at}4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:06:40 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
> Schultz"  wrote:
>

>
> Fortunately, economists can do more than guess. Their models and
> projections may not be entirely accurate, but they don't have to be to
> serve as a useful guide to policy.
>
> Anyway, I don't think your explanation is correct. This isn't a
> zero-sum game. If a store needs ten minimum-wage checkout clerks at 10
> AM, they aren't going to lay some off just because the minimum wage
> goes up. What they'll do for the most part is pass along the increase
> to their customers. Which will lead to some minor income
> redistribution, precisely the desired outcome.

Which increases the cost of living, which then makes the liveabe wage...no
longer a liveable wage, as companies pass on their wage increases
:-)

>
> >The solution to not earning a living wage is to get a job that pays
> >one, not to try to turn mediocre jobs into ones that can support
> >families.
>
> Unfortunately, that's an imaginary, let-them-eat cake solution for
> many. Look at the unemployment figures in poor areas to see what I
> mean. Or -- let's be frank -- look at some of these people themselves,
> the retarded supermarket baggers, the checkout clerks who stand there
> slack jawed when a coupon doesn't work. These people are never going
> to teach French literature or write microcode.
>

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32