[poll]Who ya voting for?

[Cash]

John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Al Gore

[MooCow]

Miss Piggy. That's who my grandfather claims he always voted for.

[Anguirel]

You do know that the Electoral College is not required to vote as the population does, right?

I was going to explain the process, but this page does a better job and has all of the major bizarre items related in it. The important part relevant here starts with this line: "Most people don't even realize, when they vote in a presidential election, they're not actually voting for a president or vice president."

Of particular note is this line: "Some states have tried to pass laws forcing its elector's to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, but I don't think the state could prosecute an elector who voted otherwise. And though electors from Maine must, by law, split their vote in proportion to the popular vote from that state, if the state tried to prosecute an elector who violated the law, and the state won in its own courts, I'm sure the law would be overturned if the case were appealed to a federal court."

I'd do some extra fact checking on it, since I don't like to trust single unknown sources, but I don't actually have time right now, and it does have the stuff I remember in it, so I assume most of the information is reasonably good.

[Chopper]

Here is a good cross reference on which states have laws forcing electoral votes, and which states dont.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_registe ... s.html#top

[Serious Paul]

Okay I think I can see what Ancient meant with Lincoln and Bush, but whats the Kennedy story? I absolutely detest JFK and JFK related drivel (No bias here....) so I have no clue what he is saying there.

Any takers? I will eventually get to it tonight...

[Ancient History]

Lincoln, JFK and Bush all won the Electoral majority, but not the popular. 1/1/1

[Cain]

Lincoln, JFK and Bush all won the Electoral majority, but not the popular. 1/1/1

That doesn't sound quite right. Let me check... ah, here it is:

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

So, it wasn't Lincoln or Kennedy; it was Hayes and Harrison. Adams may have been a 3-party race. Bush is the most recent. It should also be mentioned that in both previous cases, neither man made it to a second term.

[Marius]

Ir should also be mentioned that without the electoral college, a candidate could win Wisconsin, but no other state, and still win election to the presidency.

[Serious Paul]

Popular vote wise?

[Ancient History]

Lincoln, JFK and Bush all won the Electoral majority, but not the popular. 1/1/1

That doesn't sound quite right. Let me check... ah, here it is:

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

So, it wasn't Lincoln or Kennedy; it was Hayes and Harrison. Adams may have been a 3-party race. Bush is the most recent. It should also be mentioned that in both previous cases, neither man made it to a second term.

I'm fairly positive that Lincoln at least did not win the popular vote, it being a sore spot with the southern states.

[lordhellion]

Ir should also be mentioned that without the electoral college, a candidate could win Wisconsin, but no other state, and still win election to the presidency.

So what, you're anti-Wisconsin now?

[Cain]

I believe that Lincoln was also a multi-party election, where the Democrats had more than one candidate. He had a plurality but not a majority.

[Daki]

Just heard an interview Kerry did where he stated one of his main priorities is to get the minimum wage raised to $7/hr.

Whoa boy.

[MooCow]

Fuck that shit. I better get 30% raise to.

[DV8]

So. Incredibly. Selfish! Let's not spend money on those who need it in a society! Let's spend it on those who need it the least.

[Marius]

So. Incredibly. Selfish! Let's not spend money on those who need it in a society! Let's spend it on those who need it the least.

So. Incredibly. Fascist. Let's not tell people where they should or should not spend their money.

[MooCow]

So. Incredibly. Selfish! Let's not spend money on those who need it in a society! Let's spend it on those who need it the least.

Not sure what you mean by this statement. Is it in response to me not wanting to see my pay effectively cut?

[DV8]

Not sure what you mean by this statement. Is it in response to me not wanting to see my pay effectively cut?

Please show me figures that state that an increase in minimum wage will negatively affect the spending power of those not affected by the amount of increase in minimum wage.

[Daki]

Not sure what you mean by this statement. Is it in response to me not wanting to see my pay effectively cut?

Please show me figures that state that an increase in minimum wage will negatively affect the spending power of those not affected by the amount of increase in minimum wage.

I can show you how it will negatively affect small business and even some larger corporations that manage to pull a profit because they offer only minimum wage for their openings (McDonalds would be an example of this). Now those companies will have to increase prices to recover lost revenue because their payroll is so high. So the spending power of that $7/hr is diminished somewhat because of the price raising that accompanies it.

I'm not saying an increase in minimum wage is an outright bad idea. I believe an increase of almost $2/hr at one time is a bad idea.

[DV8]

Me, too. Made worse by idiots shouting that they "better get a 30% raise[, too]."

[Marius]

I can show you how it will negatively affect small business and even some larger corporations that manage to pull a profit because they offer only minimum wage for their openings (McDonalds would be an example of this).

I was in a McDonald's yesterday, which had a Help Wanted sign up, and thinking of this thread, I asked. Their starting rates are generally above minimum wage. Yeah, even at McDonald's it's hard to get a minimum wage job.

[MooCow]

I currently make about 4x as much as minimum wage. If Kerry has his way, I will make 3x as much. However, no one's job changed. No one's work was increased or decreased. Effectively my pay has been cut.

[DV8]

I currently make about 4x as much as minimum wage. If Kerry has his way, I will make 3x as much. However, no one's job changed. No one's work was increased or decreased. Effectively my pay has been cut.

There are far too many non-quanitifiable economic effects of a minimum wage raise. So please go and sit in the corner and sit on your hands, Moo.

[3278]

So. Incredibly. Selfish! Let's not spend money on those who need it in a society! Let's spend it on those who need it the least.

The rhetoric is drowning out your point. Who are "those who need it," and who are "those who need it the least," and how is raising the minimum wage "spend[ing] money" on "those who need it the least?"

I know you like to swoop in, make your two-line assertion, and swoop out without having to actually say anything, but specifics in this case would be helpful, since I honestly have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it is that you're trying to say here, and evidence suggests that few to no other people actually do, either.

[MooCow]

There are far too many non-quanitifiable economic effects of a minimum wage raise. So please go and sit in the corner and sit on your hands, Moo.

Please fuck off and die.

Would you care to educate me oh wise one? Why should I support a raise in minimum wage, and not also expect a raise in my own pay?

I currently get paid X, and people who work minimum wage jobs get paid Y. X is greater then Y by some amount because in theory my work is worth more then their work. If you decide that their work is worth more, then logically my work should also become more valuable.

[DV8]

So. Incredibly. Selfish! Let's not spend money on those who need it in a society! Let's spend it on those who need it the least.

The rhetoric is drowning out your point. Who are "those who need it," and who are "those who need it the least," and how is raising the minimum wage "spend[ing] money" on "those who need it the least?"

I know you like to swoop in, make your two-line assertion, and swoop out without having to actually say anything, but specifics in this case would be helpful, since I honestly have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it is that you're trying to say here, and evidence suggests that few to no other people actually do, either.

What can I say? I'm an impulsive guy who doesn't beat off to long, drawn-out, pointless debates about needless detail that in the end just raises everyone's temper. That said, what effects will a raise in minimum wage have?

[MooCow]

What can I say? I'm an impulsive guy who doesn't beat off to long, drawn-out, pointless debates about needless detail that in the end just raises everyone's temper. That said, what effects will a raise in minimum wage have?

That's why I love you Deev. We have such exciting debates, that are mainly just us two yelling at each other from different sides of the political spectrum.

[DV8]

What can I say? I'm an impulsive guy who doesn't beat off to long, drawn-out, pointless debates about needless detail that in the end just raises everyone's temper. That said, what effects will a raise in minimum wage have?

That's why I love you Deev. We have such exciting debates, that are mainly just us two yelling at each other from different sides of the political spectrum.

That said, what effects will a raise in minimum wage have?

[MooCow]

Well.....

One potential thing is prices go up. In order to pay the new wage, without seeing a loss of profit, companies will raise prices. If prices go up, then the benefits of a wage increase will be nullified. (cynical view)

However, if businesses can ride the profit drop for a while they would start seeing an increase in revenue because the lower class suddenly starts having more money to spend. More money spent is more tax collected. More tax collected is more money to build roads, which means I get /my/ pay raise. (Optimistic view)

Truth is somewhere between I suspect.

[3278]

What can I say? I'm an impulsive guy who doesn't beat off to long, drawn-out, pointless debates about needless detail that in the end just raises everyone's temper.

Yeah, and obviously, the impulsiveness doesn't do that just as well.

That said, what effects will a raise in minimum wage have?

People making minimum wage will make more money? Look, I don't know what your point is, so I can't help you by answering questions for you. If you have a point of view, spill it; enough with the cryptic questions and intimations of who needs what. Why don't you just say, "I think raising the minimum wage will have the following effect," and glue yourself to a viewpoint. Sure, maybe it'll be wrong, or maybe people will argue with you, but there's a middle ground between "pointless debates with needless detail" and replies like, "Or not." So, can you give us something to work with, or are you too worried about raising tempers to actually make an assertion?

I don't know when the heck "raising tempers" started bothering you, but I think you can clearly see that even the most detail-less discussion can have that effect, what with the "sit on your hands," and the "fuck off and die."

[Marius]

A raise in the wage is a kick in the nuts to small business balance sheets, but not all businesses that can't swallow the loss will raise prices. In fact, if there are businesses that can swallow the loss and survive for a bit, then those that can't won't survive by raising prices either, which makes them uncompetitive. The way they can survive is by eliminating some cost. For small business this is an easy choice. You eliminate workers.

[DV8]

Truth is somewhere between I suspect.

I think your suspicion would be correct.

One potential thing is prices go up. In order to pay the new wage, without seeing a loss of profit, companies will raise prices. If prices go up, then the benefits of a wage increase will be nullified. (cynical view)

Yes, you raise the bar for almost every wage, so most likely it means a degressive proportionate raise in all wages. Without a tax adjustment that means an extra penny in the pocket of the government. If prices will go up, it also means that VAT will be raking in more money. More money in the pocket of the government. However, you'll see a drop in spending power across the board for as long as it takes for the changes to take effect. Let's assume that it's a short-term, domestic, effect.

What else will happen? And what will happen on the middle-long term? What does it mean for non-domestic economics? What will happen with the lowest echelons of society on the middle-long term? What about long term?

So, can you give us something to work with, or are you too worried about raising tempers to actually make an assertion?

You want something to shoot at? No, let's not do that.

A raise in the wage is a kick in the nuts to small business balance sheets, but not all businesses that can't swallow the loss will raise prices. In fact, if there are businesses that can swallow the loss and survive for a bit, then those that can't won't survive by raising prices either, which makes them uncompetitive. The way they can survive is by eliminating some cost. For small business this is an easy choice. You eliminate workers.

Alright, then how do you explain, well, Western Europe and it's levels of unemployment?

[Marius]

Alright, then how do you explain, well, Western Europe and it's levels of unemployment?

That's exactly how I explain it. Western Europe has ridiculously high unemployment partly because of it's ridiculously high wage structure. In some places. In other places Western Europe has fairly low unemployment, probably because of the remarkable lack of people in the labor force. Western European populations are, generally speaking, elderly.

[3278]

So, can you give us something to work with, or are you too worried about raising tempers to actually make an assertion?

You want something to shoot at? No, let's not do that.

Yes, god forbid we should have a meaningful discussion with substance. Let's just stick with you asking questions until someone says something you feel like disagreeing with, instead of you actually presenting an argument or some facts.

Nevermind. If I feel like doing this ridiculous dance, I've got better partners.

[Salvation122]

Knock it off, both of you.

[MooCow]

Knock it off,

I would, but the filters block porn.

[DV8]

Alright, then how do you explain, well, Western Europe and it's levels of unemployment?

That's exactly how I explain it. Western Europe has ridiculously high unemployment partly because of it's ridiculously high wage structure.

I found some sketchy numbers suggesting an 8.1% overall unemployement throughout the EU in 2003 and a 7.8% overall unemployement in the US. They're sketchy, but it's the only thing I could come up with quickly. Can annoying prove or disprove that for me?

In some places. In other places Western Europe has fairly low unemployment, probably because of the remarkable lack of people in the labor force.

Labour force equals unemployment?

So, can you give us something to work with, or are you too worried about raising tempers to actually make an assertion?

You want something to shoot at? No, let's not do that.

Yes, god forbid we should have a meaningful discussion with substance. Let's just stick with you asking questions until someone says something you feel like disagreeing with, instead of you actually presenting an argument or some facts.

If I give you something to shoot at, you'll just shoot at it. And I think that's hardly a meaningful discussion. Why don't you help out, instead of just shooting everything down that you don't like. I'm a Keynsian, but I'm ready to be schooled.

[Eva]

Alright, then how do you explain, well, Western Europe and it's levels of unemployment?

That's exactly how I explain it. Western Europe has ridiculously high unemployment partly because of it's ridiculously high wage structure. In some places. In other places Western Europe has fairly low unemployment, probably because of the remarkable lack of people in the labor force. Western European populations are, generally speaking, elderly.

For what it's worth, this is a pretty well-known fact subject to much grief from business.

[3278]

Knock it off, both of you.

Oh, I'm done, I assure you.

[Ancient History]

I thought we'd already done the discussion, arguement, bitching, sniping, insult-trading and make-up over increasing minimum wage in another thread.

[/edit] What's his position on tuition rates? The schools keep wanting students to support more and more of the cost of education, but I'm a lazy fuck and only want to pay my approx. 25%. Espsecially since the college president just voted her ass a hugh raise a year or so ago and gets chauffered to work every morning by a limo the school pays for.

[lordhellion]

Are you fucking serious? Unless you're going to college with the Bush girls and the Hilton sisters, I'd do something real drastic, possibly firebombing...

[MooCow]

Are you fucking serious? Unless you're going to college with the Bush girls and the Hilton sisters, I'd do something real drastic, possibly firebombing...

Well I disagree there. Even if he attends a state school, some of them might warrant perks like that. For example, The Ohio State University is one of the largest universities in the world (within the last decade, it's been second). Steering an organization that large is a big job, and I think that the president certainly earns his/her perks (which I believe include chafeur service, though (s)he doesn't always use it.)

[Marius]

What's his position on tuition rates? The schools keep wanting students to support more and more of the cost of education, but I'm a lazy fuck and only want to pay my approx. 25%

Uh, I really hope his position is, "Yeah, that must be tough," and that there's fuck all he's going to do about it because the federal government doesn't set tuition rates at your school.

[3278]

What, you mean it's /not/ the federal government's job to fix every problem in the country?

[Serious Paul]

I found some sketchy numbers suggesting an 8.1% overall unemployement throughout the EU in 2003 and a 7.8% overall unemployement in the US.

The national jobless rate was unchanged at 5.6 percent in May.

Link

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics current overview of unemployment, and various population surveys related to it.

[Serious Paul]

Unemployment rates from 1959 to 2002

How the government measures unemployment and why.[url]

[url=http://www.dol.gov/]Department of Labor Home Page which lists unemployment for May as 5.6%.

Obviously depending on you source, the numbers vary as much as a few percentage points in either direction.

[Serious Paul]

Intresting link

The decline of the federal minimum wage over the last 24 years has had a significant negative impact on the incomes of low-wage workers and their families. While states have historically stepped in where the federal government has failed, it has often been a case of too little too late. Washington state and Oregon have ensured that the wages of the lowest-paid workers in those states will keep pace with the rising cost of living. As other states look for a way to help workers during a time of great need and budget crises, they should consider following the lead set by these states.

Thats for those of you in support of an increase in minimum wage.

I stand undecided, personally.

[Cain]

I dunno about $7, but I did vote for the matching of Minimum wage to the COL index. It pretty much assures parity across the board. (Incidentally, in Washington, the minimum wage is 7.15/hr, so the proposed Federal increase doesn't seem that bad to me. I can see how it'd appear so huge to others, though.)

[3278]

I dunno about $7, but I did vote for the matching of Minimum wage to the COL index. It pretty much assures parity across the board.

That's something I've always felt was quite logical. The notion that our minumum wage and our poverty level have nothing to do with each other is bizarre and nonsensical. They should always be equal, provided the ideas behind the poverty level and the minimum wage are valid. [Which is, obviously, arguable.]

(Incidentally, in Washington, the minimum wage is 7.15/hr, so the proposed Federal increase doesn't seem that bad to me. I can see how it'd appear so huge to others, though.)

And has it wrecked your economy or killed thousands of people or anything? Economics is one of the subjects in which I'm least educated - it's people-math, which doesn't intrigue me - and so this whole issue is very confusing to me. What effects has a high minimum wage had in Washington, and have they been bad? Can the effects in Washington be applied to the nation as a whole?

A lot of people don't like the idea of raising the minimum wage, but I've yet to see anyone explain why in simple words for non-economics people like me. I'd welcome any kind of education from anyone. [DV8 won't explain 'cause then I'll shoot him, apparently, and that's something he'd rather avoid, somewhat logically, so I must rely on the rest of you all.]

[Salvation122]

Greatly raising the minimum wage, from what I've seen elsewhere, directly spurs inflation and/or higher interest rates, both of which are generally regarded as bad.