http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=..._usa_science_dc



Another point that the US should be making educatio a top priority for its National and Economic security. The US is slipping, despite its huge lead, at a time when it could be using its lead to further distance itself from everyone else.

I see the rest of the world catching up as a good thing. MARK

Really? Why?

Most likely because the competition will push science and engineering across the board to new standards.

I agree. I'm glad people everywhere are beginning to catch up to us in Education. Also, if we move back a few regulations here and there to help out business even more in the US, guess where all those grads will come to work....

Because I would imagine living off of $1,000 a year REEEEAAAAALLY Suxs. MARK

Huh !! pardon if I find this take on things a touch hypocritical, especially from Mr. National Security Interest Ben-T... National Security is paramount, EXCEPT when it may conflict with other interests.

From those farthest to the economic right come something I would expect to hear from Socialists! "Its good that the rest of the world is overtaking the US because the rest of the world deserves it!" "It would be good for the whole world if the US lost its technological advantage!"

Sorry if I seem to be putting words in people's mouths - I know when phrased like I just did all'd never agree - but thats exactly what yall just said.

Isn't the US's technological advantage the key to its continued economic success?

And thats really what I'm getting at here ... The key to the US's economic success really IS in technology, and maintaining our lead even amid stiff competition. Certainly, I'm not saying the US should keep the level of everything down - that is a totally unwarranted conclusion that doesn't help ANYONE. I'm talking about making the US competitive! This ought to be considered very important, should it not?

Afterall, with free trade opening up, job markets across the world are opening up. Americans need to be more qualified than anyone else in order to stay competitive. The handwriting on the wall, and its been there for a long time - this article is nothing new! - is that the US needs to put the effort into making AMERICANS value education. The "brain drani" is quite nice and all, but that could really change in a pretty short time under a vareity of unfortunate situations. Really much safer to have Americans themselves be the most qualified in the world, don't you think?

Considerations of "national security" should include more than just how many soldiers we have, and thoughts about economic security ought to be more than just "How can we open up the non-integrating gap"

Its a competitive world, and the US is competing with nations with workers who GET $1,000/year. What will the US do to compete with that?

Yes you are putting words in our mouths. No one said anything about "overtaking the US", or that it would be "good for the whole world if the US lost its technological advantage".
Your article is much to do about nothing. You must have missed the part that says "With just 5 percent of the world's population, it employs almost a third of science and engineering researchers, accounts for 40 percent of research and development spending and publishes 35 percent of science and engineering research papers." Is this what you refer to as evidence other countries of "overtaking the US"
The article points to the fact that "In 2000..... 17 percent of university bachelor degrees in the U.S. were in science and engineering compared with a world average of 27 percent and 52 percent in China."???? So whats your point? China produces less than 1/7th per person compared to the US. Seems to be evidence that churning out science and engineering degrees has little to do with productivity.
And the author seems to attribute significant importance to the fact that
"In 2001, universities in the European Union granted 40 percent more science and engineering doctorates than the United States"????? Again, so whats the point? Europe has about 52% more population so they should have had 52% more degrees. The european union isnt some 3rd world sector of the world. And again, each American produces about 50% more than a citizen of the EU.
I think the evidence demonstrates that education doesnt overcome the effects of shiitey government. MARK

US losing its advandage = the US being overtaken.
Its the same thing in a different phrase. If you are running a foot race, and you are ahead, and someone catches up, you are being overtaken. DO pay attention, Mr. Bond


You said "I see the rest of the world catching up as a good thing. MARK"
If the rest of the world catches up, the US loses its advantage. By definition. This is something you see as good thing.

dkward2 said " I'm glad people everywhere are beginning to catch up to us in Education."
While qualified with "beginning to catch up", this is still essentially the same thing.

Ben-T said "Most likely because the competition will push science and engineering across the board to new standards."
Again true, but without focus on staying competitive, the US will lose its advantage. Not a word or a thought about how the US stays on top.



These are "It will benefit the world" arguments." And true as they may be, they are from much more of a socialist vein than anything else. I'm sure the global village will gree with you all. And TQ, for that matter. For me, I LIKE the US's technological advantage. It is very reassuring to me. Imagine Iraq when China or France or whoever could have given Iraq technology more advanced than the US? With free trade, whats to stop US companies from going to a mall 3rd world country with NO regulation, and setting up shop there? IMHO that ought to have the most to do with *American* workers being the best. They are now and ought to stay that way. It ought to be a matter of importance, IMHO.

"Ben-T said "Most likely because the competition will push science and engineering across the board to new standards."
Again true, but without focus on staying competitive, the US will lose its advantage. Not a word or a thought about how the US stays on top." -expat

You misunderstood me. I was speculating about what he meant, not offering an idea of my own.

well, then... Why didn't you contribute yourself?

It is bad for the US to fall behind in science and engineering.

Okay there you go.

What course of action would you recommend to rectify the situation?

I don't know. The Nation-State is becoming gradually less important to world economics as globalization advances. Major fields aren't going to be controlled by the "American" economy or "Asian" economy but by multinationals.

The minor point that I was trying to make was that other countries doing well in education is not a bad thing. That is not socialist. Especially when you combine it with the main point of my post:

What I am saying is that, no matter where people are educated, they will go where they can make money. Currently the US is that place. This was to suggest that foreign governments were paying to educate our labor force.

As dixon said, the number of doctorate degrees given out in a country has little to do with it's tech advantage. I love seeing France's buck educating someone smart enough to realize they could make a MUCH better living offering their services in the US.

Sorry to scare you by appearing socialist.

Thats right un-American, Ben-T. For one who claims to have "American National Security" interests at heart, saying that "America" as entity will become less important (and, therefore, we hsould bother planning to keep it around - deducted by the nature of your answer) ...

In any case, your opint is EXACTLY why America should be so concerned about the education levels of its citizens. If America has the best workers, the best companies will come here.

dkward2: I see your point re: deregulation. However, do you really want untested drugs on the market? There is plenty of "snake oil" here in Thailand. In pts of India people eat cow pie extract to cure all sorts of things. What about fish oil? That is another snake oil, but not harmful. Certainly, regulation can be streamlined, but I am under the impression that a major reason why this is is specific individuals and companies that stand to benefit from certain regulations are responsible for them passing! Its not the regulation itself, its the means its carried out. No, we don't live in the Industrial Revolution age anymore, but if you throw away all the regulations, we'd get there again within a matter of years.

For example, look at the US companies being sued in American courts for hiring Columbian paramilitaries to keep wages down. Coca cola, for example. Now, I don' have any information on the veracity of these claims, but some of the lawsuits have gotten past the first layers in the court system here.

Do you really want to compete with Columbia to see who can pay its workers the least?

Sure! Why shouldnt Columbia be allowed to compete? What are you suggesting? A ban on Columbian exports to America? Perhaps a blockade to enforce? Maybe some sanctions to encourage compliance? Dont you think they may retalliate in response? I think everyone should be allowed to compete. MARK

I think some standards of who gets to compete openly and who doesn't should be in place. It is reasonable, IMHO, to say that using paramilitary forces to keep wages down is a bad thing, most certainly illegal in the US, and THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.


By your logic, Iraq should have been granted completely free and open trade while Saddam was invading Kuwait. China and Nigeria should be given free and open trade now. Is this really your position?

IMHO, it is logical to promote free andopen trade with those business aprtners who hold to similar standards as yourself. Perhaps restrict it to Democracies. Democracies are a cornerstone of our public policy, are they not? It would rpovide an incentive for business people in many countries to promote democracy, would it not? And we all know that business is powerful in any given nation.

What about torture? Should we say taht Uzbekistan should not be granted free and open trade until they stop boiling people alive and brutally putting down demonstrations?

What about environmental standards? Should we concern ourselves abuot whether or not Mexico, for example, uses DDT to grow tomatoes? Or should we allow Mexico complete and free trade status regardless of their policies? IMHO, DDT is something that will eventually kill humans after a while of ingesting it. We should not allow it in our food supply.

expat:

I see the point you are making about free trade. However, % employment is only half the picture. The other half is cost of living. If China is allowed to compete, we will lose jobs, at least in the short term. However, as China's companies compete in the US, there prices will reach the lowest possible to still make profit.

If that happens, it won't matter about the quality of new jobs. Even with lower wages, we can at least maintain status quo. This is not to say that I'm positive it will work this way. The market is a tricky thing. However, I do know that protectionist action has never helped us in the past. Usually, it allows American corporations to take advantage of the American consumer because other cheap goods can't get in.

Also, I think banning certain goods is fine. For example, ban the trade of any item that used child labor to manufacture. This is because buying those products supports the system, and we don't stand for that as a nation. Also, similar to mad cow, other health risk items, like the DDT tomatoes, could be kept out. I can see where 100% free trade has its flaws. However, I would lean farther towards free trade, and only use tariffs/bans in exceptional circumstances.

About deregulation, I think you are right. I do support streamlining regulation, but not eliminating too much. The more confusing it is, the more money a company loses trying to understand it. It also causes bigger delays in bringing things to market. I think a two-step approach is required. Streamline the regulation, eliminating redundancy and unnecessary requirements, and fix the copyright laws. Give the drug companies 23 years instead of 20 to be the sole seller of a drug. With current regs, it takes 15-18 years to bring a drug to market. If we knock that number down to 12-15, and give them more years to sell it, you will see prices drop.

I wasn't making any points bout employment %.

I was saying that American workers don't want to compete with workers who are being threatened to work cheaply by force. Just a hunch.

Also, I seem to remember making a long argument about wages vs buying power that I would like to repeat here, although - correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think was any debate about it. --The jist of the argument being wages, while important, are by no means the only factor in price. Buying power necessarily drops faster that prices when wages are reduced. (I made a common sense analysis of a McDonald's restaurant before)

My feeling about regultions is that we need as much transparancy possible. We need "suggestion boxes" and an open ear to those people who are most affected by the regulations (not the top level management), as well as watchdog groups and the general public to have efficient, effective regulation.

Back Room regulations are inherently good for some and bad for everyone else. It is this aspect of regulations that we need to address.. it is not DE-regulation but RE-regulation (lest businesses fall victim to strangulation! )

oh - and Ben-T .... I'm still waiting for your analysis.

I am not sitting here throwing tomotoes, I am saying that I think it is bad for American to lose the lead in science and technology, but also making the obvious observation that in the new global economy that sort of stuff will be controlled not by nation states but multnational corporations mainly. I didn't say I would be opposed necessarilly to some US government boost to our sciences, though I would be wary, as economically protectionist policies usually backfire.

I could tell a patriotic lie, if you so want me to.

The Industrial Revolution was a time of massive improvement in people's lives and has been unfairly villainized by history. People look and say "Oh my god look at those factory conditions, look at those long hours." Yes that's all well and good but if you looke at their PRE-industrial lives their standard of living had skyrocketed. Specifically villainzed are the "Robber Barons" many of whom did nothing wrong but be succesfull.

I think economically protectionist policies generally are bad. However, I do feel that are free trading parters ougt to have similar standards and ethics to us. Otherwise it is an ethical race to the bottom, and nobody wins that race.
-But then, I also feel that "protectionist" is a somewhat inaccurate word fr this kind of thing. Its not protecting US industries from other countries, it is maintaining a sense of what American's feel is a good thing to have - i.e. health and safety standards and not having to work t the point of a gun.

Not quite the same thing! No business coddling involved. Not ours nor Columbia's.


Q...Do you know why Scots wear kilts?
A...Sheep can hear a zipper from 50 yards!
Q...Do you know why Scots wear short kilts?
A...They used to wear long kilts, but this was stopped when the long kilts kept getting sucked into machinery, usually maiming or killing the poor Scot, and more importantly, slowing production.

Unfairly maligned? Its a mixed bag. We would have gone about it better, don't you think? Thats the crux of the justifiable criticisms. At least now we know better.

Anything in history could have been gone about better but it was a massive positive effect on world history.

As for your belief that we should consider ethics when trading, I agree 100%

About employment %:
I just took the next step from your argument about competing with foreign workers. If we were forced to compete, we would lose because we wouldn't work in those conditions, thereby losing jobs and having higher unemployment

Yes I remember your cheeseburger example. Basically, if you make 10 cheeseburgers and hour, each one costs a dollar. If the guy making them sees his pay cut by 50c an hour, each burger could only drop 5c if McDonald's wanted to make the same profit. (here comes that ever present "but")

BUT, what if the good/service takes an hour or more to complete? If it takes an hour to produce a basket, the basket costs $10. If the weaver gets paid 50c less an hour, you can drop the basket 50c as well. This applies to any good/service which takes over an hour to complete.

Furthermore, and more importantly, you are missing a few effects of lower wages. If McDonald's had 10 people working at $6/hour, it costs them $60 an hour in labor. If they cut everyone's wages by 50c, they can afford to employ an extra person at $5.50 an hour and still only pay $60. While McDonald's may not be the best example, in other industries, the increased production capacity can substantially lower the price of goods.

In conclusion, lower wages means more people working and/or lower cost of materials. Seeing as how more people producing means lower prices, there can be a compound effect.

I wonder if you are familiar with the new studies in cities with living wage requirements? While I can't say the methods of the study are 100% appropriate (there can always be questions about them), they seem to show that unemployment goes up 8% on average in areas that implement them. Of course, other factors are surely invovled.

Here is one link to an article about it:
http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemploymen...ploy70305b.html

I got from just typing "living wage study increased unemployment" into Google. Feel free to browse other articles.

Not really. See ... a lot of hamburgers are made. You can take the exact same analysis, but instead of one hamburger, make it 1,000 and you still come up with the same results.

The reason is that wages are not the only factor in prices! Sure, they re *A* factor, and an important one in some areas. But so is the power bill. So is rent. So is materials, tools, etc.

When you drop wages, you drop one factor out of many. There is only a very loose correlation ebtween them. For example, here in Thailand, labor is really cheap but electricty is really expensive.

When you consider labor intensive fields, labor costs are lot more important.

But 'buying power', unfortunately, does not kindly limit itself to mathematically friendly examples.



Here in Thailand businesses (like McDonalds) always hire 3X as many people as are necessary and pay them a fraction of what they would make Stateside. These people generally make around $200 / month. While things ARE cheaper here, buynig power is significantly reduced. These people all share housing - generally a studio apartment with at least 2 other people. Part of this IS cultural, but I know for a fact that many of them would live by themselves if given they could.

However, thats not what would happen in America, anyways. American-run McDonalds will keep their workers busy and the staff at a minimum - telling people to go home early when it is slow to save money. If workers cost $5.50 instead of $6, then you would end up with 10 workers getting paid less, not 11 workers.

There may be a few examples where production would be boosted, but those would be the exception. "Buying power" does not limit itself to mathematically friendly examples.

I'm sorry expat, but you are only half right. Yes, there are many factors that influence the price of goods. However, a drop in one correlates directly to a drop in price (given adequate competition).

Let's say it costs a manufacturer $200 to produce an engine block, that they sell for $300. Included in that $200 cost of production is the electricity, labor, cost of meeting regulations, inventory costs, etc. However, if the labor cost is reduced by $10 dollars, then the new cost to produce is $190. Economics is not as complicated as you may think.

Given this cost reduction, the manufacturer can spend that $10 towards R&D, increased production (hiring more folks), or price reduction to maintain competitiveness. With adequate competition, that $10 will go to lowering the price of the block from $300 to $290.

Regardless of the above, I hope that you can understand the inverse. What do you think the effects of raising minimum wage are? The companies don't just magically have more money. They must either fire people or raise prices....or a combination of the two.... If you follow that line of thinking, it leads back to the original conclusion. When minimum wage was first introduced, folks got fired and prices went up. Buying power didn't change. Imagine the economy as a balloon. When you squeeze one end, the other inflates.

Yes, it does correllate directly, but not proportionally. This is evident in the McDonalds example, too.

Lets say you make diamond rings. The diamond itself is going to quite expensive - you can get a diamond cutter to do it for free, and the ring is still going to be expensive. Or look at the salesman.

The salesman gets a commission. say 20%, and the ring costs $1,000.

1,000 + .2 x 1,000 = 1,200.
The salesman gets paid, 200/1200 = 1/6 = about %16-17% of a diamond ring. at this price, the salesman has to sell 6 diamond ings to be able to afford one himself.

Cut the salesman's wage in half.

1,000 + .1 x 1,000 = 1,100
The salesman gets paid 100/1100 = 1/11 = 9% of a diamond ring.

The salesman now has to sell 11 diamond rings to be able to buy one.

11 is smaller than 12. You cut the poor guy's wage in half, and his remaining wage does go farther, but not much. Only about 4% farther. This is a net loss of 46% of his buying power.

Sure, you cut his wage, and you cut the diamond miners wage, and you cut the cutter's wage, and you cut the shippers wage, too. If the ratio applies, as it does to the salesman, then you will need 13 middlemen for the labor cut to make sense for the middlemen.

Also, if people will get paid what they are worth. If you have 13 middlemen, some of them will be worth more than others, and get more money. This raises the equilibrium piont considerably. If 15% of the middlemen are good, and avoid pay cuts, then it takes 16 middlemen for the dimond miner or the truck driver to not see a buying power decrease.

Yes, you get cheaper goods, but no, it doesn't make sense for the workers. They lose big.


Of course, very few industries have 13 middlemen. Especially these days. But would you rather have more crappy jobs or fewer good jobs?

Out here in Thailand, there are kazilions or really crappy jobs. And thre are kazillions of really poor people. There is a compartively small middle class, and a tiny elite. You get goods for cheap, sure. But most people can't afford to live by themselves. And thats in Bangkok, where the good jobs are!

Now, some other Thailand denizen is going to say "But out here, the jobs are so crappy because they hire 20 people to do a job that only needs 10." But isn't this the (iffy) argument you are making about making more crappy jobs so more people are employed? (well, thats good for the Ramen noodle companies - their marketshare skyrockets! ... not so good for anyone marketing to the middle class, though)

That was a good example, and I understand where you are coming from with the buying power. Also, from what you tell me, I understand the problem in Thailand. However, I would suspect the problem in Thailand isn't that there is no minimum wage. You would know better than I, but I would figure there are a lot more pressing economic problems than instituting a minimum wage.

For the individual who keeps his commissioned job, I will concede that the minimum wage helps. (This is a testament to your debating ability). However, I believe minimum wage only affects $/hour wages in the US. To the community, however, the minimum wage has at best a net zero effect. While our diamond cutter would see a slight increase in his buying power, others will lose their jobs AND see a price hike.

A good page for discussion is Wikepedia. I think it fairly represents both sides. It gave me some new ideas on pro- and anti-minimum wage debate.

I am skeptical of minimum wage. However, the more I look into it, the more it seems to cause a net-zero effect. If we raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour, the market would inflate and people would lose jobs until equilibrium was found again.

Finally, I would stress again that high wages are a result of a healthy economy, and not a cause. FDR learned this the hard way during the depression by, again, trying to artificially raise wages and keep prices lower. Also, and this is coming from the Wikipedia site, wages do raise by themselves. I believe since 1997, the US wage has risen 7%.

I am thoroughly enjoying the debate.

There is a minimum wage here ($100/month), but there is a lot of corruption and it is not enforced. (There was a big deal recently when someone suggested raising the minimum wage to $125 / month, and businesses said that wouldbankrupt them - the old saying here is "same same but different")

Another big issue here is education. The Thai ed. system focus on paper qulifications, not actual qualifications. But that is a diversion.



IMHO, there is a balance that must be struck. People who are working just ought to be able to live off of it. If this is not the case, then you have all sorts of accessory problems created.

I am all for free trade - with countries that have similar laws to our own. (CAFTA is a boondoggle - the C.American countries maintain their trade barriers for 10-20 years, while the US drops it barriers immediately ... in any case, the entire C.American economy is about the size of New Haven, Connecticut.... just who is getting the advantages here? Its just letting "American" coorporations become "Guatemalan" coorporations in the name of efficiency and lower prices)



I would timidly agree with that. In a bad economy there isn't the money to pau high wages. But then, what exactly is a "high" wage? Minimum wage jobs don't really fit the supply/demand formula unless you have full employment (that means everyone who wants a job has one). Is that what you mean by a "healthy economy"? Every percentage point away from full employment means taht wage workers get paid exponentially less.

Out of curiousity, would you think there should be a low low bottom wage? What do you think of American's working for $2 a day?

(sorry for the disoprganized post, but I have to get up ever 90 seconds to deal with a repeatedly crying baby ... )

I would say full employment is one aspect of a healthy economy. (For anyone following this who doesn't know, full employment doesn't mean 100%). Also involved with that is some relative security, livable wages, etc.

People working for $2 a day is a delicate subject, admittedly. I would say few things about it. If the alternative for that person was no work, I would support $2/day. However, I don't think eliminating the minimum wage would lead to $2/day jobs. The natural progression would then be to offer workers $3/day to increase the selection pool and get better workers.

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the average wage would drop too much without minimum wage. Average is the key word however. Jobs that aren't worth $5-$6 per hour wouldn't get paid that. On the other hand, saving money by scaling those pay scales back would allow for other jobs to be paid more, if they were actually worth it of course. I’m sure you’re aware value-added economics.

I know that full employment doesn't really mean 100%, but that is supply / demand tipping point, isn't it? If there is a bad economy, then the wage workers are SOL.
Allow for other jobs to be paid more? Like CEOs? Dont forget that the rule of business is to make money, and the rule of humanity is dow aht is in your own selfish best interest. CEOs have a lot of influence on their own salary. They also have a duty to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. Its a matter of where the value gets dded. Most of the time the value gets added to CEO's and shareholders paychecks, not to payroll totals. Sometimes it does, to be sure, but it is the exception, not the rule.

In the Walmart thread, you said that Walmart workers should invest in Walmart stock. Thats hard to do on $3 / day, don't you think? What about getting an education?

What do you think the minimum wage ought to be? Just philisophically, not pratically. What is enough to get by? What is enuogh to ensure some sort of access to other opportunity (like putting yourself through school)?

I would like to ask another question ... what are all of the biggest economies in the world, and do they have minimum wages?

I was actually thinking of the 18-year-old team leaders at Chick-Fil-A, or the managers at McDonald's etc. Again, you don’t have to worry about people working $3 a day. Competition for good employees is prohibitive. With no minimum wage, you pay for what you get. If you want to pay $3/day for employees, only employees that are worth that will work for you. Also, if people feel they are underpaid, they won't work hard.

There are so many need-based scholarships out there for people who want to go to college. If you want to help people go to college, expand that avenue. It's kind of like saying, if you want to buy the homeless man a hamburger, buy him a hamburger. Don't give him more money and hope he buys it for himself. Some things just aren't good ideas. Money towards scholarships and grants I 100% support. It only benefits people who actually want to better themselves. Minimum wage keeps lazy people lazy by allowing them to live off of introductory jobs. (remember incentives?)

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html
According to this list, in 2000, it was US, Japan, Germany, and France. All 4 of these countries have minimum wages. However, I fail to see your point. Something is a good or bad idea regardless of whether everyone is doing it or not.

What should the minimum wage be? On a philosophical level, I don't believe there should be one, hence this debate. I believe that people should be paid what they are worth. I could not guess at the amount of value a burger guy adds in Burger King. However, I do think a free market would decide more fairly than politicians. There are two forces that would come into balance. On the one hand, the company wants to make profit, so it doesn't want to over-pay. On the other hand, the company wants to attract dependable workers, which costs more money. In a free market, those two forces will settle, and it won't be $3/day. Perhaps the burger flippers wage might be $4-$5/hour?

Also, without minimum wage, there is more freedom to test employees. Here is what I mean: The person comes in at $3/hour. If he/she performs well, they can be quickly raised to the standard wage. Then they can receive raises for good performance. You know me, I'm ALL about incentives.

I would ask a question of you: What incentives does minimum wage provide people?

A burger flipper goes for around $100-200 /month here.

The incentive for minimum wage is to not be working for minimum wage. It is exactly the same far any other salary, whether it is $2 a month or $200,000 a year. (Or, even 2 billion a year. the more you have the more you need for some people)



For me, anyone working full time ought to be able to survive on what they make. This is minimum wage, to me. You feel that in a free market, people are always paid a living wage. That without the labor laws (as well as the environmental laws and anything else holding business back from making money, I mean competeing) then there would be, at worst, no net change for the economy, as defined by numbers.

I look around the world and at the history textbooks, andI see manifest counterexamples. I look at the biggest economies, and I see that, at very least, minimum wage isn't keeping anyone from competing. The top 4 have, yes. 9 out of the top 10 do, with the excpetion of China. And that might just be the exception that proves the rule. Wages are lower in China than they are in Thailand.

I support the "improve yourself" assistance programs, myself. But I don't think that if you cut out minimum wage then more people will improve themselves - I think the reverse is true.

I also think that people who re working full time - no amtter what they aer doing (unless by choice) ought to be able to support themselves on what they make. it just ought to be that way. People WILL work for less than a living wage, but they should not have to.

I think it would be nice for people to be able to live off 40 hours a week at one job. However, I don't think the government can guarantee that, no matter where they stick minimum wage. I'm not saying the goal isn't a good one, I'm saying it isn't being achieved. True, for the people on minimum wage, they are helped. Yet, only some because prices will rise. However, employment opportunities decrease for others. I would rather have two people working 50 hours a week than one living off 40.

The incentives inherent in minimum wage:
First, the good incentives: It does motivate people to look for a job, because they are guaranteed a near-livable wage. There may be a few workers who work harder, or are more honest on the job, because they are making $5.15 instead of $4. However, many of the adults still on minimum wage are neither.

Now, what I consider negative incentives: If people can live off a 40 hour a week, minimum wage job, then there is no incentive to educate themselves. This problem is systemic. Children then learn how to act from their parent's behavior, much of the time anyway. For the 40 year old person on minimum wage, they are tired of their jobs. They flipped burgers for awhile, maybe they were a janitor, etc. You can't lead me to believe that the person is satisfied. When you work 40 hours a week, you have to like what you do, or eventually it will wear you down. This same person wants nice things. They are surrounded by others who have them, or see them all over TV. Yet they can't afford to get them with their job. This can lead to crime.

The simple truth is, we can't guarantee success for people. In fact, I think people should be allowed to fail. I believe they should be given every opportunity to succeed, but that success can't, and shouldn't, be guaranteed.

Raising minimum wage doesn't just affect minimum wage jobs. Many unions have contracts that fix their salary at a certain % above minimum wage. Consequently, this is one reason why democrats are always calling for more minimum wage. They are the party of big labor, and of course would pander to them. But other jobs are affected as well. Someone making $8/hour with the minimum wage at $5.15 is going to want $9/hour when the minimum wage goes to $6.15. If they don't get that $9, then all of a sudden they are one step closer to minimum wage, even though they are more skilled. If they do get the raise, then the company is under pressure. Either prices will rise or employees will be dropped.

That brings up an interesting thought: What about someone making $6-$7 per hour? They probably received a few raises at McDonald's, and they are proud of themselves for getting there. If we up minimum wage to $6.50, all of a sudden all their work meant nothing because any of the lazy, or brand new, people around them are making the same.

The main problem with minimum wage is that it discourages people from applying themselves. That is the problem with any socialist, or egalitarian, program. Simply put: if you guarantee success, who will work for it?

Remember, I'm with you that people should be able to live off a 40 hour a week job. However, I think it is the responsibility of the person, through education, to guarantee that, and not the government's. I don't agree that people should be able to support a family and buy a house by flipping burgers at McDonald's. Nor do I think it is possible, regardless of minimum wage. Most people who work at McDonald's are high-schoolers, or other young adults who are just entering the work force.

Finally I'd like to say again that we can make minimum wage $50/hour as easily as we can make it $7. We wouldn't all be rich. After the market settled from the shock, the people making $50/hour would still be poor, and the people with white collar jobs would be making $80. The market will inflate. This of course, is a large place to set minimum wage, but there is nothing to suggest that small increases don't do the same thing to a proportionate degree.

So basically, I don’t think minimum wage does anything but inflate our economy and raise our unemployment. However, even for the individual that retains his/her job at minimum wage, I think we are hurting them more than helping them.

I enjoyed the debate, and perhaps we must agree to disagree on minimum wage. However, I’d like for you to make the last points.

LOL. I agree that "catching up" is a good thing, but what worries me is the way other countries are catching up - they're simply watching us fall down the ladder past everyone else.

In the meantime, I sincerely hope other countries are NOT catching up to us in education. For crying out loud, our education system STINKS. I spent sixteen years working for one of America's most celebrated school districts, and discovered that it's just as corrupt and dysfunctional as George Bush's administration.

As for your constant right-wing bitching about regulations, you can shove it. There are good regulations, and there are bad regulations, and the former are usually that give corporate apologists heartburn.

Abolish the department of education, it is a failure. Replace it with universal tax vouchers so that parents may purchase private educations for their children.

Cutting the Dept. of Ed down to size might be a good plan, but I don't know if should be abolished. I think an institution as big as education needs some federal guidance and support.

The problem is that public education is riddled with corruption, from the Dept. of Ed down to virtually every school PTA in Seattle. When teachers and parents are ready to start lynching tyrannical principals and lying, conniving downtown administrators, then we may see some reform.

Why not abolish it? Private Education in our country consistently leads to better results. Tax vouchers would radically increase the demand for Private Education, and as correllation the supply would also shoot up. However because with tax vouchers families can still CHOOSE which school to send their child to, education competition would continue to keep standards high.

It's the main benefit of Public Education (everyone recieves one) with all the other benefits of Private Education, rolled into one.

Many adults on minimum wage are there for a reason - they are not skilled, and most of them, frankly speaking, always will be. Some people work harder to get a better job and "rise through the ranks", and some don't. This is a feature of humanity, not an effect of minimum wage.

Of course, your moral argument is that lazier people don't deserve help. (corrcet me if I have that wrong) I disagree a little here. while handouts are not a good thing, were talking about a group of people who will never "better" themselves, for various reasons. IMHO, letting these people earn a livable salary is a good thing. No one ever gets rich on minimum wage. Its hard to support *yourself* on 40 hour/week minimum wages jobs - much less children (presuming your spouse, if any, is working) ... Whats your take here on single parents?

I highly disagree here. Surviving on Ramen noodles and Tun Helper, and having to wait 2 months to get your 23 year old rusted out Ford repaired IS incentive.



You know what else elads to crime? Thinking that no matter how hard you work, you can never get those things. This is the number 1 cause of crime in poor neighborhoods.


minimum wage is not "success" ... no one - and i mean NO ONE - ever says "Finally! I've arrived - I'm working at McDONALDS!



"Pander to big labor"? As opposed to pandering to big business? Using "pander" is an ad hominem attack that you are in no way protected from.... Who would you rather pander too- the elite that already has money or the American people?, for starters. Sure, its rhetoric, but so is "pander to Big Labor."

People getting raises even though they aren't getting more skilled? Its called "cost-of-living" increases. The best system for minimum wage increases is tied directly to the cost-of-living and inflaion, which happens regardless of whether or not their is a minimum wage.

The problem Expat is that raising minimum wage does not improve the lives of low level workers, it just raises the cost of living.

The worth of their money remains the same.

Been there, done that, believe it or not. First of all - NO ONE is proud to work at McDonalds - not even the managers. No one ever walks up to a woman in a bar with their nametag on to brag about their job ... But really, it is leverage on the managers to increase your own salary - really what you care about.


Again, minimum awge isn't garunteeing success. its garunteeing a roof over your head and Ramen noodles in your pot for working 40 hours a week. I think that anyone working 40 hours a week OUGHT to be garunteed that.



The government ought to guarantee that if you work full time, you will make enough money to have a roof over your head. Not get rich, but survive. If you are currently unskilled, what incentive do you have to work if you can't survive off of what you make - or ou are homeless anyway? Better to steal? Maybe better to end up in jail where at least you are inside and given 3 decent meals a day. And people DO commit crimes just for that exact reason. (another thread - reforming the jails)



YOU CAN'T. ....Unless you are in Texas, where the National minimum wage is out of wack with the local cost of living (a good argument for States Rights - not against the minimum wage) ... Again, you don't want the minimum wage too high.


Many young people, yes. And there are a lot of immigrants working there, too. And a few older people who just can't work beter jobs, for various reasons.



I disagree with that. Your math is accurate - almost. Its just that the line you get is not a straight line - the lower the wages the better everything else is. It is a curve with a peak. There is a target area for what minimum wage provides the best result. You have the good things that a minimum wage provides combined with the bad thnigs it causes. There is point where the bad things start to outweigh the good things - then everything starts going downhill.



Again, what about inflation? It is entirely reasonable to assume a *relative* minimum wage. Again, there is a peak point. From the math you describe, it would logically make sense for the government to make a paramilitary unit to keep wages down. Best for everyone, right?

Really - there is a point when the benefits for the economy and the people outweigh the drawbacks to business. (drawbacks to small businesses, that is. Big businesses don't usually operate under a small enough profit margin to be majorly effected by minimum wage. McDonalds COULD institute a $10 minimum wage and still turn more profit per share than Mom + pop burger.



I'll tell you what - in a college campus, there is a ton of cheap labor available. Work Study jobs are based on the minimum wage. Most students py their way through college on minimum wage jobs. I did. (My dad paid fir his with poker and musicianship, though. some guys get all the luck )

I don't think that anyone is proud of their minimum wage job. Some might be proud to be poor, proud to be the people that they are, but unless there is smoe personal investment in their work (like being an artist) then no one is proud to be in a minimum wage job. No one gets rich - they just get a roof over their head, a serving of Tuna Helper, and their 10 year old kid alone in the afternoon.



Indeed

BS.

I addressed that argument in the thread already. What have you to say about it?

(If you were BushCo, you'd just change the numbers to make yourself right ... easy!)

Spot on. Exactly right.

Ben-T .... First of all, I would like to see any statistic that shows that private schools are always better than public schools. I *highly* doubt that one exists.
I went to a private school. Quite a good one, actually. I have some perspective on the issue. Our sports league included many other private schools. Out of all of them, 2 were quite good, 2 were pretty good (where te kids that couldn't hack it at the top 2 schools went) and the rest sucked. A few of them not only sucked, but ****** up the kids that went there. I've an ex-girlfriend from one of them and her school was a real mess.

The problems with education today are not going to be solved with school vouchers.

Do you think that any school wants its parents to know that there is Pee-pee toucher working there? Nope. Now change the word "parent" to "paying customer"....
Will this change help kids? nope.

Regulation in private, accredited schools (and vouchers will not be able to be used on non-accredited schools, for good reason) wil be at very least comperable to public run schools. Vouchers will not de-regulate nor even a streamline regulations.
Will this change help kids? Nope. Probably no change here.

What about heavily religious schools? While most of these schools are mostly harmless, and some of them are quite good (like my own high school) ... Some of them are, to use technical term, wacked out. Giving poor parents on minimum wage vouchers and eltting their kids go to some wacked out school where the kids are brain-washed while their parents with 3 jobs just isn't a good idea. How do you identify "wahabi-like" schools? Sure - teaching violence and all, but there is a lot more to it than just whether the teacher actually says to kill whitey or not. How do you seperate the wheat from the chaffe?

Competition? Great idea! Now you are about to hear something you don't hear to often. I liked most of GWB's No Child Left Behind Act. Making school bussing an option for every student (IMHO - whether their school is underperforming or not) is a great idea. I've been a proponent of it for 10 years.

However, it, and a few other regulations that GWB put in place are quite expensive to maintain. Instead of providing funding for these programs, he cut school funding. many school districts re suing to keep the NCLBA from taking effect because the additional restrictions cannot be met.

How much does the Fed spend on education, and how does that compare to how much we already know that Halliburton et al have stolen from the US? (overpricing gasoline, food, etc)

Now - education is vital to the USs economic security - and therefore to national security. Most especially because the US is in the center of the global economy and that fact is relied upon for a lot of its power. Maintaining the US's well educated workforce is vital, especially given CAFTA, wich opens up the US's trade barriers to workers getting $2 / day. This doesn't even touch upon computer security and research.

We ought to be *throwing* money at education, but seeing how little we can get away with. Music lessons are associated with other, seemingly unrelated, but useful, skills like mathematics. Other extra curricular activities that have been cut because of lack of funding have direct impact on how students learn, whether they learn and how much. Not to mention how effective they are later.

Zell Miller noce said something about arming our troops with spitballs. Is that all our students should have, too?

There is no statistic showing PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE ALWAYS BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS ALL THE TIME ALWAYS.

So ######ing what, in all honesty? Private schools reguarly churn out higher standards and better educated children. Private schools reguarly outcompete public schools, and as such are the better venue to use with which to educate the children of America.

Ben-T ... the Wahabi schools are "private schools". Yes, some private schools are consistently better, but there are a grip of 'em that aren't. My point is twofold...

1 - The word private as opposed to public does not always mean "better"
2 - You need to look more into what schools are and how they work. Some schools work in ways that yuo presume, but many do not. You need to look at exactly what you want to achieve, and then make a plan how to achieve it. Right now you know how you want to achieve it, but not what you want to achieve.

I haven't bothered to read the whole story. Is America loosing lead in the making of advanced WMD ???

Nope - is technology advantage, in general. The US grossly outspends everyone else re: WMDs However, the US is cosistently reducing funding for education in general and other countries are rapidly catching up / overtaking the US in re: having the "best and the brightest".