Because I think many, many of abortions are performed on young people who can't afford a kid and feel that abortion is a better choice.

I also think "abortion as a form of birth control" isn't as common as you would think. I can't imagine that would be an easy decision to make, let alone make it often.

Think about it...seriously, think about the implications on our system.....

don't think cool_chick.
be afraid.

Here, I'll let my girls do the talking:

http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html

<a href=http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html><img src=http://www.dannybot.com/lie/images/index_07.jpg></a>

Okay. Done saying stuff to closed ears.

Gajinda. Some folks seem to be pretending that government has no place regulating anything. Those folks are dishonest. Even the absolutely most rabid of all "hands off" economic theorists will admit that there are regulations in place that are necessary. Please take a business course if you do not understand this. Anti-trust, for example. In some industries, entry barriers are high enough, and economies of scale are important enough, that if the industry were unregulated, a monopoly would eventually form not other competitor would arise.

So, regulation of business is not a "go / no go" decision. It is simply a matter of how much regulation, and what kind. If you do not care for wage regulation, or fighting injustice, then fine. I do. Each major society has had its over-arching myths. First, it was the Greeks and the Gods on Mount Olympus. Then, it was medieval science and the Earth as the center of the universe. Today, it is the "self regulating market."

And regulating the employment relationship is actually an excellent example of what I mentioned earlier about the role of government being hugely important, and counter-intuitive to those who are not paying attention (like for example, those who hate government and want to kill it): When I say I would favor a $15 national minimum wage, I am not kidding. Of course, neocons pretend that the sky would fall if that happened. For those of you whose brains are in the "on" position, please consider this:

At the turn of the 20th century, we had eight year-old boys getting hurt and killed in underground mines, and young girls the same age getting hurt and killed in garment sweat shops. Unemployment among adults was rampant. Few children attended school.
Then there was that fire in New York City that killed more than a hundred young girls ( the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire). New York, and then the nation, passed sweeping labor laws. They removed children under 14 from the work force, period (there is currently an exception for young boys who want to ride their bikes along roadways in the dark hurling newspapers). Overtime for hours over 40 per week. Minimum wage.
With the verbal reaction from industry, you'd think the world was going to end. What really happened? What happened is now termed the "Roaring Twenties." Adults got the jobs. Kids went to school. Work days were shorted, and weekends were created. And economic prosperity reigned.

So yeah. I think government has a role.

If minimum wage were increased to $15, hamburgers might get more expensive, perhaps by two bits. But there would be much more competition for those jobs, and the budget for public assistance ("welfare") could probably be cut by 75%.

But no. Business likes getting lower-than-market costs, and having the taxpayer pick up the difference. Is this what you call "conservative?"

Of course government has a place in regulation.

What is dishonest, is when you argue that since regulation is necessary, that govt regulation can proliferate. . . well. . . UNREGULATED.

It's a balance thing.

Id just like to see my President in public to hear what he has to say without signing a loyalty agreement. It would also be nice for me to choose what shirt, button, and hat I'll wear instead of the Secret Service. If thats not reason enough to vote the bum out, I don't know what is.

God bless America.

actually a bunch of FDNY was hanging with him alone in a small group. No SS, no handlers, nobody. It was a bit arkward for a few minutes hanging with the most powerful man in the world. After the ice was broken he just melted into being just another guy cracking cynical jokes with everyone else. No superiority complex, no bs, just a real guy hanging with real men.

I have no doubt. He's a personable guy, thats obvious. In face-to-face interaction, I bet he's even fun to be around.

I really don't like the way he manages his work life though, his job time. The loyalty agreements, the censorship... You're not even allowed to ask him _real_ questions at his townhall meetings. The White House is run under extreme secrecy, more secret than any other administration in our history.

Furthermore, his rallies (from what I see on the TV) sound more like NHL Hockey games than political discussion. The RNC was basically a WWF Smackdown, it was rediculous! I saw footage just the other day of the President in some swing state. He wasn't talking about issues, he was using smears to rile up the crowd. The way he uses theology in his speeches I find disengenious too. Its not honest or complete or personal. Its just meat for the crowded masses to chew on to calm them down for the next smear.

You want to call John Kerry a French poodle, thats fine. We can all have a laugh. But then lets get back to the issues. And lets leave faith and jokes and 30 year old history out of it.

Nice guy, but an ********* on the stump. The ends do not justify the means.

Supe- I am not saying there is no role for govenment regulation, and the minimum wage issue has many sides to it. (What are most 16 old employees really worth, you might think?? What were you worth?? I was not worth $15 an hour..)
But Kerry talking up this wage gap issue is disingenuous bull$hit. There is nothing he can or will do if elected. Look at the differences in college majors? Should Kerry suddenly start demanding that males and females be represented in every course of study equally? Are we going to start assigning jobs? Or maybe govenment wage regulation? What about dirty, dangerous and difficult work like construction? Going to send your female family members off to do such work in the name of gender equality? The wage gap is part of natural gender differences, cultural, historic educational opportunities and a zillion other reasons. 99.9% of folks get equl pay for equal work. Lets keep the social engineers un-elected..

Budweiser with Bush, Kettle One with Kerry...YMMV.

"Of course government has a place in regulation.

What is dishonest, is when you argue that since regulation is necessary, that govt regulation can proliferate. . . well. . . UNREGULATED.

It's a balance thing."

I agree with that, Island.

Gajinda, I'm going to try to be nice, so I'd better be brief (not easy for me). One of the enduring fallacies about minimum wage is that most of those jobs are held by HS kids living with their parents. In truth, the typical minimum wage worker is rural, adult, supporting themselves, and a high proportion are heads of households (with kids, for example). Kerry is wooing the female voter. All's fair in love and politics. War has rules. Yes, there is government wage regulation. We've been over that. Women do very well in the construction trades, thank you very much. And finally:

"The wage gap is part of natural gender differences, cultural, historic educational opportunities and a zillion other reasons. 99.9% of folks get equl pay for equal work."

I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, except to say that your figures are not correct, and the problem is not a genetic one. In certain rooms, you'd have been tarred and feathered for that remark.

OMG!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098820931.jpg

:D

Supe - I will try and be brief too. That is why I support earned-income tax credits. But to burden employers with some hare-brained $15 an hour is not going to work. Look at Europe. Look at the unemplyoyment rates there. Is that what you want, cause that is what you will get.

Look at illegal immigration. The least educated US citizens are competing in the job market with millions to whom $120 a week is a lot of money. Raise the minium wage too high and you had better build a much bigger fence.

As far as Kerry lying - it has everything to do with what people fear most in him. I fear he will lie about anything to get the job.

As for women in construction - there is a few out there and they do make the same money as men. But check out any job-site, there is just not that many. So bring on the tar and feathers. Genetics have nothing to do with this problem. Just reality getting in the way..

Women in their prime earning years did not get the same educational opportunites as men the same age. Men dont have babies. Women today are not highly represented in college majors that lead to the same high paying jobs. A million reasons why and all the PC nonsence in the world will not make it not so.

A thoughtful response, Gajinda. Relatively speaking. I still shake my head at what I see as one of your underlying messages (the main one, I think), which is" "Yeah, that's the way it is. So what?"

The $15 per hour might seem less burdensome to employers when

1. Their taxes are rolled back substantially and

2. More people are buying their stuff.

$15 amortized over the volume of burgers (just one example, but it's the example most cited when conservatives rail against minimum wage increase proposals) sold in an hour, does not exactly double the price of a burger. And if workers all up and down the streets can afford to eat burgers for lunch each day, then the sales volume increases. Again, conservatives will not believe obvious facts right in front of them, yet they understand compex (and disproved) concepts like trickle-down economics. So, they're never going to accept some of these counter-intuitive aspects of economics and government. Fact is, it's just possible that, if this many people (all the minimum wage workers) have their incomes doubled or tripled, then their spending and the tax savings may create a bigger economic boom time than anyone has seen recently in their wildest fantasies.

But again, business prefers to pay less than market, and have the taxpayer pick up the difference. And it's a nice time for business' wishes, since our Congress has been Republican for at least a couple of decades now.

I know things will get better, and I'm willing to wait. Wait until the voter remembers what it has known for most of last century. Which is that what's best for business is NOT NECESSARILY best for citizens.

In the meantime, let minimum wage workers be in poverty and qualify for welfare. So the taxpayers can pay their expenses instead of industry.

Superman, you're a genius. If $15 per hr is good for the minimum wage then why not $50 grand a year? Then all the minimum wage employees could go buy new cars. Hell, they'd be making more than the auto workers. No wait, thats not right, cause they'd want MORE than minimum wage (sustantially). So lets see, now the $20 k car costs $80k so the min wage guy still cant buy it. How did that happen?

Supe - I do think your heart is in the right place. A working person, no matter how humble their job should be able to support themselves. But this is impossible to put on the backs of employers. Burger flippers making $15 per hour?? Make way for automated-burger-making machines. Look around your world and see all the folks making the minium wage - push that too high and you are looking at all those folks not being employeed at all. So a kid living with their parents, let them make the $5 or whatever. And someone with a family and other deductions (healthcare, rent, college loans), let them get an "earned income" tax rebate. All should work and all work should be respected. This is a basic rule for any society to florish. We kind of forget these things some times..

In days of old.

Son says "Dad I need some money."
Dad says "I thought you had a job?"
Son says "I do but it doesn't pay me enough."
Dad says "Work harder."

Well spoken Gaijinda. People tend to forget all kinds of things when their clarity of thought is obscured by the miasma of Socialism.

"Why not just make the minimum wage $50 per hour?"

Well, in order for wages to increase, productivity has to increase by a corresponding amount.

Let's take Jim's example of a fast-food place in Oregon, which has a state minimum wage of $7.05 per hour.

Now, McDonald's corporation serves 47 million people per day at over 30,000 restaurants globally. That's an average of 1,566 customers per restaurant per day, or 130 customers per hour. (You have to figure that the majority of customers are in the USA, but that's the only data in the Annual Report and I'm not spending any more time on this example than absolutely necessary to destroy the argument) Let's further assume that the average size "crew" consists of two burger flippers (anecdotal data gathered by ME) or 65 burgers flipped per hour.

Now, if you want to double the minimum wage for those flippers (let's euphamistically call them Meat Inversion Technicians) without increasing the cost of the burger, then you have to have each do double the work. If their PRODUCTIVITY increases to 130 burgers per hour, then you can afford to pay them double. But in the absence of increasing demand for burgers, you only need ONE M.I.T. So you fire the other one.

Next time you're at a high-volume McD's, look behind the counter. It's entirely possible that you will see the substitution of CAPITAL for labor in the form of an automated soda-filling machine. There's an equilibrium point where the cost of wages rises to the point where substituting a machine is more efficient than hiring a marginal worker. (Which has NOTHING to do with the worker's productivity, it's an economics term).