Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

What you missed in your reseach is that most of the higher minimum
wage states are blue states. Imagine that!

---

Account frozen...

Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

What you missed in your reseach is that most of the higher minimum
wage states are blue states. Imagine that!

I didn't miss that. It just didn't seem that it mattered. I wonder how did Alaska and Florida get thrown into that mix?

-Mrs. anon

PS: The rest are,

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii (Tom...How can you stand living there?)
Illinois
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

and an extra added attraction--- The District of Columbia

Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

What you missed in your reseach is that most of the higher minimum
wage states are blue states. Imagine that!

To elaborate a bit on why blue vs red states matter... going on a county-by-county basis, areas tend toward blue if urbanized and red if rural or suburban. A blue state, therefore, is one in which its population (and by association its economy) is dominated by urban centers.

Conducting business in an urban center introduces many unpredictable costs, and generally the minimum wage is the least of their problems. Property tax re-assessments at random intervals, high crime, unreliable utilities, protection rackets, astronomical real estate costs, quasi-mandatory political contributions, etc. are all part of a typical urban small business's fiscal year. A 20% increase in labor costs with a year's advance notice is not nearly as big a problem as the natural gas utility tearing up the street in front of your store and leaving it inaccessible for half of the Christmas shopping season. Larger businesses must play political games to make sure that tax- or contract-related advantages don't skew towards "connected" competitors, which is a bigger problem than a small pay increase for its above-minimum-wage workforce.

A case in point right now is Philadelphia. A transit strike has made it virtually impossible for its lowest-wage workers to even get to work. Such an event is making a lot of small business owners wish they had purchased Business Interruption Insurance, and they would gladly pay their workers an extra dollar per hour if they would just show up.

Contrast this with operating similar businesses in diffuse-population areas. Although local town councils can and do meddle with local markets, many of the other reasons for maintaining a high monetary reserve are mitigated. It's harder to work a protection racket over dozens of farms (although it has happened in the past), physical dispersement makes crime less efficient, and it is cost-effective for a rural business to invest in its own utility back-ups because it can afford the space for storage (generators, firewood, etc.).

These differences are reflected in catch-all terms like "cost of living," and there is an analogous idea of "cost of doing business." In blue states that already have higher costs, a higher minimum wage doesn't have any large economic impact and it scores political points with poor voters, so politicians enact them.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

Account frozen...

Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

I'm not sure what your point is here, so I want to ask before I take that source apart. I mean, is it your position that higher costs (in this case, wages) have no effect on business? For example, instead of a $6.25/hr minimum wage, how about a seven dollar minimum wage, how about eight? How about ten? Twenty?

Rest assured, $6.25 is STILL not a living wage, nowhere near. So why doesn't the gov't just mandate a $20.00 an hour minimum and just eradicate poverty in one stroke of the pen?

Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

I'm not sure what your point is here, so I want to ask before I take that source apart. I mean, is it your position that higher costs (in this case, wages) have no effect on business? For example, instead of a $6.25/hr minimum wage, how about a seven dollar minimum wage, how about eight? How about ten? Twenty?

Rest assured, $6.25 is STILL not a living wage, nowhere near. So why doesn't the gov't just mandate a $20.00 an hour minimum and just eradicate poverty in one stroke of the pen?

Only if matched by a radical reduction of the obscene wages, perks, and golden parachutes provided to most CEO's, CFP's, etc. which for the most part are screwing their employees and the general stock holders, while polishing the knobs of their friends on the board of directors. Where in the world can you drive a company into chapter 7 and get rewarded for your incompetence.

---

Account frozen...

Only if matched by a radical reduction of the obscene wages, perks, and golden parachutes provided to most CEO's, CFP's, etc...

Your point here is what, that people should not be free to contract for themselves? I mean, is it OK for union to members to contract in their best interests, yet it's not OK for non-union employees to do so?

As I said below, a "radical reduction" of what upper management contracts for is just silly. You could take the entire salaries of Wal-Mart or GM (choose any company here) executives, and divide them equally among all the workers. What happens then? Each worker gets a couple of extry bucks in one paycheck. Swell. Except that the company has now been destroyed and they are now all out of a job. Oprah's contract has little relation to what her staff contracted for.

...which for the most part are screwing their employees and the general stock holders, while polishing the knobs of their friends on the board of directors. Where in the world can you drive a company into chapter 7 and get rewarded for your incompetence.

Pfffft. The overwhelming majority of businesses are out of it within a year. Five years, the rate is even higher, and it goes up from there. While you may, for example, be prescient and able to forsee events like 9/11 that nearly destroy airlines, in reality running a business is not an easy task. Suggesting that upper management "for the most part" rapes and pillages companies is simply ludicrous.

This whole post suggests little more than class envy.

Only if matched by a radical reduction of the obscene wages, perks, and golden parachutes provided to most CEO's, CFP's, etc...

Your point here is what, that people should not be free to contract for themselves? I mean, is it OK for union to members to contract in their best interests, yet it's not OK for non-union employees to do so?

As I said below, a "radical reduction" of what upper management contracts for is just silly. You could take the entire salaries of Wal-Mart or GM (choose any company here) executives, and divide them equally among all the workers. What happens then? Each worker gets a couple of extry bucks in one paycheck. Swell. Except that the company has now been destroyed and they are now all out of a job. Oprah's contract has little relation to what her staff contracted for.

...which for the most part are screwing their employees and the general stock holders, while polishing the knobs of their friends on the board of directors. Where in the world can you drive a company into chapter 7 and get rewarded for your incompetence.

Pfffft. The overwhelming majority of businesses are out of it within a year. Five years, the rate is even higher, and it goes up from there. While you may, for example, be prescient and able to forsee events like 9/11 that nearly destroy airlines, in reality running a business is not an easy task. Suggesting that upper management "for the most part" rapes and pillages companies is simply ludicrous.

This whole post suggests little more than class envy.

No, not at all...gotcha! But there is some truth to that as well, CEO's and all that.

---

Account frozen...

But there is some truth to that as well, CEO's and all that.

Oh tell me about it. Rest assured, I would love a golden parachute. 8^]

Someday.

Only if matched by a radical reduction of the obscene wages, perks, and golden parachutes provided to most CEO's, CFP's, etc. which for the most part are screwing their employees and the general stock holders, while polishing the knobs of their friends on the board of directors. Where in the world can you drive a company into chapter 7 and get rewarded for your incompetence.

Performing a bit of unauthorized expansion of Rush's response :-)

World-class executives are in short supply and high demand. While managers works thru the workers under them and executives manage thru the managers under them, senior executives execute grand stategy thru executives under them. Not only is this like driving a truck by telephoning instructions to someone who radioes instructions to someone sitting next to the person with her hands on the wheel, there are a lot other trucks in the way that are being driven badly. Not many people have the combination of strategic thinking and interpersonal skills needed to trick a bunch of egotistical executives into doing what is needed to run the company ("trick" because they all secretly want you to fail so they can take your job). Add to this the need for a good fit with the corporate culture, and the list of potential chief executives gets pretty short. When supply is low and demand is high, prices rise.

Think of it this way... when a professional sports coach is fired, what happens? He is invariably hired by another team. Once in a great while the person will retire, or even more rarely he'll have to settle for a HUGELY successful college program. The reason is that there are few people on the planet who can effectively manage a game played by egotistical professional athletes against other teams of professional athletes. The same holds true for the CEOs (and other "C" executives) of world-class companies.

It may be difficult for some to comprehend this, but very senior executives are worth what they are paid. The only way to put a significant dent in executive compensation is to increase the supply of potential senior executives. This means real-world-centric education, recognition that some kids are better at some things than others, encouraging talents rather than burying them in one-size-fits-all praise, and acknowledgement that free markets are preferable to tight regulation. With greater supply will come lower prices (that is, lower executive compensation relative to "worker" compensation).

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I'm not sure what your point is here, so I want to ask before I take that source apart. I mean, is it your position that higher costs (in this case, wages) have no effect on business? For example, instead of a $6.25/hr minimum wage, how about a seven dollar minimum wage, how about eight? How about ten? Twenty?

Rest assured, $6.25 is STILL not a living wage, nowhere near. So why doesn't the gov't just mandate a $20.00 an hour minimum and just eradicate poverty in one stroke of the pen?

Such hostility you have. And you've gone way beyond moderate. And tear it apart. Sheesh, I'm sorry I bother you so much. I'm outta here.

Just me the dumbass,
-Mrs. anon

Such hostility you have.

Moi? I'm not hostile at all. You're reading what isn't there.

And you've gone way beyond moderate.

I have no idea what this means.

And tear it apart. Sheesh, I'm sorry I bother you so much.

I used the word "take," not "tear," and you don't bother me at all. It's just a discussion.

It may be difficult for some to comprehend this, but very senior executives are worth what they are paid. The only way to put a significant dent in executive compensation is to increase the supply of potential senior executives. This means real-world-centric education, recognition that some kids are better at some things than others, encouraging talents rather than burying them in one-size-fits-all praise, and acknowledgement that free markets are preferable to tight regulation. With greater supply will come lower prices (that is, lower executive compensation relative to "worker" compensation).

While many executives meet your qualifications, there are a sizable minority who's only skills have been stabbing others in the back, or ass kissing their way to the top. I personally did work for a large corporation, which in 1985 had gross earnings of over $2 billion. They decided to do a hostile take over of a competitor and they succeeded. They managed the merger so poorly, that within three years, after selling off all the corporations assets, they were still in debt up to their ears. They lost most of their customers since their service product had completely degraded and they could no longer compete. Another company then went after them and they were helpless. But, the company that bought them out got more than they bargined for, i.e. they had to pay out more than $30 million in parachutes which the previous management managed to conceal. After the final merger, more than 10,000 people lost their jobs. Their management skills and greed netted the president and all the senior vice-presidents, if you take into account all the kick backs, at least $100,000,000.

The list goes on and on ad-nosium. Of coarse, I'm sure that you never heard of Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, May Co, Gulf, Pan AM, blah blah blah....
It is obvious that you are against any controls on business. Well, Joseph Kennedy would have loved you. Check the history.

I hereby sentence you to reading The Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens, one thousand times.

---

Account frozen...

Such hostility you have.

Moi? I'm not hostile at all. You're reading what isn't there.

And you've gone way beyond moderate.

I have no idea what this means.

And tear it apart. Sheesh, I'm sorry I bother you so much.

I used the word "take," not "tear," and you don't bother me at all. It's just a discussion.

Well let me finish off the discussion then.

Being that you seem to know everything and anybody who has a different point of view other than your's, they are all (take your pick):

1. full of crap liberals
2. wackos
3. jackasses
4. asses
5. dinguses
6. wishy-washy
7. fools
8. feel good Barbra Streisands
9. half assed

(I may have missed a couple.)

So let me finish and leave with your three favorites.

Geebus! I'm not sure what your point is! and Pfffft!

You know who. And I love those shoes.

While many executives meet your qualifications, there are a sizable minority who's only skills have been stabbing others in the back, or ass kissing their way to the top.

I'll qualify what I said... in macroeconomic terms, the market for entrepreneurial ability is near equilibrium. Entrepreneurial ability, for those of you who didn't take Economics 101, is the capacity to combine capital, labor and resources into packages that the market is willing to buy.

As prices go up, more providers will attempt to enter the market. Some of the providers of entrepreneurial services are pretenders with little more than the skills you listed. However, the same is true of assembly line workers and bricklayers and train conductors. Some people, lured by the prospect of that next step up the economic ladder, will lie and cheat their way into a job then find themselves in over their heads. This happens in every line of work that doesn't require a licensing exam (and even then some slip thru).

The problem with senior executives is that the stakes are higher. Just like every plane crash makes the evening news, every corporate implosion makes the Wall Street Journal. One of the aims of SOX was to raise the potential risks for incompetent executives so that they would leave... the problem is that these pretenders are addicted to their new lifestyles. The regulations are too draconian to remain in place long enough to have the desired effect.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Hearings to focus on oil industry profits vs. consumers' struggles

ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 2, 2005

WASHINGTON - Top executives of three major oil companies will be asked by senators next week why some of their industry's estimated $96 billion in record profits this year shouldn't be used to help people having trouble paying their energy bills.

Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp., Jim Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips, and John Hofmeister, president of the U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, will be among the industry executives to be questioned at a Senate hearing, according to congressional and industry officials.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because a final list of witnesses is yet to be completed. The three companies together earned more than $22 billion during the July-September quarter this year when crude oil prices soared briefly to $70 a barrel and motorists were paying well over $3 gallon at the pump after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast.

Spokesmen for Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell would not confirm yesterday that their executives had been called to testify. ConocoPhillips did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

There is growing distress among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress about the huge profits reported by oil companies last week.

Yesterday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, said oil companies "should do their part" and donate some of their third-quarter earnings to low-income families and senior citizens having trouble paying energy bills, including high heating bills this winter. Grassley cited industry analysts as estimating that the 29 major oil and gas companies are expected to earn $96 billion this year.

"You have a responsibility to help less fortunate Americans cope with the high cost of heating fuels," Grassley, whose committee deals with tax legislation, wrote in a letter to the chief of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's lobbying arm. He also said companies should invest more of their profits in exploration and production and refining capacity to increase supplies.

Earlier in the day, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., renewed their call for passage of a windfall profits tax on oil companies. They hoped to put such a proposal – a 50 percent tax on the sale of oil over $40 a barrel – into a tax bill this month, they said. The revenue would be given to consumers in the form of an income tax rebate.

Being that you seem to know everything...

By no means.

...and anybody who has a different point of view other than your's, they are all (take your pick): >snip list of out of context terms<

Odd that anyone who has a point of view that differs from yours is a (take your pick):

Forum Whore
idiot(s)
jerk(s)
a$$hole
moron(s)
childish
wacko(s)

I may have missed a couple. Though that as well is an out of context list, and not worth the electrons used to display it.

My apologies, as I'm sorry you took the post personally, that certainly wasn't my intent.

Now, now, boys and girls, it's time to go to your respective corners and stare at the walls for an hour, otherwise you'll be sent to bed without din-dins. This sandbox name calling is rather unseemly.

I'll qualify what I said... in macroeconomic terms, the market for entrepreneurial ability is near equilibrium. Entrepreneurial ability, for those of you who didn't take Economics 101, is the capacity to combine capital, labor and resources into packages that the market is willing to buy.

As a matter of fact, I did take Ecomonics 101 (just got a B), but thanks for the refresher, although I really don't need it.

As prices go up, more providers will attempt to enter the market. Some of the providers of entrepreneurial services are pretenders with little more than the skills you listed. However, the same is true of assembly line workers and bricklayers and train conductors. Some people, lured by the prospect of that next step up the economic ladder, will lie and cheat their way into a job then find themselves in over their heads. This happens in every line of work that doesn't require a licensing exam (and even then some slip thru).

Great minds think alike or fools never differ. You have just proved my other mantra is that Resumes are more in keeping with myths and legends. BTW, I do understand the concept of the "Peter Principal."

The problem with senior executives is that the stakes are higher. Just like every plane crash makes the evening news, every corporate implosion makes the Wall Street Journal. One of the aims of SOX was to raise the potential risks for incompetent executives so that they would leave... the problem is that these pretenders are addicted to their new lifestyles. The regulations are too draconian to remain in place long enough to have the desired effect.

Genital crushing would be a good start followed by complete destitution would be nice. Barring that, 15-30 years in a Fereral Maximum Security Prison with a cellie named "Bubba" would be a good alternative.

---

Account frozen...

Earlier in the day, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., renewed their call for passage of a windfall profits tax on oil companies. They hoped to put such a proposal - a 50 percent tax on the sale of oil over $40 a barrel - into a tax bill this month, they said. The revenue would be given to consumers in the form of an income tax rebate.

And the tax would be given directly to consumers in the form of a price hike. A tax is just a cost, like the steel for the barrels (which they don't use, but that's beside the point), shipping, overhead, the oil itself, et cetera. It's all just a cost. Raise the cost, in this case a 50 percent tax, and every single penny is paid by consumers.