More or less in poverty? from the mind of Unknown.

House OKs minimum wage increase - via MSNBC.

What does this actually mean? I think that there will be no direct effect on us in the Northwest as our local minimum wages are much higher than the federal minimum. But... we live in an integrated economy.

One thing is for sure, and that is the increase in price levels... which means that my buck fiddie today will be buying significantly less a down the road. The US as a whole has been fairly lucky (or, perhaps it isn't luck at all, but good management of the economy) with low inflation.

Another thing is for sure... in one fell swoop, our number of citizens at poverty level will instantly increase. If price levels change roughly equally to the raise in minimum wage, we will merely be demoting the workforce that is 15 or 20 cents above minimum wage back down to the base. That's unfortunate.

We will also be encouraging 'under the table' employment. As the legal pay rate increases, the incentive for an employer to not report employment, not file taxes, and look for someone who is willing to work illegally goes up. This will actually increase the demand for illegal immigrants. And, since the demand for illegal employment seems mostly endless, I doubt they'll be surfing the correct side of the supply/demand curve that would naturally incrase wages. In order to increase wages in the marketplace, one needs to have a labor shortage.

Locally, this will probably benefit Oregon and Washington. By raising the minimum wage elsewhere in the US, basically, one can view it as reducing the minimum wage in a state where the state minimum wage is higher. This will only make things more competitive, and should be a benefit for regional economy.

My verdict? I see it as a way to buy votes. In all reality, the people who will be effected by this legislation generally don't get the fact that it is a null and void change in their lives. In fact, for the middle class (majority of small business owners) and anyone who likes to travel internationally, the increase in wages will lead to a decrease ability to do business and a decreased value of the Dollar compared to other currencies. Oh, yeah... and it will be a good incentive to ship more jobs overseas.

Aren't the liberals againt shipping jobs overseas?

React to the Unknown, or Develop flexible coping skills? from the mind of Unknown.

Many conversations I have with Human Caused Global Warming advocates deal with the culminating argument that they believe that global warming is human caused, therefore extreme measures should be levied upon humans to stop the warming. I argue that even though that theory is a bit too simplistic and, in my opinion, not accurate, we are better off spending our efforts developing coping strategies because the reason for climate change is not limited to human causes. I ask them how cutting back on CO2 emissions will combat a surge in energy from the sun.

.This article is by someone who seems to be somewhat likeminded. Oh, he also is a Nobel laureate, and works at a little science laboratory in Europe. He's not a former presidential candidate, actor, newscaster or... well, things that just don't matter... he's a top notch chemist.

Read what he has to say, and think about it. Would you rather be spending all of your money fixing the wrong problem... or would you like to develop various strategies to deal with numerous problems as they arise.

Just think about it. If you do, you just may wonder why the global warming industry refuses to take that approach. One reason might be that the forward thinking first world countries are the likely ones to develop and deploy such measures. This system would probably benefit some sort of government contractor, instead of impose great limitations on citizens of the most productive countries on the planet

UNreasonable from the mind of Unknown.

Today, our faithful leader in the world order, Kofi Annan, stated requirements for a UN peacekeeping mission to Lebanon.

This is from memory, so it's a rough quote. He said "in order for peacekeeping forces to arrive, the violence MUST stop."

OK, so, technically, a peacekeeping mission, by definition, would be a mission where peace already exists and must be maintained. So, by this definition, the UN should probably muster a force and deploy to the border between Sweeden and Norway.

Our 'world order' leaders at the UN just don't get it. We need force to battle the backwards ideology of the islamofacists today. If a body is to exist to promote peace worldwide, then it must be willing to not just KEEP the peace, but sometimes, when needed, RESTORE the peace. It appears that the UN is unwilling to do the more difficult, but sometimes necessary mission.

Think of it this way: Our local police forces in the US are charged, basically, with enforcing laws that provide the private citizens with the greatest possibility of having a peaceful life, free from violence and bodily harm. By the UN definition of peace promotion, if a local police officer came up to a domestic dispute between a man and a woman, he should only be able to exert any kind of force IF the couple stops fighting. Can you see it now? The cops episodes would mostly be made up of extended video footage of husbands pummeling their wives.

Now, we all in the west understand that sometimes our police must use force to break up a bad situation. They go through training, and are given a fairly wide array of tools to be able to use the best possible force to dissolve bad situations. Many military forces around the world have a similar set of tools and similar training that is catered to dissolving wars instead of domestic disputes.

History has shown, however, that UN peacekeepign forces are not the blessing that the UN makes them out to be. Perhaps Israel is better off providing their own protection.