Name a law that has had a negative "unintended consequence"
Can anyone name a law that has resulted in the exact opposite of what the law intended to accomplish?
Drug laws are the perfect example- by making them illegal, and putting (black) people in jail, the crime rate has risen and drugs like Meth are more prevalent.
Same goes for Prohibition - started the rise of organized crime.
Abortion- back alley abortions, a privilege for the rich only, dead women.
If drugs, gambling and prostitution were legal, 90% of cops would lose there jobs.
R2, you have no idea what you're talking about. It would take more cops, health care workers, and lawyers to deal with legalized drugs and the consequences than it would now.
R5 reeks of mendacity.
Bullshit, R5. Even with billions upon billions spent on the "war on drugs," anyone wanting to do drugs is doing it. So, if anything, it's as if the enormous costs of ineffectual law enforcement plus the cost of maintaining the huge prison population that is the result, is piled on top of whatever publicly funded rehab programs are costing us.
Robert Mitchum said that all the marijuana laws accomplished was to keep the price up. That's still true.
The War on Drugs has kept many otherwise unemployable people in unnecessary jobs and kept the prisons filled with people who shouldn't be there.
"It would take more cops,"
"health care workers"
Most drug problems stem from impure black markets.
Ah, yes, the "society must be CONTROLLED" mentality.
The most often cited rationale for welfare is to provide a small amount of additional assistance to families in times of economic hardship. Yet, according to welfare opponents, beneficiaries of these programs often become so dependent upon handouts, that they avoid work, forgo marriage, and eschew family planning. The welfare state is believed to have an especially negative influence on males, encouraging them to discount their role as family providers. Opponents of welfare often point to the decided increase in marriage and employment, and the decrease in illegitimate births and poverty after the enactment of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (PRWORA) as proof that the welfare state has adverse effects on the family.
NAFTA fucked everyone
All of them
Regulations to mandate improvements to fuel efficiency in cars led the rise of the even more gas guzzling SUVs (which are classified as light trucks) as a replacement for larger cars like station wagons.
[quote]Yet, according to welfare opponents, beneficiaries of these programs often become so dependent upon handouts, that they avoid work, forgo marriage, and eschew family planning.
Too bad those same opponents don't have any actual proof to back up those claims.
Oh, and as usual, you're stealing someone else's words without giving them credit. You really should stop doing that.
R14, why are "black" families more likely to be headed by single females?
The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in America’s airspace by the decade’s end. As Russia Today notes, given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast. All drones will be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet above our heads. Have no fear though, since the "Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety" program is for your own protection, we are sure Janet Napolitano would suggest.
Probation - people drank more
Capital punishment - no indication that there are less committed murders in counties that implement CP
[quote]NAFTA fucked everyone
One of the plumbers' aides who worked on our pipes had finally gotten a great job as a machinist at home in Mexico.
Then all their good jobs also went to China.
Jesus, there's a freeper loose in this thread. Click on trolldar for R2.
I think the Obama healthcare law will hurt many employees. I work for an employer that uses domestic workers in homes, and we will have to cut most workers back to 25 hours a week. Our rates are set by the state, so we can't charge more.
R19, he's not a freeper. He's a libertarian/Ron Paul fanatic, totally incapable of any real thought and wholly disconnected from reality.
Oh, and to that moron:
[quote]why are "black" families more likely to be headed by single females?
Since that has nothing to do with your idiotic post or to my response, forgive me if I don't take this seriously.
[quote]It would take more cops, health care workers, and lawyers to deal with legalized drugs and the consequences than it would now.
Yet in places where it is legal like Amsterdam, (or hashish in the middle east) the reverse is true, it takes LESS law enforcement.
I'll bet you refer to yourself as a "Progressive," R21. Am I right?
No, R23, you're not correct. Sorry.
Prohibition. Abortion laws before Roe v. Wade killed women and fetuses. Obscenity laws make people clamor for the forbidden.
r20 the Obamacare benefits to citizens are pretty minor. It created more customers for health insurers (aka getting people to bet on their health and rigging it for the house).
We need to just do away with for-profit financing of medical care and switch to single-payer. That's the only fix.
The law requiring companies to disclose their senior executives' pay. The intention was to shame them into lower pay awards. Instead, now everyone knew what the other guy was getting, they were benchmarking themselves off one another, and big egos were riding on getting higher and higher awards. The result was the biggest hike in executive remuneration in history.
Hate crimes bill, affirmative action.
R28, you should be punished for thinking hate crimes laws have unintended consequences!
Hey, here's a novel idea for R20 and his ilk... Why don't the rich asshole corporations actually provide healthcare, instead of constantly skirting the issue? They can spare some money and still make their astronomically disgusting profits.
You're getting raped over in the Darden thread, R31. We hate straight men like you, and for once, we're speaking truth to power.
Laws against age discrimination have made it impossible for older people to get jobs, because nobody wants to get stuck with them.
I should explain further.
EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) for most companies that aren't protected by the government (like the banks, big pharmaceutical companies, military supply, etc.) is marginal. For small companies it is often negative in off years.
Adding 3% to that total in health care costs would bankrupt the company. That is why many service companies, and small manufacturers, are cutting almost all employees to part time. That is why the young people graduating from college today are going to never find good full time jobs. Government intervention, at every level (from bookkeeping to OSHA to HR to ADA to the ACA, plus the multiple red tape hoops and regulatory bullshit, to the employment of multiple accountants to make sure the IRS doesn't destroy your business because you filed the paperwork they told you to file, but then forgot that they told you to file it that way...) is destroying the economy.
But in the fantasy world of Datalounge the government can just pass a law that everyone is wealthy! Why not raise the minimum wage to $100/hr if the government is so omniscient and omnipotent?
Fuck you, R32-
I'm gayer than your momma. I'm just not a slave to government bullshit, and own my own business and see how fucked up our government is.
[quote]I should explain further.
No, you really shouldn't, since you're a nutcase who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You do have fun bumping all of your old threads and trolling here, though, don't you?
[quote]You're getting raped over in the Darden thread
That always happens, R32. He's a fanatic who really doesn't know what he's talking about. He's been here for years, routinely bumping his months-old threads, spouting conspiracy theories, railing against the Fed, etc., etc. Just view his posts as entertainment and don't make the mistake of taking him seriously or trying to actually debate him. He's incapable of learning, since all of this is practically a religion to him.
This isn't a law, but I used to skip high school all the time. I got caught a few times and the punishment was suspension from school. That wasn't punishment. They just made it easier for me to stay home. I always wanted to thank them when they told me I was suspended
R16: Which is why I'm starting to develop a multi kilowatt HERF weapon. It'll knock any drone with electronics out of the sky.
Just point and shoot. Power supplies for the weapon will be kind of large but a mini-van could haul the whole kit out.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act ended up putting most US toy companies out of business and did not increase toy safety one bit.
you're right R40, but we don't have to pay anyone now. So what if a bunch of kids get maimed or killed?
R40- that is the perverse effect of most laws- they put companies out of business, but the effect is like boiling a frog- it is a slow process, and the people don't notice.
R41, are you drunk, retarded, or just too stupid to understand?
These small toy companies were shut down because of excessive regulations, high taxes, arbitrary rules- and now China makes the same shit, and you bitch because of "offshore" companies.
Ok, I guess I need to explain the CPSIA. It was passed under Bush in response to the toys coming out of China that had high lead or cadmium content, or contained small magnets. The gist of the law was that every part or every toy had to be tested, a record had to be kept of that test by the manufacturer and the retailer. It also lowered the acceptable level of lead in toys to the point that brass was a toxic substance.
The result of the law as originally written was that all bicycles, off road vehicles, etc. could no longer be sold to children under 13 as they contain brass somewhere.
All childrens' books published before 1985 would have had to be be removed from the shelves and destroyed as the inks contain very small amounts of lead.
No items for children could be sold at a thrift store or garage sale because the law applied to all items intended for children under 13 regardless of when they were made. The law also applies to crafts/handmade items. So, yes you can go to jail for making a Raggedy Ann for your niece.
The law was so draconian that unit testing was not permitted. In other words, if you bought a batch of snap fasteners and used those snaps on 50 doll dresses, you could not test the batch of snaps once. You had to test both sides of the snaps fifty times.
Immigration "reform" 1986:
Police have identified the man suspected of dousing a homeless woman with a flammable liquid and setting her on fire Thursday morning.
Dennis Petillo, 24, has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, said Los Angeles police Cmdr. Andy Smith. Witnesses said Petillo set the 67-year-old woman on fire about 1 a.m. as she slept on a bus bench in Van Nuys.
The woman was taken to a hospital, where she is in critical condition, authorities said. Her name has not been released. It's unclear if there is a connection between her and the suspect.
Residents said the woman had slept at the bus stop at Van Nuys Boulevard and Sherman Way every night for years.
That is one of the main reasons companies have located operations overseas- the level of regulation is insane. It's no wonder the economy is shit- who wants to open a new business in a country where you have 1,000,000 bureaucrats breathing down you neck, and IRS agents behind them?
And your evidence for this is what, exactly, R45?
Yeah, I thought so...
R45, Uh, no. The reason for the law is to protect Americans from dangerous toys MADE OVERSEAS. The law was written to make the toy companies have to monitor the factories over seas and take responsibility for the products made. The problem is that the law only recognizes huge companies like Mattel and Hasbro that make one million pieces of ten items, rather than a small toy company that may make one hundred pieces of one hundred items. (I exaggerate to make a point.)
This is over regulation but it's intended target is toys made in China, not the USA. Also, as I stated earlier, this was a Republican law that was passed under the Bush administration.
In my mind, the greatest threat to individual liberty is the recent trend towards corrections outsourcing to for-profit prisons. It's the scariest thing I've ever heard of. Judges getting kickbacks for sending people to prison. It happens, and will only get worse.
Geez -- all these threads are turning into pissing contests between two guys.
The same guys?
One of us shows how peaceful, truthful free trade helps society, while the other defends government managed, propaganda enhanced, heavily regulated trade that "helps" the top 99%.
Which side are you on?
[quote]One of us shows how peaceful, truthful free trade helps society, while the other defends government managed, propaganda enhanced, heavily regulated trade that "helps" the top 99%.
ROFL.... Actually, out here in the real world, one routinely posts drivel, wacky conspiracy theories, anti-Fed, pro-gold, pro-gun, libertarian, anarchist, nonsense and the other routinely shows him up and laughs at him.
The "fiscal cliff" legislation passed this week included $76 billion in special-interest tax credits for the likes of General Electric, Hollywood and even Captain Morgan. But these subsidies weren't the fruit of eleventh-hour lobbying conducted on the cliff's edge -- they were crafted back in August in a Senate committee, and they sat dormant until the White House reportedly insisted on them this week.
The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, which passed through the Senate Finance Committee in August, was copied and pasted into the fiscal cliff legislation, yielding a victory for biotech companies, wind-turbine-makers, biodiesel producers, film studios -- and their lobbyists. So, if you're wondering how algae subsidies became part of a must-pass package to avert the dreaded fiscal cliff, credit the Biotechnology Industry Organization's lobbying last summer.
Some tax lobbyists mostly ignored the August bill "because they thought it would be just a political document," one K Streeter told me. "They were the ones that got bit in the butt."
Here's what happened: In late July, Finance Chairman Max Baucus announced the committee would soon convene to craft a bill extending many expiring tax credits. This attracted lobbyists like a raw steak attracts wolves.
Former Sens. John Breaux, D-La., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., a pair of rainmaker lobbyists, pleaded for extensions on behalf of a powerful lineup of clients.
General Electric and Citigroup, for instance, hired Breaux and Lott to extend a tax provision that allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries. This provision -- known as the "active financing exception" -- is the main tool GE uses to avoid nearly all U.S. corporate income tax.
Liquor giant Diageo also retained Breaux and Lott to win extensions on two provisions benefitting rum-making in Puerto Rico.
The K Street firm Capitol Tax Partners, led by Treasury Department alumni from the Clinton administration, represented an even more impressive list of tax clients, who paid CTP more than $1.68 million in the third quarter.
Unintended consequences of "Green" energy bills
A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada 24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars. CBC News of Canada was the first to pick up on this story on the 3rd of December 2012, and began their own investigation into the possible explanations behind this odd behaviour.
CN Rail, the operator of the train, stated their innocence in the matter as they had only “received shipping directions from the customer, which, under law, it has an obligation to meet. CN discharged its obligations with respect to those movements in strict compliance with its obligations as a common carrier, and was compensated accordingly.” Even so, they still managed to earn C$2.6 million in shipping fees.
During their investigation CBC managed to obtain an internal email which stated that the cars of the train were all reconfigured between each trip but that the cargo was never actually unloaded, because “each move per car across the border is revenue generated”, the sale of the cargo itself was inconsequential.
The cargo of the train was owned by Bioversal Trading Inc., or its US partner Verdero, depending on what stage of the trip it was at. The companies “made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.” Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to “promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.” The RINs were supposed to be retired each time the shipment passed the border, but due to a glitch not all of them were. This enabled Bioversal to accumulate over 12 million RINs from the 24 trips, worth between 50 cents and $1 each, which they can then sell on to oil companies that haven’t met the EPA’s renewable fuel requirements.
Both the Canada Border Services Agency and the US EPA have launched investigations into the possibility of fraud, although the companies claim that the practice was totally legal.
Thank you for today's reminder that Libertarians are complete fucking idiots.
R59, when you have a coherent thought, come back.
Why don't you explain how sending a train full of fuel back and forth 24 times over a 14 day period, with no change in cargo, is good for the economy.
R60: why don't you figure out what the words "socialism" and "fascism" mean to people with intact brains and get back to us.
Are you really that stupid?
Fascism is the control of privately held capital and businesses by the state.
"There is actually another, more accurate term for public-private partnerships. It’s called fascism; plain and simple. Private business may act as an administrator but the state still pulls the reigns. From a political perspective, public-private partnerships are quite ingenious. Politicians remain in control while convincing voters they believe in the efficiency of a robust private sector. And when issues arise over the performance of a service, whatever private firm granted the monopolistic privilege of delivery can be treated like a scapegoat despite having to operate within government established guidelines. The state escapes criticism as the public ignorantly clamors for more protection from those evil hearted businessmen. To the ruling establishment, public-private partnerships are “heads I win, tails you lose.”
R62, we repeat: why don't you figure out what the words "socialism" and "fascism" mean to people with intact brains and get back to us.
Loudly repeating your silly assertions doesn't make them any more true.
R62 obviously has no clue about politics, economics or, well, reality.
I know the true meaning of the word "fascism": any political state which forces its citizens to wear purple.
This Fall the world saw the United States fall headfirst into pure fascism. Purple devotees *everywhere*.
Anybody who tells you that fascism doesn't involve the color purple is lying through their teeth!
[quote]R62 obviously has no clue about politics, economics or, well, reality.
Pretty much. He's also ignorant of history. That's what happens when you let your economic and political views become your religion rather than letting your economic and political views be driven by data and reality.
He is funny, though, so that's something. Just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously or trying to have a real debate with him. Since everything he knows is faith-based rather than reality-based, he can't be convinced.
I notice that the people that disagree with the definition of Fascism don't offer their definition.
Perhaps because it is the same as at R62? "public/private" partnerships and such?
[quote]I notice that the people that disagree with the definition of Fascism don't offer their definition.
ROFL.... That was covered in another of your many threads, dear. But, hey, just to humor you:
[quote]a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Hence, your silly comment that all public-private partnerships are "fascism" remains both false and stupid.
[quote]Perhaps because it is the same as at [R62]? "public/private" partnerships and such?
Dear heart, R62 was you. Do try to keep your multiple personalities straight, won't you?
Bloomberg has said that no more than 3 days of pain meds can be dispensed. How many sick people will be in pain due to that bureaucratic bullshit?
Far too many, of course, but dear heart, spamming the site with all of your ancient threads is just going to bring the webmaster down on you again. You really should learn.
The webbie can do as he wishes.
It's not spam, it's exposing people to the truth.
No, dear, it's spamming the site. And most of what you have posted here tonight is far from "the truth." This thread is, I think, the sole exception.
If the webbie deletes, it shows that she is scared that the truth of the situation.
ROFL... No, dear, it shows that the webmaster has low tolerance for a spammer. This isn't rocket science, dear.
Oh, and there's this little additional matter that what you are doing is quite rude.
Why did the threads that showed the utter ignorance of Paul Krugman get deleted?
Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.
But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.
It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.
[quote]Why did the threads that showed the utter ignorance of Paul Krugman get deleted?
Because, dear, you spammed them. Repeatedly. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?
And why are you spamming multiple threads yet again with the above bit of drivel that you copied and pasted?
Back in 2009, the “Cash for Clunkers” federal program was supposed to be a boon for the environment and the economy. During a limited time, consumers could trade in an old gas-guzzling used car for up to $4,500 cash back towards the purchase of a fuel-efficient new car. It seemed like a win for everyone: the environment, the gasping auto industry and cash-strapped consumers.
Though almost a million people poured into car dealerships eager to exchange their old jalopies for something shiny and new, recent reports indicate the entire program may have actually hurt theenvironment far more than it helped.
According to E Magazine, the “Clunkers” program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.
According to the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the “Cash for Clunkers” cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars’ engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.
The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.
Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of “shredding residue” is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.
E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the “Clunkers” were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively “young,” with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.
And though the point was to get less fuel efficient cars off the roads, with only 690,000 traded in, and over 250 million registered in the U.S., the difference in pollutant levels seems pretty negligible.
But all that vehicular destruction did more than create unnecessary waste for the environment. It also had some far-reaching economic effects.
According to a recent TriCities op-ed from Mike Smith of Ralph Smith Motors in Virginia, CARS created a dearth of used cars, artificially driving up prices. For those who needed an affordable car, but didn’t qualify for the program, this increase in price meant affordable transportation was well out of reach. It also meant used-car dealers, most of whom are independently owned, small-business owners, had little to no stock. According to Smith, 122 Virginia dealers chose not to renew their licenses after that year.
TakePart spoke to Daniel Gray, bestselling tech author and fuel-efficiency expert about the environmental impact of the auto industry. He says that the government is making strides. Chief among them is the announcement of CAFE MPG standards this year, new regulations introduced by the current administration that mandate a minimum fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That’s double the minimum requirement as of right now.
And in the interim, Gray encourages consumers to make informed decisions. “The biggest focus going forward should be to encourage folks to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicle that fits their needs. We should also look into retrofitting older cars with the latest fuel-saving technology and encourage carbon-neutral, or possibly negative, renewable biofuels.”
Why yes, dear, they are, and rude, too, since they persist in bumping all of their old threads and spamming the forum inappropriately.
OP is our yellow Ron Paul troll who has started ten billion libertarian threads.
In San Francisco they charge for paper bags, and no plastic bags.
The number of people that are getting sick from food borne illness due to dirty "re-used" bags is skyrocketing.
I love that OP at r78 tries to pretend he is not a libertarian spamming the thread and the entire board.
She seems baffled by the entire idea of how how troll-dar works.
Facts aren't spam.
R84, not only is what you posted in R82 not a "fact," you do, in fact, spam. That's why so many of your threads get deleted and closed.
In any war there are innocent victims. In the 40-year war on drugs, the central American state of Guatemala can lay claim to being just such an innocent casualty. It has been caught in the crossfire between the nations to the south (principally Peru, Colombia and Bolivia) that produce illegal narcotics and the country to the north (America) that has the largest appetite to consume them. Guatemala does little of either.
The problem is that the drugs – principally cocaine – have to be transported from the producing countries to the US, from the south to the north. Unfortunately for Guatemala, it's in the way.
But Guatemala's location at the tip of Central America did not always present a problem. As recently as 2008 the US National Drug Intelligence Centre estimated that less than 1% of the estimated 700 tonnes of cocaine that left South America passed through Central America. But that was before the war on drugs intervened, and Guatemala was caught in the fallout.
Prior to 2008 the favoured method of transporting drugs from South America to the US was by sea (via the Caribbean or the Pacific) or by air; land-based smuggling was rare. But two things happened to radically change that, both initiatives of the "war on drugs".
First, Mexico and Colombia – partially funded by the US – stepped up surveillance of aircraft and airspace. Simultaneously the US began more vigorous co-operation with Mexico to stop drugs shipments by sea. In July 2008 the Mexican navy, apparently using US intelligence, made the rather remarkable capture of a "narco-submarine", a semi-submersible loaded with cocaine destined for the US.
The law giving AIDS infested homos free antiretrovirals, now virtually all homos have it.
Minimum wage laws always sound good coming from politicians. In reality, they drive up unemployment by pricing people out of the job market.
FF the Fuckhead
Actually, R88, that isn't true. It was conventional wisdom for many years but recent studies have shown that any effect it has is minimal, at best, assuming that we're talking about the minimum wage as it has been for the past few decades.
Now if someone were foolish enough to decide that the minimum wage should be $40/hour, well, then, yeah.