HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:29:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul24.120629.20856@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>>>unemployment (state it your preferred way).
>
>>That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
>>who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
>>jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
>>situation.
>
>	It has no such effect.  It merely eliminates all jobs paying 
>below the floor, with no change for the workers already getting the 
>minimum or better.
>
>	It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
>for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
>cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.
>
>Jim Del Vecchio

Frankly, minimum wages have no effect on productive employement in
profitable enterprises.

Burger Phlehm, the most profitable enterprise on the face of the earth,
shifts the burden to their retail price structure.

Mom and Pop Grocery was hiring a junior high kid under the local work
experience program, and is not effected.

Bedrock Farms is exempt anyway.

Aunt and Uncle Grocery chain has 22 employees per store, 2 of which fall
under this rule change. Because of this rule change they let one go, and
raise the others wages to meet the rule.

The one layed off promptly walks across the street to Burger Phlehm, who
always has a help wanted sign in the window, and goes to work at the new
rate determined by this new rule.

When is the last time you saw a Burger Phlehm without a Help Wanted
sign in the window?


-- 
Jim Budler

also jimb@silvlis.com and 72415.1200@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.030642.2775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
}...
}My question of the "pro-choice" crowd... what makes you think that the
}Supreme Court COULD take away your choice? I keep hearing that you folks are
}in the majority. If so, you don't need the supreme court to protect you -
}use the legislatures... so, which is it... is this a bogus issue, or are
}you afraid that the majority of the people really don't agree with you?

Who is the "you"?  I don't have a problem, since I'm not going to be getting
pregnant (wrong sex).  Is it proper for me to be concerned about women?
My wife doesn't have a problem, since we live in Hawaii, which isn't about
to get anti-abortion laws.  May we properly be concerned about people who
live in Utah?  Can you conceive of a situation in which there is a
pro-choice majority in the U.S. but not in all states?  Can you conceive
of there being a pro-choice majority in both houses of congress, yet
not enough votes to pass into law a freedom of choice act?

Come on now.  Think it through.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:59:42 GMT

In article <veal.114@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.214214.29127@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>>
>>>It remains to be
>>>seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>>platform above work.
>
>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?
>
>     I have seen people jump through the most amazing hoops in order to 
>justify opposing waiting periods on abortions, but not on guns.

	And I have seen people jump through the most amazing hoops in
order to justify waiting periods for guns, and then vehemently oppose
them for abortions. 

	What else is new? 

>===========================================================================
>|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
>|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
>| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
>===========================================================================


===============================================================================
The typical pro-choicer: 

1) Opposes war because it is killing. 
2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill. 
3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings. 
4) Wants to save the dolphins. 
5) And the whales. 
6) And the eagles' eggs. 
7) All because it is killing. 
8) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:510 talk.politics.misc:35610
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Peter Nelson Makes Sense Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:05:37 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu


I've been waiting to see someone put a short but through treatise
on how world economies have changed and their effects on each other.

Way to Peter,

Hope to read some more good stuff from you.

So far you are one of the few who has posted something intelligent.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.213138.17048@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>]pregnant (wrong sex).  Is it proper for me to be concerned about women?
>]My wife doesn't have a problem, since we live in Hawaii, which isn't about
>]to get anti-abortion laws.  May we properly be concerned about people who
>My point exactly.
>]live in Utah?  Can you conceive of a situation in which there is a

>Why should you. Let the folks in Utah make up their own minds. THis is the
>beauty of a republic made up of sovereign states.
>]pro-choice majority in the U.S. but not in all states?  Can you conceive
>]of there being a pro-choice majority in both houses of congress, yet
>]not enough votes to pass into law a freedom of choice act?
>Who cares if there is a freedom of choice act?

Yes why not let the people of Utah make up their own minds. As you say
that is the advantage of a Republic.

In fact why not go one step further. Why not let each woman make up her
own mind? That is the advantage of a Constitution that limits the powers
of government? Or do you ingore the warning of de Toqueville about the
tryanny of the majority?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.164622.14970@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
#Keywords: 
#
#In article <1992Jul24.153320.8026@aero.org# foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
#]#Who cares if there is a freedom of choice act?
#]
#]Yes why not let the people of Utah make up their own minds. As you say
#]that is the advantage of a Republic.
#]
#]In fact why not go one step further. Why not let each woman make up her
#]own mind? That is the advantage of a Constitution that limits the powers
#]of government? Or do you ingore the warning of de Toqueville about the
#]tryanny of the majority?
#
#I should point out that the issue is not that simple. As I have said before,
#the only serious issue here is when the right of the fetus to life exceeds
#the right of the woman to her own medical decisions. The purpose of the
#government is to protect the civil rights of people, and as soon as
#the fetus is a "person", that fetus needs its right to life protected.
#Any discussion of "the woman's choice" that ignores this issue is
#specious. Now, while I hold to the view I just espoused, that doesn't
#mean that I believe the fetus becomes a person at any particular
#point. It is simply to point out that the issue of rights has
#two sides - the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus.
#As soon as you accept that at some age (or developmental stage), the fetus
#has rights, then you must also accept not only the ability, but the NECESSITY
#of government protection of those rights.
#
#
#-- 
#John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)


You are right. The goverment is in the business of balancing rights between
persons. 

My review of the Contitution of the United States does not find any place
where it defines a fetus of any stage of development as a person. The word
person, and its more or less its equivalent people is used many times. Every
time it is used, it is in a context that would imply that being born is a
major criteria of being a person.

Given that very strong implication I suggest that the way to deal with what
is a person is to pass a Constituional Amemdment defining person.

You might also consider including the idea that Corporations are persons in 
your amendment. It would seem that the activist Supreme Court in the 19th 
century gave them many of the rights without some of the responsiblities 
of persons.

Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer






Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.173058.4605@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.051939.726@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the case.  Now, for the first time,
>>the top 1% have more than the bottom 90% (NPR earlier this evening).
>>Now, if we also buy that the top 1 % have 90% of everything, that says
>>that the bottom 90% must also have something close to 90% of
>>everything (since the two groups just crossed over each other).  Well,
>>that's 180% of everything accounted for already, and we still have 9%
>>of the population which has higher income than that bottom 90% that we
>>haven't accounted for.
>>
>>The numbers just don't seem to jibe.  I think someone misheard the
>>statement I heard on NPR earlier today.
>>
> 
>   I think you have some very basic logic and math to learn. 
>

Or you do.  Care to come up with a scenario that satisfies both of
those statements (for the first time the top 1% has more than the
bottom 90% and the top 1% have 90% of everything) that doesn't require
the wealthy to have at least doubled their holdings since last year?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.100537.146@lrc.edu> david@lrc.edu writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it went something like this:
>Mr. Bush chooses someone to be on the Court and Congress votes on this person.

OK.  You're wrong.  Pres chooses, the Senate votes.  If they vote the
candidate down, Pres submits another one (who has learned which
questions will be asked, and has prepared answers).  If the Senate
rejects too many candidates, people get impatient and the Senate
eventually gives up.

BTW, the Administration's line is that the Senate can vote, but the
vote is non-binding.  In this case the Pres would be totally
responsible.

>If this is true it seems to me that Congress is the one that elects 
>who gets on the Court.  It seems to me that people think that change 
>comes from the President, but I think that change needs to come from
>Congress.  I think that every Congress person is glad that
>Bush/Clinton are getting all the media and not them.  I have yet to
>hear anything about Congress.  Lets get Congress to balance the
>budget!!! After all it is Congress' job to do that!!!!  

Wrong again.  It's nobody's job to balance the budget.  If we had a
law or amendment to that effect, then the Pres would SUBMIT a balanced
budget, Congress would reshuffle it, still balanced, and things would
go on their merry way.  So it would be the government's job, not
Congress' job.
-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.conspiracy
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:39:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <Brv573.2q6@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>
>>So, Mr. Novak, why should someone not have to wait for an
>>abortion (not a right enumerated in the Constitution), but
>>have to wait to exercise the right to keep and bear arms
>>(enumerated in the Second Amendment)?

>Because they're not a well-regulated militia. 

>While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
>establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...

>                                                               - Kevin

Re-read the Second Amendment, sir.  I submit to you that the introductory 
clause that you refer to, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
security of a free state,"  is NOT the restrive clause that you seem to 
think that it is.  It gives ONE reason for the RKBA, but does not limit the 
RKBA to the militia, it protects it for the entire people.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:628 talk.politics.misc:35763 sci.econ:6521
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:06:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Jul24.120629.20856
Organization: Western Washington University

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>>unemployment (state it your preferred way).

>That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
>who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
>jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
>situation.

	It has no such effect.  It merely eliminates all jobs paying 
below the floor, with no change for the workers already getting the 
minimum or better.

	It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:575 talk.politics.guns:17853 talk.abortion:28656
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:20:05 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>
>>Waiting periods for credit card purchases can help stop those with
>>bad credit.
>
>We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.

Guns don't kill people.  PEOPLE kill people.  A gun is a tool.
>
>>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.
>
>>You mean like a woman who has received death threats?
>
>Someone that doesn't own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon
>turned AGAINST her, no?  ...Since you seem to mention a threatened woman as
>if she were the totally helpless type.

Many women have been killed by men using no more than edged weapons,
rope, and male brute strength.  You've been duped by all that HCI
drivel about "how you're 43 million times more likely to shoot someone
you know than a burglar".  That's bullshit.
>
>>>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>>>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>
>>The use of the term "control freak" is amusing in this context.
>
>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone. 

It could also be used to save someone's life.  Guns are used in the country
to thwart 1,000,000 crimes per annum according to independent researcher
Gary Kleck.

>A waiting period for a woman
>desiring an abortion simply makes it hard for, say, a poor woman travelling
>from afar to even AFFORD an abortion.  I don't see the connection.

Maybe you should look harder.

>I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
>liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
>who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."

Good thing the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

   "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.153111.12236@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> (Lynn Gold) writes:
>>> If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>>> have a safe and legal abortion.  
>
><1992Jul21.222917.14944@nevada.edu> (TIM TIERNEY) writes:
>> On the matter of "a womans right" or "a mans right" to anything, the
  ...stuff deleted...
>This is all well and good, but if you check, you will notice that
>our government no longer operates under "the original constitution".
>It operates under an amended constitution.  The important amendment
>here is the 14th which added new restrictions to the powers of the
>several states.  It is in this 14th amendment that the Courts
>have rooted the right to privacy/abortion.
>
>There are good legal arguments against the existence of a constitutional
>right to abortion, but I don't think yours is one of them.

 Your points are well taken.  We do live under the "amended" constitution.
 My arguments were really that government has gotten quite a distance away
 from the original constitution and the framers idea of what the national
 government should be.  In the un-amended constitution, IMHO, I believe
 my stance would be correct.

 I would also like to clarify one thing, which I believe is *important*.
 I was not trying to provide a legal argument against a constitutional
 right to an abortion, and I tried to make that clear.  I used that
 particular issue only because of the original poster's use of it.  I was
 trying to make a case *in general* about the powers of government.  I
 do not believe that the individual issue should necessarily be discussed
 in this newsgroup.

 Thanks for the feedback.

Tim Tierney
tierney@nevada.edu



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:679 talk.politics.misc:35831 sci.econ:6524
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:10:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>>>unemployment (state it your preferred way).
>
>>That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
>>who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
>>jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
>>situation.
>
>It has no such effect.  It merely eliminates all jobs paying 
>below the floor, with no change for the workers already getting the 
>minimum or better.

What?  As if you want to promote the creation of sub-minimum wage jobs
in the economy, when you can't live on minimum anyway?  Sorry, but I
can't support the "jobs at any wage" position.  I can't name a
developed democracy that doesn't have some sort of wage regulations
at the low end.

Further, wage inflation always used to be one of the big arguments
against the minimum wage, but I see that you're denying this effect.

I wouldn't necessarily make this argument, but one could try to argue
that minimum wages are another way to encourage businesses to increase
per worker productivity.

>It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
>for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
>cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.

Oh, please.  When has there ever been such a dramatic rise in the
minimum wage?  [Answer: never, and it's obvious why not.]  But this
does bring back the other point about what happens you raise the
minimum wage: the company has a choice.  It can swallow the added
cost, find some way to increase productivity to cover the cost,
increase prices, or lay people off.  In the mean time, the workers
who actually *got* a raise have more money to spend.

>Jim Del Vecchio

jking
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns