Stop Raising The Minimum Wage & Stop Whining

I frankly can't take any pity on some of these people. If you're making minimum wage and complaining about having 6 mouths to feed, maybe you should have kept your legs closed/willy in your pants and put your nose in a book instead. simply put, you put your economic ruin on yourselves, and now you want everyone else to bail you out. Everyone sits there with their hand out crying gimme gimme gimme, but who has to pay for it, oh yeah, those who did it right and made something of themselves. Makes me wonder why I bothered succeeding at all. but, thats a democrat thing. Sorry, I'm not a communist, you should get paid what you're worth, not what the bleeding hearts feel you should be paid. if full time minimum wage isn't cutting it, then get a second part time job. your choice to succeed or not.

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Remember, it guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, as in making sure you have the opportunity to TRY to be happy. It doesnt guarantee you any form of happiness whatsoever.

Yes, I noticed how Thomas Jefferson and the writers of the Constitution, would use all those weasel words.

The english version of this pronouncement had "pursuit of property" but our framers thought it was a given that people would have property. America had a lot of space. Thomas Jefferson AND his conservative counterpart of the day lobbied to try and make education go all the way to college -- even back when High School was sufficient. There idea was that an educated populace would always return a benefit.

We now have a multinational economic system, who sponges off of our infrastructure -- they certainly don't want to have to pay for our education when they can get engineers in India and China. Corporations love that we allow states to offer better deals, as they compete to charge no taxes for 5, 10, whatever years, and to throw in clean towels to get their business.

The idea of Happiness, has to do with the Commons. The Common Good is something like a road or a public park. Perhaps it will be free internet access at a slower speed for everyone. We certainly paid for the infrastructure.

>> Pretty soon, I guarantee you will discover that you have been conned. You work hard, keep your nose clean, and strive to improve yourself and YOU are sure to do well. Just wait. You will find that the big guys weren't playing by the rules. That the owners took more than they gave.

The attitude of the average American about free trade, and "competition" is based upon investments by the wealthy elite to dumb us down. Reagan economics really started the war on the middle class. They want us to argue over the $10 raise while they take the $10 billion no-bid contract and fail to provide.

Are you going to really be happy if you are poor? I think people are happy when they don't life in fear. Which means health care and the basics of life.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
I frankly can't take any pity on some of these people. If you're making minimum wage and complaining about having 6 mouths to feed, maybe you should have kept your legs closed/willy in your pants and put your nose in a book instead. simply put, you put your economic ruin on yourselves, and now you want everyone else to bail you out. Everyone sits there with their hand out crying gimme gimme gimme, but who has to pay for it, oh yeah, those who did it right and made something of themselves. Makes me wonder why I bothered succeeding at all. but, thats a democrat thing. Sorry, I'm not a communist, you should get paid what you're worth, not what the bleeding hearts feel you should be paid. if full time minimum wage isn't cutting it, then get a second part time job. your choice to succeed or not.

Who decides what "you're worth"? And is the reason you should have to get a second job because you're not "worth" a living wage? Come out and say it.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

All the research I have seen says minimum wage causes inflation and increases cost of living,

Is this something like the work that shows without a doubt that wet pavement causes rainstorms?

Tell me, who is the elite? What makes someone elite?

On your way to operating the cash machine by way of graduate school, it appears someone wasn't attending history class when the aristocracy and nobility during the colonial days were talked about. The wealthy colonialists wanted to break away from the wealthy nobles of Europe and the crown, and keep that extra tax revenue for themselves. George Washington was the richest one of all! You gotta be kidding me...you don’t know what an "elite" is?

Why are corporations so bad? What constitutes a good corporation? At what size do they become bad? I ask these questions because like all populist propaganda, your rhetoric will fail when your forced to define what your saying - which is why you will deflect when and if you respond to this.

Of course one needs a definition...define define define! Difficult to do on a subjective posting here at a thread on ATS, but I would widely define a bad one to be one that bribes politicians, creates through actions by these politicians near monopolies, uh let's see...one's who manage to gain a military contract without competition from other ones who otherwise might have to submit a bit...how about corporations who continue to maintain glass ceilings for women and minorities? Or the ones who thwart regulation and negatively impact the ecosystem? Or the ones who spend millions of dollars with union busting consultant firms and end up destroying the lives of families and other stakeholders? Or the ones who thwart labor laws and work people 38 hours and no more to avoid overtime and having to pay out benefits? Or the ones who swindle workers out of pay by having them work off the clock? All these and more would qualify for bad ones. Good ones in my opinion, might be what is commonly referred to by so called "liberal academics" as good corporate citizens (again we would have to define this)...I can think of a number of these, but will leave it up to your imagination to think about what ones these might be....

Many parties are responsible for the trillion dollar deficits, including the welfare queens you are attempting to defend.

you sure are full of angry come backs. I've never understood the contempt that many business graduate students and those in business and the right wing have for the less thans? Why does defending the lower class lead some people to completely loose all senses and fall into emotional flooding that fills up pools of discontent? Anyway, I simply ask you to look at a Federal budget pie, and compare what the US spends in military vs. what it gives single mothers in welfare and foodstamps. The later little piece of the pie is so small you need a magnifying glass to view it!

and why when Clinton was in power, one of the first thing he did was raise taxes and set out to increase your "entitlement" programs, and this lead to a booming economy and massive budget surplus. Now after tax cuts for the rich, and decreases in these "entitlement" programs we see largest deficits ever in American history? I see some flawed logic here.


In this mountain of research you find that supports your anti-populist and pro corporate fascist viewpoint, how did they define their variables? What variables were studied etc? Obviously at one level a company will increase prices after wage increase, however that does not necessarily mean that wage increases lead to price increases over all at an aggregate level they may in fact be reacting to inflation (and this is the research I had read).

Good luck on your business studies. Have you taken advanced statistics yet?
When you do, look closely at correlational research vs. cause and effect. With correlational it's impossible to determine causality isn't it?

[edit on 25-7-2008 by skyshow]

reply to post by skeptic1


You hit the nail on the head about living and minimum wages..

Living wage in America depending on region of course is around $9-12 an hour, much higher in other places (Oregon's minimum is over $7 an hour and living wage is around $13) it can very wildly, however, the objective is to keep the minimum wage as close to the living wage as possible..

Which is the case up until Bush took office, until voters finally forced him to change.

reply to post by kvaniu


no, if you are dedicated enough, there is no reason you can't swing a job bussing tables, and a full college schedule, hundred of thousands of people have done the exact same thing... it's not easy... but it's not impossible either.

as far as transportation and housing goes, there are dorms, or at some school VERY CHEAP on campus housing where you can get a few roomates and pay a little as 100/month for reant. transportation.... well generally when you go to college the first year you are required to stay in the on campus dorm. so all you would need to do is find a denny's close to your campus and work bussing tables. people have been walking since the beginning of time, there is no reason that we can't do it now... it's just that people have gotten lazy about that since the car was invented.

and to my knowledge MOST cities that have decent sized colleges also have a half war decent public transportation system. there is also always the option of hitching a ride with a co-worker who lives in the same general direction as you.

where this is a will there is a way... it's not just some kooky saying that is used in the hollywood "utopian world" movies, where everything ends happy.

if you try hard enough, you will find a way...

reply to post by Maxmars


i know this wasn't directed at me.

but i think, just like when you get a first impression on someone it's often based on how they carry themselves/dress etc...

except in this respect it's a little more in depth than that. i think you are worth what you project yourself to be worth, or what you think you are worth.

like i said earlier, i have never worked for min wage, because i always thought of myself as above that (without sound like a hugh arrogant prick.) i knew i was worth more than 5.50/hour or whatever it was then. i knew that i was above flipping burgers at McD's.

if you take the job for 6/hour, chances are that is all you think you are worth. otherwise, you would continue the search until you found something, where the pay suited your desired, or required life style.

contrary to popular to beliefe... it is EXTREMELY easy to get a job answering phones at a call center for 9-11/hour, which is not by any means going to make you rich, but if you have a two income house, where both are making about that much. you can easily live comfortably.

reply to post by SRTkid86


So more of the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" eh? I agree, if we were all resilient and shared the same genetic vulnerability status and social settings.

Have you considered the subject from the vantage point of IQ? In a regular distribution of IQ across society we see that 100 is average, and 80 and below is borderline intellectual functioning, while 120 and above gets one into graduate school where they become doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc...generally it's pretty tough for someone below 100 to enter University. Oh, I forgot to tell you that 50% of the population is below 100. So no matter how hard they pull themselves up, or how many hours they work washing dishes at Denny's, it's a very steep uphill battle, that usually ends in folly. I wish it weren't that way, but these are the facts of life.

This begs the question then, of how to treat the ones who through no fault of their own fall below the norm? What about these ones? How about the ones who aren't even employable?

I submit that not only is this an infrastructure and national issue, but a moral obligation to be sure that all human beings in our society have access to the basics necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why can't we do this? Why do we have so much trouble trying?

reply to post by skyshow


i got half-way through your posts and let me just put tell you this...

when i say college, i don't necasarily mean a 30k/semester state university... i mean you can always go to community college, or a technical school...

there are options out there... please try to look at the entire picture, instead of assuming EVERYONE with a college education comes from a well-to-do family who paid their child's way through school

my ideas and principals come from a life where, if i wanted something then i had to do something to get it. i never got anything for free in my life, besides the things my parents were legally obligated to give me.

if i wanted to go out and do something, and needed money to get out and do it, i was mowing the lawn, or cleaning the house, or washing cars. i was not allowed to ever have something just GIVEN to me, because my father was kicked out of his house at a very young age and had to make it for himself. I used to resent him for it like a lot of the whiners in here resent the gov't.... thinking it was his job to do this and that, when in reality... i was just being selfish, self-centered and whiney.

now that i have grown up, i couldn't be happier that this is how he forced me to grow up... because now i understand the value of relying on yourself and nobody else to make it in this world... I understand that nothing in this comes without a little sacrifice and hard work.


[edit on 7/25/08 by SRTkid86]

reply to post by SRTkid86


Prior to the min wage, we had children working in sweat shops, out on strike just trying to get a 50 hour work week. We had women working in hot sweaty factories 7 days a week for 16 hour days and making less than $5 a week.

Minimum wage laws, though still not high enough, have helped us move away from that slave like situation we saw.

...when you look at that IQ spread, 100 and below is hard for anyone above H.S. university or community college. If this individual ends up in a minimum wage position, I'm saying we don't have the right to abuse their basic human rights, and that they deserve a fair wage for their labor. Unfortunately history has shown us that without legislation, business doesn't rise to occasion on their own.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Maxmars

 

i know this wasn't directed at me.

but i think, just like when you get a first impression on someone it's often based on how they carry themselves/dress etc...

except in this respect it's a little more in depth than that. i think you are worth what you project yourself to be worth, or what you think you are worth.

like i said earlier, i have never worked for min wage, because i always thought of myself as above that (without sound like a hugh arrogant prick.) i knew i was worth more than 5.50/hour or whatever it was then. i knew that i was above flipping burgers at McD's.

if you take the job for 6/hour, chances are that is all you think you are worth. otherwise, you would continue the search until you found something, where the pay suited your desired, or required life style.

contrary to popular to beliefe... it is EXTREMELY easy to get a job answering phones at a call center for 9-11/hour, which is not by any means going to make you rich, but if you have a two income house, where both are making about that much. you can easily live comfortably.

I understand what your saying and agree there are positions available that pay above the minimum at most any time in certain markets. But, having been managerial in a number of these enterprises, both small and large, I noticed an entrenched resistance to the idea of considering employees in terms of career growth, or increased income for the employee (with precious few - and sometimes truly disturbing - exceptions).

Not all of us a smart enough or possessed of the internal drive to 'push' our circumstances at every turn, and leap through every hoop dangled in front of us. This is especially true for those who have tried and failed - regardless of the circumstances of failure. But, as you say, I wasn't really focusing the gist of my comment towards anything you have posted.

This is a world where the MBA mentality morons who feel that the spreadsheet is the heart and soul of business, and driven by it, they will fire someone 6 months before retirement, or lay off people and rehire them later for less pay. Where a human being is considered an expense and not a person who deserves the same dignity and respect they would demand for themselves. It is easy to tell a poor person that all men are equal, try telling that to a rich person and you will find a giant disconnect, especially as he is contemplating a lesser person.

If you haven't spent time hobnobbing with the elite, as I have, I urge you to seek the opportunity. I have discovered, generally speaking, that they are in no way exemplary models of the perfection of meritocracy. In fact, and to reuse a tired phrase that I happen to enjoy, most of them 'were born on third base, and are arrogant enough to think that means they hit a triple!'

reply to post by skyshow


my point is, do you honestly think that it is fair to make 12/hour to flip friggen burgers?

that job to me isn't worth more than 5-6/hour it take no skills, no special abilities... a freakin monkey could do the job for free, if it had the right trainer.

what im saying is that to say that they need to be paid fair so lets raise min wage to 12/hour (not saying that is what you said, but from the looks of it that is the "living wage") is unfair to the people that have jobs that require some skill, who are right now making less than that.

what is so hard to understand that bussing tables, scrubbing toilets, and flipping burgers IS NOT A JOB THAT IS WORTH A LOT OF MONEY. therefore it is perecetly fair to be paid 6/hour to do those jobs. because you don't have to posses anything special to make that amount of money.


if you work as a chasiher at McD's, you are not worth 10/hour... because if you were, you would be making that amount.

im actually growing very weary of these tires ass arguments. you get paid what your job is worth, if you picks a crap job, you are going to get paid crap. plain and simple. want to make more money, sack up, and do what you gotta do to get paid. because As far as im concerned, whining about it is not going to help your case any, getting out there and looking for a job that pays 9-11/hour RGHT NOW is not that hard... ever heard of a staffing company? most will have you ass working within a week of you going into their office and answering a few questions. and most will hook you up with a temp to hire job that will make you enough money to take care of yourself.

if you lack to brains, or ability to do something as simple as that, you are a drain on society. survival of the fittest... if you are strong enough to survive you will. if you aren't then you will die out, and the strong in the world will live on.

call me an elitist.. but it's hard to be an elitist when you are yourself in the working poor class.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The more I read on, the more I see a fundamental issue being skirted and unexplored. I am as entitled to an opinion here, although some might rate it less worthy than others. I make that comment because it is nearly self-evident that some here are inclined to judge the ‘worth’ of their fellow man, something which I am not inclined to do.

I was amazed as I read this post. You first told us you would not judge the worth of someone, then absolutely railed about how wrong it was for anyone to be "obscenely rich," and then to further the irony your supporting the minimum wage. You are judging the worth of someone to be exactly $X.XX an hour, where X is the current minimum wage.

It is those against the minimum wage and class warfare that have the moral high ground here: we have said to judge no one based on what they earn or what they make, but let the markets decide their worth.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by Maxmars


i like that last line, im going to have to make mental note of that.

appreciate your comments. they are level headed, and carry a lot of sense and knowledge.

as i will always believe though, if you are strong enough to survive you will, not matter the circumstances or obsticles in your way.

i am not against taking care of people who are physically or mentally not capable or taking care of themselves. but if you aren't paralyzed in a wheelchair or severly MHMR (mentally handicapped, meantally retarded) you better get your butt out there and work, and just be happy that you make 6/hour, because there are places out there in the world where they won't make that in a week of 20 hour days.

we have it so much better than the rest of the world, yet we complain so damn much...

reply to post by Maxmars


It is well known among constitutional scholars that the founding fathers were imbued with a sense of prohibitive, and not positive, rights. They were interested in framing a government where the government would not stop you from your right to life, not provide you with a standard of living you want. They thought it so obvious they didn't feel the need to elaborate on it, but its easy to find out when you look at the research on it and their writings about it.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


This is true, can't argue. The only reason the minimum wage was established was because of slave wages that where being paid..

I suppose we could revoke the minimum wage..

We could also revoke all standardized working conditions since that is also mandated by the government. Let's recall government over sight on food and imports as well, since it was not stated in the constitution that the government should inspect the garbage from China.

Originally posted by skyshow
Is this something like the work that shows without a doubt that wet pavement causes rainstorms?

Just as I thought, you have no evidence. You know your wrong, and the overwhelming evidence suggests that the minimum wage is bad for everyone.

On your way to operating the cash machine by way of graduate school, it appears someone wasn't attending history class when the aristocracy and nobility during the colonial days were talked about. The wealthy colonialists wanted to break away from the wealthy nobles of Europe and the crown, and keep that extra tax revenue for themselves. George Washington was the richest one of all! You gotta be kidding me...you don’t know what an "elite" is?

On your way to your propaganda classes to become versed in class warfare, it appears you forgot that you shouldn't try to pass off your rhetoric on anyone who has done their research. Answer the question - who is the elite today? This is the problem with populist political propagandists like yourself - you know if you are forced to define the "elites" to which you have attributed all manner of evil, that your propaganda system falls down. Again, what defines who is elite? Who is an elite today? Why are they bad?

Of course one needs a definition...define define define! Difficult to do on a subjective posting here at a thread on ATS, but I would widely define a bad one to be one that bribes politicians, creates through actions by these politicians near monopolies, uh let's see...one's who manage to gain a military contract without competition from other ones who otherwise might have to submit a bit...*Rant continued

Yes that is all lovely but you failed to answer the question. Your little rant isn't based in fact, its based in populist fiction. Answer the question, using facts: what makes corporations evil?

you sure are full of angry come backs. I've never understood the contempt that many business graduate students and those in business and the right wing have for the less thans?

This is probably because you haven't the faintest idea what your talking about, which would be why you don't comprehend. I am not a business graduate student. But you sure are full of anger for those business graduate students! Hold grudges much?

Why does defending the lower class lead some people to completely loose all senses and fall into emotional flooding that fills up pools of discontent?

Its funny, because by supporting the minimum wage you are hurting the poor. You are advocating for a public policy that hurts the poor and everyone else right along with them. I am advocating for the well being of the poor by going against a policy that artificially suppresses their wages.

Anyway, I simply ask you to look at a Federal budget pie, and compare what the US spends in military vs. what it gives single mothers in welfare and foodstamps. The later little piece of the pie is so small you need a magnifying glass to view it!

This is such a classical populist propaganda technique that I pointed out previously that you were going to do this. Its smoke and mirrors. When you look at the budget pie for all levels of government, which you must because federal mandates have pushed entitlements on lower levels of government either through programmatic spending or entitlement infrastructure upkeep, the government spends far more on entitlements than the military. Nice try though.

and why when Clinton was in power, one of the first thing he did was raise taxes and set out to increase your "entitlement" programs, and this lead to a booming economy and massive budget surplus. Now after tax cuts for the rich, and decreases in these "entitlement" programs we see largest deficits ever in American history? I see some flawed logic here.

I see flawed logic here too. This is a prime example of intentionally trying to link correlation with causation. The president - any president - has little direct control over the economy, and any control he does have is lagged. So, what little impact Clinton did have on the economy we are now seeing (that worked out well) and the impact of his predecessors impacted his years in office.

And that is why you should do your research. Then you would know that President's have little impact on the economy and any impact they do have is lagged, and you wouldn't go around praising Republican Presidents due to ignorance.

In this mountain of research you find that supports your anti-populist and pro corporate fascist viewpoint, how did they define their variables? What variables were studied etc? Obviously at one level a company will increase prices after wage increase, however that does not necessarily mean that wage increases lead to price increases over all at an aggregate level they may in fact be reacting to inflation (and this is the research I had read).

Ah, more populist propaganda - but alas, just more smoke and mirrors - my viewpoint is libertarian, and has nothing to do with fascism. You just keep revealing what a left-wing political ideologue you are the more you keep this up. What study would you like to start with? The one that shows minimum wage increases inflation? The one that shows that minimum wage decreases job numbers? The one that shows minimum wage suppresses wages for lower income earners? The one that says minimum wage should be phased out after a economy matures? Let me know where you'd like to start. And by the way, for every one I have to explain to you, your going to be explaining your "minimum wage is good" peer reviewed quantitative research.

The statistics don't lie. When you put in price increases as a dependent variable in a regression and control for inflation and the minimum wage increase as independent variables, and the minimum wage variable shows up as statistically significant and positive above inflation, the evidence is clear. But of course, that won't stop you from obfuscating.

Good luck on your business studies. Have you taken advanced statistics yet?
When you do, look closely at correlational research vs. cause and effect. With correlational it's impossible to determine causality isn't it?

Pity I'm not in business studies. Also, you show a very elementary knowledge of statistics - correlations versus causality are undergraduate statistics I'm afraid. In fact you just intentionally confused the concepts in your own post above. You should really not do that and then try to act like you know what your doing in statistics.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by Rockpuck


Sounds good to me! Lets do it! Then we could get rid of all these unions causing inflated prices, and companies could regulate themselves!

In any case, two rights don't make a wrong. It doesn't matter if the government had previously ignored facts. You don't keep doing it.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Maxmars

 

i know this wasn't directed at me.

but i think, just like when you get a first impression on someone it's often based on how they carry themselves/dress etc...

except in this respect it's a little more in depth than that. i think you are worth what you project yourself to be worth, or what you think you are worth.

like i said earlier, i have never worked for min wage, because i always thought of myself as above that (without sound like a hugh arrogant prick.) i knew i was worth more than 5.50/hour or whatever it was then. i knew that i was above flipping burgers at McD's.

....

Now where did you get the idea that you were worth ANYTHING? Perhaps from your parents and society?

I know this new age idea like "The Secret" is in vogue -- but how does someone without an education in an Alabama community, with perhaps only one industry that locks in the county around, become "worth more."

The fact is that we have twice as many people in this country as we had 40 years ago. Housing is more expensive relative to the "minimum wage" and I'm very glad some people picked up on my use of the "Living Wage." As that was the promise of the New Deal.

It is really great we have all these hard-working Mavericks. But there is less upward mobility in America than in Europe (40% chance vs.60% chance) and in Socialist Netherlands, it's around 85%. Your achievement after college has more to do with your parents Socioeconomic situation than with your level of education or grades -- that is the current fact of life now, I wish I remembered where that study came from, I just remember it was a good source, anywho, I have no intention of making things up -- believe me or don't.

But it really pisses me off that people still believe the garbage that their is some free market for labor that is setting the value of work. There isn't. If there is ANY unemployment, the person at the bottom will work for whatever allows them not to starve --- that is no way to create a Democracy.

In a Democracy, people need to be educated and have access to information to vote. In order to do that, they need some amount of leisure. Anyway, I really don't want families out of a Dickens novel that toil their whole lives and share a can of beans and family time once at Christmas. I don't want to have to hire an armed guard to protect my stuff -- because everyone else is so desperate.

Nobody is going around questioning CEO's wether they actually EARNED $1.2 Million a year when all they did was cut benefits. Maybe they should.

If the Free Market set wages, then there would be more people competing for the job and the prices would go lower. I'm sure I could be happy making a mere $300,000 right now at Ford Motor and losing money for them just as well. But you can't become a CEO unless you work your way into the club. Sorry.

Hang out at a large, bureaucratic company and see if it is about meritocracy. At a small start-up, sure, but at a large company, it's all politics.

There is no Business in America without rules and the Commons. Business will adapt to rules we the people set. So if we set the rule that a LIVING WAGE must be adopted based upon productivity and cost of living in a City -- then that will be the cost of business and they will adapt or another Business can take their market share. Businesses are not there to make your life better or to maximize efficiency -- the maximize profits which is a different thing, and eliminate competition when possible. If WE do not force our government to protect our interests -- well, we will get the economy we now have, now won't we?

Inflation is at 12% for CPI and Unemployment is about 11% or more if you count people not making a living wage. You can always move wages lower with unemployment pressure.

reply to post by SRTkid86


Just so you know, there is no research that correlates IQ with minimum wage, nor does it show that those with a lower IQ somehow can't make it through college. In fact, college has become so easy its the new high school. The person your responding to is doing..to put it nicely "original research" with no basis in the literature.

In fact, the literature says quite the opposite:

Self-discipline measured in the fall accounted for more than twice as much variance as IQ in final grades, high school selection, school attendance, hours spent doing homework, hours spent watching television (inversely), and the time of day students began their homework.

Source: Duckworth, A.L., & Seligman, M.E. 2005. Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of Adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12): 939-944.

IQ has some impact on performance - but far more important is self-discipline. It is quite possible to go to college with a low IQ. What the populists in this thread are attempting to do is blame the poor performance of people on things beyond their control, even though the research says the magnitude of importance of things beyond the control of the individual is very small compared to things within their control.

In fact, so far I have yet to see the populists in this thread correctly cite any statistical fact. I have seen lots of "it is fact that.." concerning minimum wage, cost of living, etc. from the populists. They have provided no sources, and from what I have read from actual research they have so far not correctly cited a single thing. Ignorance or intentional deflection?

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]