Robert Bunn wrote:
> Please pardon the self-response, but I had to share this:
>
> D. Mark Wilson, "Raising the Minimum Wage: Rhetoric v. Reality"
>
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/EM590.cfm
> D. Mark Wilson argues against an increase in the minimum wage in this
> April 23, 1999 Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum. He argues that
> a higher minimum wage would:
>
> a.. not have a direct effect on poverty,
>
> b.. make it more difficult to move people from welfare to work,
>
> c.. reduce the amount of job training received by workers,
>
> d.. raise teenage unemployment rates, and
>
> e.. encourage teenagers to drop out of school.
> That ought to make it a great bipartisan effort. The Democrats want
> everybody on welfare, the Republicans want everyone who isn't on welfare
> to be a poorly trained drone, and they both want the average American to
> be too poorly educated to realize that the Two Parties are symbiotes to
> each other and parasites to the people.
Thanx for thotful posts anyway. But if what we are really most concerned
about is the welfare of children of working moms, then we need to
abandon the nuclear family model, which for them, is down to mom & kid,
no dad. We need to appraise women of the risk they face that the dads're
not going to be there to help support the kids.
But both they and we know that their biological clocks are running, and
that we will need the workers they mite bear to support the retirement
of the next generations. Given global competition, it better be more
*competent* workers than the women now receive at the hands of stud muffins.
Related to this are a few new genera of women's literature besides the
classic 'romance' novels. There's now the revenge tales where she gets
back at him after being dumped for a trophy bimbo. There's the college
girls that get their advanced degrees, and then set out to find the
perfect... job. And then the professional women, who in their 30's see
the window of family life shutting, and when they look around at the
successful men they mite consider as mates... he's already married to an
airhead bimbo. And following that, the thankless tasks of trying to
raise the stepchildren a successful mate mite already have, draining the
energy she'd like to devote to having her own kids. Which are the ones
we need in the gene pool.
Moreover, monogamy has proved a disaster since birth control came in.
Many honorable faithful husbands had wives who bore them no sons, and
are now out of the gene pool, while the philanderers have left bastards
to be raised on welfare all over the county.
All these problems can be mitigated by persuading women to move into
communal households with each other. This so reduces the cost of living
that low minimum wages are not nearly the problem, and far less likely
to result in their jobs being shipped to Mexico.
They need to begin pre-natal health care *before* conception; use DNA to
identify the risks of cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia,
schizophrenia, etc... and then examine the markers in Y chromosome lines
to avoid genetic problems and increase the likelihood of conceiving kids
that are talented, charismatic, sociable, and who will at maturity, be a
blessing, not a burden, to their moms.
Who the women have recreational sex with is their business. but if you
want the future of your own kids to be spent productively, rather than
doing case work for what airheads are putting out now, we need to find
ways of offering such women, who do in fact have perfectly adequate
mothering instincts, children who will do right by them.
Communal living provides live-in childcare so that the moms can accept
jobs that pay less. then we can let the free market work its will, and
not see jobs outsourced and downsized... which we know will happen if
the minimum wage is increased.
