> 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.