southsider2k5

They can at anytime until the jury gets the case.

It discredits him. Now whether he is telling the truth or not, the fact that he is a liar is hanging over him.

Throw the problems with the Air Force Academy in there, and you almost wonder if the thin air is taking too much oxygen out of peoples brains up there...

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 11:43 AM) Don't make me... Please don't make him

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 11:32 AM) And if you don't know better... Steff will give you the and make ya Just refer to Steff's new sig, and everything will be OK.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) Oh, you work for the Tribune Co?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 10:47 AM) Actually the historical record shows that the 1991 Gulf War was started by Kuwaiti companies slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and depressing the price of oil by overproducing over the OPEC quotas. This made it impossible to get out from the Iraq-Iran war debt. Not saying it justifies the invasion -- but there was a reason he did what he did. Not to mention that April Glaspie (US ambassador to Iraq) told Hussein that the US (via Baker's command) had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" like the Kuwait border dispute, and Hussein understood this to mean US non-involvement should Iraq pursue military resolution of conflict. (This was stated in the summer of 1990 -- 5 days before the invasion, FYI) And much of the case for the Iraq war (part 1 in 1990-1991) was debunked BS. Take, for example, the claims that Iraqi armies were throwing babies out of incubators. It was found out that the Kuwaitis had purchased a PR firm to promote these claims -- yet they did not have one iota of evidence to back them up: http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html So if I say I have no opinion on KipWellsFan, I am giving you permission to kick his ass? Just because someone wants to stay out of a problem, that doesn't mean they would sit by when someone attacks them. To me that means fix the problems yourselfs, not start a war. And I always thought the reason for Iraq war one was because Iraq invaded Kuwait. The rest of that stuff was secondary.

Ew.

Where the heck am I going to get specific figures for where a businesses break even point is? I have no idea who would fail, or how many would fail. Do you? I think you just answered #5 with the question you asked before that. Is it worth keeping 2 people working at $4 an hour or one at $7.25 or $6.15 (depending on which plan you like) You just kinda answered that except on a biggest scale with the 1 @80k vs 4 @20k. As for the full time job part. I do believe if a person is going to work a 40 hour job, they deserve to earn a living wage. If someone wants to make less, there is nothing that makes them HAVE to work 40 hours in a week. If you are looking at a 2nd income job, it would fall under that part time category, as I can't see someone working 80 hours in a week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137552/

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 09:51 AM) lmao...read 'eruption' a different way when first saw thread. opened it up and then noticed it said 'eruption'... I think Dubya the pimp has affected your thinking

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 09:19 AM) what they both did was hardly pitching. Garland made one mistake over 4 innings, the two run homer to Helton. Guillen raved about his effort.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050309/D88N77M80.html

No surprise there. Take it easy big fella. There is no need to miss more time by reinjuring something.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 09:35 AM) theres a good episode of monk? that dude has to have at least half these phobias... I was thinking the samething

He's crazy man, He'll do it!

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 09:14 AM) Due diligence is a pain in the ass... Just ask Dynegy

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 09:13 AM) You beat me to it

This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 08:10 AM) #1 was referring to companies, not individuals. It is big business enticing industry to relocate. Right now the fight is tax abatements, infrastructure, free land, etc. I'm not certain that throwing minimum wage in there helps the vast majority of the country. Big business moves to Mexico and other dots on the globe for lower wages, when small and medium size companies can move four states away, that may not help the workers. Overall, I do think there should be regional adjustments to minimum wage. #2 Good point, there needs to be some protection on the extremes. Maybe a min/max system each week. Perhaps a 30/50, or any week over 55 hours is OT. We are starting to make this complicated, but isn't that was Congress does best? #4 I'm not sold on a net loss of jobs. I don't see too many businesses hiring extra people to stand around. That went out in the 1970s. Most companies are "lean". And I'm still trying to resolve the "we lost some workers at $4.50 per hour" argument. No matter where we draw the line, the argument can be made that people lost jobs. Would a market driven, no minimum wage situation be best for job creation? At $2.57 per hour, businesses would, in theory, have twice as many available jobs for the same payroll*. *numbers not adjusted to reflect employer match on FICA, SS, payroll expenses, etc. :rolly #1 Happens on the corporate level all of the time as well. Why do you think when companies like Toyota and Honda when they were looking to build factories in the US they built in places like Tennessee and Alabama and not New York or California? They looked at labor costs. I don't think that would change either. Companies would still look for the best combination of skills and wages. Actually I think it could make it easier for companies because they would need to do less research on what the prevailing wages in an area are, instead they could just jump online and look it up. #4 I think if business were lean, it would make it even harder for them to stay open if they had a 20-25% increase in costs. There is less margin for error and cost increase. If they had fat to trim it would make it easier to adjust to something like this. I think it would make job losses more likely as more companies would just fold vs just laying off people.

GET OVER YOURSELF!

Wow, I was really convinced that if they went 12 men, they would add Adkins in and just keep the 5 righties. This could make things interesting.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:05 PM) So how does the state tournament in IN work now that they have those stupid classes? It used to be sectionals, then a 4 team regional, a 4 team semi-state and then the Final Four. What's the current slate? I can't remember what the semi-state looks like, as I haven't been to one since the reorganization disaster, but state finals is just the 4 classes finals games. I have taken in one of those since the class system, and while still lots of fun... It was no where near what it used to be. I saw the 1995 games with Valpo, SB Clay, New Albany, and an Indy team I can't remember. There were 35,000 people in the dome and it was crazy. Then I saw a few years back with Marion and Bloomington South when Zack Randolph's team played Jared Jeffries and Sean May's team for the title, and while the 4A game was loud, the 1A and 2A games were half full and a joke.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 07:38 AM) southsider, just a couple of thoughts to see what you think. 1. I agree, local control would make sense for retail, and most service industries. And allow for cost of living in Manhattan, NY vs. Stickney issues. However, manufacturers who need to compete on a regional or global basis would have problems. The Economic Development groups in towns with lower min wages would be poaching employers from higher min wage areas. Leave Indiana, enjoy the lower minimum wages in Texas. 2. One thing I liked about the GOP initiative is allowing a 2 week window for overtime. This reflects better what many workers prefer, and how most small businesses operate. Hey we are really busy this week, would you mind a 4 day weekend next week in exchange for working this weekend? Most guys jump at it. 3. I also would like to see some relaxation of overtime laws. Interesting that most salaried workers are putting in 50 and 60 hour weeks to make up for smaller staffs and greater responsibilities, but the guys working on an hourly basis are nailing the OT. I'd like to see more hours exempted from OT rules. If you are working a min or near min job, you should want to work more hours and better your condition. 4. Your comment about businesses that are barely breaking even opens up an interesting argument. There are some businesses that could survive if the minimum wage was $4.00. They failed at $5.15. No matter where we draw the line businesses may fail. However, I would counter, on a even playing field, if you and I are competitors and we both have to pay our employees the same minimum wage, may the best man win. I do not see an entire business segment failing. #1 happens everyday all over the country and the world. Heck I am doing it right now. I couldn't find a job in my home town making more than $8 an hour probably. Right now I am making about 50% more than that by commuting an hour and a half on a train to Chicago. I don't think that would change much at all. People want to work where the wages are high and live where the rents are low. I don't know that it would change that much, because usually wage differentials aren't that drastic between communities that are close to each other. #2 I see happen everyday. I actually don't like it as much as a rule, because personally I would rather have the overtime, and the company shouldn't be able to work me 72 hours one week, to work me 8 the next. If I want to do it, that is one thing, but I should retain my freedom to collect overtime. Honestly I don't even believe OT should be on an 40 hour week, but on an 8 hour day, unless there is a contract that has been negotiated to change that for industries that do 4 ten hour days or needs 12/24 hour shifts. #4 I don't think an entire industry would fail. But would the net loss of jobs cancel out the increase in wages for the people who keep their jobs. That is what I am worried about. Is it worth it to give some people a living wage, while doubling the unemployment rate? I tread cautiously when it comes to wage cause and effect. I have seen first hand how quickly companies lay off people when its profits fall. I don't think the numbers being tossed around were very feasible.

QUOTE(shagar69 @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 12:28 AM) o now ur tellin me what i should and shouldnt do. U can go f*** urself as well, along with SouthSider. :finger Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could. You can't even handle someone critisizing you on a message board when you act like a fool, but you are ready to study abroad. Yeah I can see that :rolly. All though I must say your stunningly excellent use of the Eric Cartman defense "Whateva, you don't know me. Whateva", really almost had me swayed...