Would you vote for Jon Stewart?

[edgarfigaro]

You should talk to all the minimum wage people that lose their jobs when cities raise the minimum wage...I'm sure they'd love your concern for their welfare. Chicago recently passed a cost of living minimum wage primarily aimed at Wal-Mart...all the sudden Lowes, Target and Walmart cancelled all proposed new buildings, and started talking about closing all stores and moving to the suburbs. So not only was chicago losing the minimum wage jobs that they were trying to help, but they also hurt the construction industry with the cancellation of those big projects. Why hello there law of unintended consequences. But hey, at least the city is safe from the scourge of Fois grois.

(oh, and of the <3% of people that earn minimum wage, a vast majority of them are either retired people adding some extra income to supplement their social security/pension/retirement funds or seasonal teenage workers that can't even vote anyways).

[Shaede]

I do, but do you?

Sure.

I remember that when it was first propsed over 15,000 scientists signed a petition begging the government to reject it because there's no clear evidence that says carbon dioxide will cause a disruption to the Earths climate.

Hm, yes, back in 1998 when skepticism was still getting a lot of attention. Find me a simular notion from anything past the year 2000. There are still skeptics, sure, but certainly not many and cetainly very few with any true scientific backing. I dare you to prove me wrong.

I also remember that it was predicted that if the treaty was signed then the US would lose over 2.4 million jobs and suffer a $300 billion reduction to the GDP. Oh, and heating and electricity prices would more than double. The Kyoto protical holds the U.S. to unreasonable standards but excludes some of out biggest competitors such as Mexico, China, India, and a hundred other developing nations.

I do agree that the Kyoto agreement is nowhere near perfect, but that doesn't mean it's a step in the wrong direction. Instead of completely ignoring it and what it stands for, we could be taking some action; but we don't. We ignore it.

Now I'm going to assume that you know what the greenhouse effect is. Even the most devout skeptic of global warming agrees in its existance, we depend on it for our survival as does all life.

The current world population is 6.5 billion people. The world has a doubling rate of 39 years, meaning that in 2045 there is projected to be roughly 13 billion people alive on Earth. If things continue along the same track, then by 2084 there will be roughly 26 billion people. Aside from the many many other problems arising from this population, the release of greenhouse gasses is certainly a valid one. We know that these gasses stay in the atmosphere for centuries, and over time, they will trap more and more heat in. Now we don't know exactly what is going to happen because of this, but if we continue our current path with the population climbing as it is, we can be prepared for some long term effects on the planet that are potentially very harmful to us. If tempuratures rise, even though we do not know the exact effects, we do from simple physics that the sea level will rise. Why do you think low level countries such as the Netherlands is so concerned about global warming?

What Bush has done is not only completely turned down the Kyoto agreement, but displayed a complete disregard for our world in the interests of economic gain for himself and his country. Now I don't opt for severe and draconic measures that will hurt our valuable economy, but how much of this planet are we going to sacrifice for momentary monetary gain?

I'm not a tree hugging environmentalist, I just realise that the Earth is the only known habitable place for mankind. We should make sure it stays that way for as long as possible.

Next time you mention Kyoto Protocol and "great job...Mr. President", you may want to do it with a little less sarcasm.

Frankly, I don't think I'll say that with less sarcasm until we have a new president.

[Gregorio]

I'm not a fan of GW myself, my main point was that saying this...

Anyone remember the Kyoto agreement? Great job protecting our country, Mr.President.

...as your argument to why GW is bad for America is bad one.

Saying the Kyoto Protocol is "far from perfect" is still giving it too much credit. Not only would it have devistated our economy, it exempts some of the biggest pollutors in the world and could nearly halt smaller developing nations from moving forward.

If you were to say "Anyone remember how the war in Iraq is doin?" Or "Anyone remember when our banking/cell phone records were private?" or something along the lines of that I'd agree with you, but when it comes to rejecting the Kyoto Protocol he made the right move.

And while I don't agree with a lot of his environmental stances, anything that's going to cost Americans millions of jobs or hurt our economy right now isn't worth it.

[djzombie]

Less than 1% of the people on minimum wage are over 25.

Did you know, 98.735% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Gregorio]

And while I don't agree with a lot of his environmental stances, anything that's going to cost Americans millions of jobs or hurt our economy right now isn't worth it.

I'm sorry, how much do we lose to outsourcing every year because the bigwigs want to make more profit and buy more expensive chlorine for their in ground swimming pools?

And what do you propose we do about it? Ratify Kyoto and give them more incentive to move overseas? Or raise the minimum wage and give them more incentive to move overseas?

[Gregorio]

Less than 1% of the people on minimum wage are over 25.

Did you know, 98.735% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Yup...but you could just try google and find one that isn't made up in about 3 seconds if you really want.

http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics.cfm

[edgarfigaro]

And while I don't agree with a lot of his environmental stances, anything that's going to cost Americans millions of jobs or hurt our economy right now isn't worth it.

I'm sorry, how much do we lose to outsourcing every year because the bigwigs want to make more profit and buy more expensive chlorine for their in ground swimming pools?

Go get an education and get a job that can't be outsourced. The average american factory worker makes more during his coffee break than his international competition makes in a day, all with a high school degree. Of course the job is going to be outsourced, I sure as hell don't want to pay a premium on my products to protect the people in the world that won't at least goto a tech school and learn a trade. It's not the bigwigs that drive outsourcing (frankly, they don't care where it's made, they just want to make money), it's the consumers that don't want to pay a premium for stuff they can get cheaper elsewhere.

But excuse me, I guess all evil in the world is due to corporations, because they sit in their buildings and do...umm, corporationy stuff. Where's your membership card in F.A.G.?

[Demetrick]

Sorry for jumping in late, but I didn't see it brought up...
Mom and pop farm stop and shop store which can barely afford the clerks at minimum wage in a rural, isolated part of town raises the wage of the cashiers from minimum wage now +$2.10.
Either they have to cut workers or raise prices to be able to afford this 'new cost of living.'

I'm still a skeptic on global warming. Theaverage temperature of the earth is only +1 degree (from my biology classes a few years back), the unreliable ice core samples that are used to guestimate the earths temperature, and the fact that we are already 'in a warming period' for the earth as it is. Ice ages happen, and between those the earth has to get warmer.

And to Shaede, if the earth's population doubles in 39 years now, in 2045 there will be ~13 billion people, it will take less time for ~13 billion to double than it will for 6.5 billion, so I'd push that date you threw out of 2084 up a decade or more.

People that live in low level coutries should know the repercussions for building below or near sea level, as should anyone that builds a house on a loose soil mountain slope, in the flood plain of a river, New Orleans, a trailer park in Oklahoma, a fault line in California... shit's going to happen, nature's been around a lot longer than we have.

[Shaede]

Saying the Kyoto Protocol is "far from perfect" is still giving it too much credit. Not only would it have devistated our economy, it exempts some of the biggest pollutors in the world and could nearly halt smaller developing nations from moving forward.

I suppose the term "far from perfect" is very subjective. There no point in arguing whether it's the right way to describe the Kyoto agreement or not. I personally feel it is, as the issues that it deals with are issues that we'll otherwise ignore.

And while I don't agree with a lot of his environmental stances, anything that's going to cost Americans millions of jobs or hurt our economy right now isn't worth it.

It doesn't have to, though. You can take simple steps such as buying fuel a efficient car, using public transportation, or carpooling. These are small steps in the right direction that not only don't hurt the economy, but help the environment and save you money. Again, it's not that we're embracing the full Kyoto Protocol, it's that we're actually taking steps in the opposite direction from it.

And again, those effects are only speculative. You know as well as I do that new jobs would open up if we began making radical changes in our country. Sure, the economy would take a hit, but it would recover again. Truthfully, our economy doesn't take nearly as long as our ecology does, and I don't think I have to tell you which is more important in the end.

And to Shaede, if the earth's population doubles in 39 years now, in 2045 there will be ~13 billion people, it will take less time for ~13 billion to double than it will for 6.5 billion, so I'd push that date you threw out of 2084 up a decade or more.

That doesn't make a lot of sense unless you can tell me why 13 billion people would reproduce more frequently than 6.5 billion people would. Population growth is calculated using a "doubling rate", which is the number of years it takes for a species to double its population. As you can imagine, most doubling rates end with explosive growth- simular to our own at the end of the 20th century. There is a lot of concern about the problems caused by such high populations, global warming being but a single one.

[Matricide]

i'm a bit late, but i think i would vote for stewart, pending his views on most topics--but simply from his general knowledge. i voted democrat in 2004 because i live in florida and its THAT close here, though he was the lesser of 2 evils.

you people who think jon stewart isnt capable of being president just because he's funny are simply ignorant.. especially when we have a monkey like bush in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

[Ksandra]

[
Go get an education and get a job that can't be outsourced.

Yeah, that's why I'm studying to be an English Teacher. God knows we don't have enough of those.. this board is evidence of that.

Don't do it!

Trust me been there done that. XD

And to the minimum wage thing I guess I didn't stress this enough when I said I don't think the economy can handle raising it. That wasn't the issue. The issue was having some sort of regulation put into place on housing/apartment costs. THAT'S the part that's rising too much. I don't think my friends who bring in two incomes that are higher than minimum wage should be stuck in a small apartment with no cable/internet/house phone, because they can barely afford heat. That's what I was refering to. lol

[Eaglestrike]

So if people won't hire you because they can't pay you as cheap as they can, what do you think increasing the amount they have to pay you will do? Nothing. They'll just cut jobs so they retain profits.

You can't have the government solve everything for you, you need to act on it yourself. If you're going to do that you should go figure out a few things:

1) Companies that pay their employees well.
2) Companies that don't pay their employees well.
3) Companies that outsource a lot of their jobs.

Buy from #1, ignore #2 and #3, and spread the word. Easy to say, hard to do, I know, but that's the only way this problem will be fixed.

Edit: Also at your comment to Gregerio, your current mindset is showing views of communism or moving towards it, should I feel sorry for you? Different people have different opinions, opinions different from your own are ok!

[edgarfigaro]

Not everyone CAN go to school, or have the drive to. It's not something you just do, unless you come from money. If I don't get Federal Financial Aid I don't go to school. I got Pells to go to Community College last year, and brought my GPA from a 2.5 up to over a 3 (3.2 i think, went 3.25 and 3.5 for 2 semesters) because of retaking classes. If I hadn't gotten the Pell I would never be able to afford school. As it stands now I won't be able to go to college until next year because I have to wait to be considered In State Tuition, and it really blows.

Bullshit.

If you want to get an education, you can. Notice I didn't say college in my response, I said trade school. The US is a service economy now, and anyone that can't adapt when there is cheap, flexible ways to retool your skills deserves to lose their job. Become a mechanic, learn how to become a legal or medical transcritionist, hell, become a RN...there are plenty of opportunities out there.

And Gregorio sounds nothing like a Republican, he sounds like a Libertarian...you on the other hand sound like a socialist.

[Roranora]

The real question here is.. have you voted for the Stephen Colbert hid? If you haven't, do your part! And if you don't know what I'm talking about, go to colbertnation.

Also, where'd you live in Kansas, elphaba? ;o I didn't think I'd run into someone else who might know my pain.

[Norelco]

I got Pells to go to Community College last year, and brought my GPA from a 2.5 up to over a 3 (3.2 i think, went 3.25 and 3.5 for 2 semesters) because of retaking classes.

Glad to hear you got your GPA up, but if money was such an issue I wouldn't have fucked around so much so that I got a 2.5 and had to take out another loan in order to retake the classes.

I used to work with a dude that had 3 jobs (super market, waiter, and pizza delivery) and went to school on top of that and busted out a 4.0 every semester. He looked tired as fuck every time I saw him...pale white, dark circles under his eyes, strung out.

When he finally graduated he landed a nice job at a hospital as a radiologist, and the last time I saw him he had color to his skin, no more circles under his eyes...he looked damn healhty.

Moral of the story is, sometimes you have to work your ass off to get what you want in this lifetime, and sometimes even that isn't enough.

[Demetrick]

And to Shaede, if the earth's population doubles in 39 years now, in 2045 there will be ~13 billion people, it will take less time for ~13 billion to double than it will for 6.5 billion, so I'd push that date you threw out of 2084 up a decade or more.

That doesn't make a lot of sense unless you can tell me why 13 billion people would reproduce more frequently than 6.5 billion people would. Population growth is calculated using a "doubling rate", which is the number of years it takes for a species to double its population. As you can imagine, most doubling rates end with explosive growth- simular to our own at the end of the 20th century. There is a lot of concern about the problems caused by such high populations, global warming being but a single one.

I get what doesn't make sense, it would take maybe just as long as the 13billion to double to 26 as it takes 6.5 to double to 13. So now I see and mispoke. However a problem with populatoin growth is just where its happening.

Contrast?

Population growths as %
and
GDP

[Norelco]

Do you want a teaching job that pays well? Sign up to tutor at a prison. They are always looking for someone to come in because it's an undesirable job, but supposedly it pays really well. And I would assume that you would be pretty safe with guards around and such.

[Shaede]

However a problem with populatoin growth is just where its happening.

Contrast?

Population growths as %
and
GDP

Yeah, it's true. In the US there are 1/3rd billion people with a doubling rate of roughly 100 years. That means that by 2106 there will be roughly 2/3rd billion people in the US (not counting immigration). But as we move closer to a global economy, it's safe to say that by that time we'll still be seeing many of the effects of such a dense population, namely shortages. Hopefully some of those target areas mentioned in those links will find ways to slow down their massive growth.

[Elcura]

The only answer would be to move to the skies!

I'm sorry that was pointless. Carry on.

[Shaede]

The only answer would be to move to the skies!

I'm sorry that was pointless. Carry on.

That does remind me of something, though.

The doubling time of the world is 39 years. That means that when the world is full, it will have been half full only 39 years previously. Now, going along this track, how long would it take us to completely fill up a second planet? =)