As an aside, I just read this article: Arrogant Bastard.If you want to see a truly un-self-aware arrogant, smug piece of writing, then read this. It's full of name-dropping and hypocrisy, and it assumes that the big leftist rags are somehow intellectually superior and the writer is superior for reading them.This is possibly the most smug article I've ever read in my life. It's the kind of article that makes me wish hillybilly rapists sometimes wandered into journalist hangouts. "Squeal like an pig, journo-boy!"
the link went to Financial Times which required registration so I didn't read it, but there are so many arrogant, smug leftist journalists around, I think OI can get the drift.As for minimum wage, I'm sure there are plenty of instances where it has kept employers from creating low pay jobs. I've never really studied it, but suspect the overall impact on the economy is not all that great.
Ah, sorry about that. I got to it through Drudge the first time. It was truly annoying.On the minimum wage, the economics tell me that it's nonsense, that it wipes out low paying jobs which people otherwise would have wanted. I'm not sure how prevalent that effect is though.I was asked if I could come up with a conservative argument for it and so far nothing has really come to mind. I guess I see it as good politics to trick poor people into thinking you are helping them, but I don't see much beyond that.
Andrew: Cottrell just discovered Sully is pulling down $500k/mo from his blog ((falsetto on)Oh! That word!(falsetto off)) and can't contain himself looking forward to those sweet future bucks due to his impressive writing skills and fascinating content. I think he only mentioned his blog 3 or four times but I read it quickly. Miniwage: The Dems are just cycling through their list. Minimum wage is #7 which comes right after gun control. It's the payback to their mega store corporate contributors to take out the small competitors. Obamacare has taken out those with just over 50+ employees, minimum wage will deal with the rest. I love the smell of corruption in the morning. BuyNLarge loves Democrats.
K, It was a name-dropping, smugness extravaganza! Reading that article was looking directly into the mind of one of the smuggest leftists on the planet who doesn't even realize how out of touch with reality he is. This guy probably thinks his turds are works of art. The whole article reeks of self-righteousness and unwitting bias.That's a good point about the minimum wage, it is a good way to take out small competitors at the knees while pretending you are only helping "the little guy."
K's In-depth Review of the first three episodes of Netflix's Original Series in bullet format: "House of Cards" * The series is a character study of a clever but very amoral Democratic party congressional whip in a Democratic administration.* Based on a previous British show. * Kevin Spacy is believable and occasionally breaks the 4th wall to explain things to the audience - like how he really feels about the situation in contradistinction to how he represents himself to the rubes who vote. * It's sort of the the anti-West Wing. * I like it.
It makes perfect sense. In a world where the utopian socialist president feels that "you didn't build that" and that the government should be the employer of first resort, why not control wages at the federal level?I have no problem with state minimum wages, by the way. Each state has different economic environments and some lower end protectionism isn't a bad thing but for the federal government to mandate a national wage would seem to be yet another foolish slap at the 10th Amendment.
Was that Cottrell article meant to be a study in irony? Personally, I couldn't make it past the line about good content compelling the reader to the end, which came quite early in the piece, LOL!I was the one asking about a conservative argument in favor of the minimum wage for two reasons:1. Productive labor isn't worth zero, so there logically must be a minimum rate of compensation, though I don't suggest it can be described in dollars, euros, or denarii. But beyond that, the idea stalls for me.2. Most of the prominent conservatives in the media just offer knee-jerk opposition to the minimum wage, which says there isn't--at least currently--a conservative argument against the minimum wage.To flesh out that second point, all I hear from the right is repeating over and over that a higher minimum wage means fewer jobs. This is usually understood to indicate layoffs, which doesn't happen. Rather, employers tend to scale back hiring and benefits, automate where possible, and allow their businesses to attrite--because most employers are human beings and will do everything they can before laying people off. And conservatives end up looking like chicken littles. I think a better and more timely argument would be to state that raising the minimum wage is a dodge in regards to our unemployment problem b/c it does nothing to help those who aren't earning. (Which, of course, dodges the minimum wage.) This forces the Democrats to repeat their convoluted demand-side arguments and be confusing, giving Republicans the simple argument by default.
K, I've gotten all through the first season of House of Cards and am waiting excitedly for season 2. It leaves off with a wonderfully understated cliffhanger. In the meantime, I'll probably start watching the Brit version. (Downton Abbey can wait.) I have likened House of Cards to The West Wing meets Breaking Bad. Underwood is a positively delicious villain/anti-hero. You're eager to see him reach his comeuppance, but you still want to see how far he can go...just a little further...so that when he falls, it will be all the more savory. It really appeals to the vengeful side of human nature.
First of all, Dowton Abbey waits for no man!Secondly, I've in the middle of House of Cards. And I am enjoying it. I am intrigued that underwood is a Dem which makes some of the scenes completely unrealistic. Like him leading the charge against the teacher's union and being lampooned by Bill Maher unmercifully.Relatedly, there are now two shows on now featuring the POTUS, this one and "1600 Penn (a completely stupid show), yet neither have a black President. Why is that? Do any of you remember the two shows that we're on during the Bush years? That's My Bush and Li'l Bush. - both lampooning the President.
I saw the original House of Cards and the sequel on PBS in the 1990s and I thought it was great. The PM is absolutely obsessed with beating Thatcher as the longest serving PM and he's a total monster who talks to the camera. It was truly enjoyable. Interesting ending.
Bev, that occurred to me about Underwood being a Dem and opposing teachers' unions. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but if they made him a Republican, 50% of the people wouldn't watch it b/c the script requires you to suspend your dislike for such a sleaze. Democrats just wouldn't be able to do that for a Republican...what does that tell you?My theory about 1600 Penn is that the producers fully expected Romney to win and intended it as a way to obliquely lampoon him. If my understanding is right, isn't the thrust of the show about how out-of-touch the first family is? I can easily imagine the reams of articles and commentary feigning confusion between "art" and "reality."
Tryan - you may be right. Interesting thing about That's My Bush - trey Parker and Matt Stone wrote the pilot with Al Gore as President, but quickly had to retool after Bush stole...Er...won the 2000 election. One of many reasons why I like Parker and Stone. They are an equal opportunity lampoon team. The Bushes were actually on board with it with the one caveat that they were not to depict their daughters in any way.
On the minimum wage....From an economic perspective the minimum wage is inexcusable. It’s an attempt to force employers to pay more to employees than they are worth. At best, this is a harmless bit of silliness because the wage is set too low to matter. At worst, it destroys jobs.Politically, however, it’s impossible to oppose because (1) the people who are hurt will never be identified because, raising the minimum wage doesn’t result in lay offs, instead, the jobs just never get created. How can you feel harmed because you don’t get a job that never comes into existence? (2) By opposing the idea of a minimum wage, you are essentially arguing that employers should be allowed to pay people really, really poorly. This is nonsense because if people are willing to take the money, then you shouldn’t stop them... better employed than not.... BUT as a rhetorical device is works if the opponent is allied with business generally and has a reputation for not caring about people.What I would do to oppose the minimum wage, but in a positive way, would be to argue that teenagers and retired people should be exempt so that teenagers can get that first job and develop a work ethic and retired people can continue in the work force. It would be impossible for the left to argue that you are somehow forcing people to work for a “non-livable wage” since neither group needs the money to make a living. But the effect would be that small business could hired these people instead of the “working poor.” The Democrats know that would be a disaster to them because it would mean that every minimum wage hike would directly hurt their supporters because they would get laid off and replaced by the elderly or teens, and they would stop proposing it.At the same time, I would argue that the problem with minimum wages is the “race to the bottom.” In other words, setting a minimum wage tells “big nasty employers” who could pay more that they don’t need to pay more because the public now expects that they will get paid the minimum at service jobs. In effect, it makes it easy for companies like McDonald’s to not pay a premium to get good labor because state law tells people, “this is all you are worth” so don’t expect more. Thus, the real probably with the minimum wage is that it devalues labor by turning the floor into an expectation.
Bev: As of episode 3, Underwood was negotiating with the teacher's unions by basically giving away the house in order to keep them on board with the bill - more so when he was under stress. That's pretty realistic IMO.
For those who missed it, Russia is apparently packed with the same kinds of whacked out goofball we have here... some Russian lawmaker has announced that the meteor that hit that Russian city was really a secret American weapon.Yep.I suspect it was actually a cover up by the Fed, but that's just me.One thing we know it can't be was aliens because there haven't been any reports of anal probing.
Andrew, Speaking of goofballs, Mark Levin said the other day that the US is buying up millions of rounds of ammo so the federal government is ready for societal collapse.No word on anal probing there either.http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/16/levin-u-s-govt-preparing-for-civil-societys-collapse-by-buying-up-billions-of-rounds-of-ammo/
DUQ, That is pretty stupid. The government buys ammo through standard government contracts and it does so for any number of reasons... it always has. This is nothing knew.In fact, what this is, is called "confirmation bias." It's one of the key factors in keeping conspiracy theories alive. People who develop bizarre conspiracies go out and actively look for evidence to support their view and they ignore all contrary facts. Basically, it's a way of tricking yourself into believing that something you want to believe is true and that thereby you "know" more than other people.Levin has deluded himself into hoping that society will collapse and he's now trying to find proof to tell him that his hopes are more than wishful thinking but are actually supported by "the facts."Now, if the government was buying a million anal probes, that would be different. :P
Something I know Andrew will enjoy: Alex Jones Failed Predictions
tryanmax, What do you call it when someone goes beyond "full retard"? Even worse, what do you call it when people listen to said fruit cake?
Maybe he's gone "Simple Jack"?
That works.You know, there's a lot of money to be made in fooling people into believing conspiracies. I've often felt I should get into the game. It's really pretty simple to do.Maybe would could open "CommentaramaTruth.com" and then make it a pay site? What do you think?
I dunno. I've always considered the ability to look directly into a mirror to be quite handy. I don't know if I'd be willing to give that up.
You and your scruples!
As an side, did you know that 9/11 was actually a diversion to cover up what happened on 9/12? I'm not saying that's true, but I'm strongly implying it. And you'll never guess what happened on 9/12! I probably shouldn't even tell you because certain people would be very upset if I told you THE TRUTH about it.Not that I'm saying it happened, but you know. They want you to believe it didn't. That's all I'm saying.It was big too.Biggest coverup in history.Hmm money...
scruples smooples - go for it Andrew!
Andrew - But did you know that 9/12 was a cover-up for 9/13? :-) (This is like a bad Get Smart gag.)I think I mentioned this once before but I'm pretty sure my boss is a 9/11 Truther... and an occasional Alex Jones listener... and I think he believes the moon-landing was faked. Oh, he believes we sent spacecraft into orbit, but a man landing and walking on the lunar surface? Bullshit.Unfortunately, I haven't been able to take him seriously since, even in work-related matters where he actually knows his stuff.Whenever I leave this job, I'm going to do two things:-direct him to this website-and send him a copy of this book
Maybe would could open "CommentaramaTruth.com" and then make it a pay site? What do you think?Obviously doing so would be a ploy to get in good with the Bilderbergers and Austrian Illuminati, so I wouldn't be subscribing.
rlaWTX, The money would be incidental, we would really only be doing it to help people know the truth. ;)
K, The Bilderbergers tick me off. Neither they nor the Koch brothers have ever sent me a single check!! I find this situation intolerable.Maybe I should write a book about how they didn't send me checks?
Scott, It is hard to take people seriously who spout true idiocy. And the moon conspiracy is true idiocy. Every piece of it has been debunked a dozen times over, yet the nuts continue believing it because they want to believe it.
On that note, has the 'small black hole' theory been brought up for the Russian fireball yet?-Rustbelt
Rustbelt, I thought we were all already sucked into a miniblack hole? When was that supposed to happen?
Mini black hole? Hm...I'll have to investigate that.I was just wondering if anyone's revamped the theory that a small (roughly 18-wheeler-sized) black hole struck Russia in the same way it has been suggested that a black hole of that size was responsible for the Tunguska incident of 1908 in Siberia.But if you're talking about the economic black hole that's being generated in Washington and has sucked in the nation's prosperity (and probably played a role in me ending up on unemployment), then, yes, the evidence is pretty much indisputable.Now if only I could've added the music from 'The Black Hole' to this post...-Rustbelt
Rustbelt, When they fired up CERN, the nuts told us that this would generate a miniblack hole on the other side of the planet which would suck us all in. I think that was supposed to have happened by now... weather permitting.
Or maybe they looked into the microscope and saw an image resembling the face on Mars which said 'Boo!' and frightened them into abandoning the research.Of course that's nonsense. We all know the real reason is to build unlicensed nuclear accelerators and come up with the world's first working proton pack. Hey, maybe that's what the fireball was!-Rustbelt
How about CommentaramaPravda? Seems more in line with the zeitgeist.
If we're going to get sucked into a mini-black hole, could that happen sooner rather than later, please?
T-Rav, Sure, I'll the weather machine up to 11.K(omrade), That does seem strangely appropriate these days doesn't it?
Someone say "Anal Probing"?(Link is to Kids in the Hall sketch)
"For those who missed it, Russia is apparently packed with the same kinds of whacked out goofball we have here... some Russian lawmaker has announced that the meteor that hit that Russian city was really a secret American weapon."Yeah, well, can you blame them? After years of living under the USSR where cover-ups were routine.
"The government buys ammo through standard government contracts and it does so for any number of reasons... it always has."But the question remains. From all I have heard several government agencies have purchased unusual amounts of ammo, billions of rounds, enough to cause an ongoing shortage. I don´t think we have seen anything like it, not even after 9/11. Why should we laugh it off?It is right and rational to demand an explanation, and with no explanation forthcoming, all people can do is speculate. I have no time for Alex Jones and his sort. I get no satisfaction from conspiracies. But trust in the government and its agencies is low and with good reason. We have a government of thugs.
Kit, Actually, I was kind of joking. I don't know much about ordinary Russians except that they struggle with a thugocracy for a government. I was just poking fun at one of their fruitcakes... everybody has them.
El Gordo, I agree that people should always demand an explanation for what the government is doing. But in this case, I see nothing but paranoia at this point.For one thing, I've seen no evidence of a shortage. I don't see empty shelves nor have I ever heard of anyone not being able to find ammo -- it's always just rumors of other places or a friend of a friend or "heard it on the radio."Secondly, the government doesn't buy off the shelf. They buy direct and they buy with long advance notice. So there is no reason for a shortage unless the ammo makers have decided to just switch over their commercial facilities to whatever government contracts they have. If that's the case, then I would suggest the ammo makers are probably trying to create a phony shortage so they can jack up prices.Moreover, last year, the reason for the "shortage" was that the government had "banned" some metals needed to make ammo. The year before that the reason for the "shortage" was that the EPA was doing something something to make it impossible to get ammo. The year before that, the "shortage" was Obama leaning on ammo makers to stop selling because he was planning something something Nazi Germany.This ammo story gets repeated every year, just like the story about the 82nd Airborne (it's always them for some reason) being "trained to go house to house to confiscate guns," just like the stories about the UN being put in charge of military units within the country and training them to attack the civilian population.Third, the government buys tons of ammo because it uses tons of ammo. Almost every agency has armed personal at this point -- agents, guards, soldiers, paramilitary, etc., and they all require yearly training and certification.Without knowing who is buying the ammo or how much, there's really no way to know if anything unusual is going on. If the real purchasers are Treasury/Justice and the military, then this is nothing at all unusual.Until someone can put together some actual evidence, this is just another bit of paranoia.
Government buying ammo is an indicator of society unrest? That I wouldn't believe, I would believe the Government buying a lot more ammo, because most of it walked away. My favorite bit of paranoia is the UN thing. The people who say that crap didn't have any friends in the military(or at least special forces), they say the easiest way to find the problem spots around the world, go the opposite way the blue helmets(UN piece(LOL)keepers) are going. Like those guys would get much done here, they would never get past Vegas(UN types like parting, as opposed to working). But if any of these conspiracies do take place, it will be the Dems who will carry them out. So when we all get thrown in the conservative slave camp. We can all finally meet face to face. Andrew and I will be banging our tin cups on the fence demanding they show us the original Trek. Instead of that commie STNG crap.
Max, They'll never take me a live and send me to STNG camp! :PI agree about the UN. Putting the UN in charge of anything is the surest way to make sure the project fails. They don't even seem to be able to handle standing around and doing nothing.You're probably right about the ammo walking away! LOL! I worked in a government office that had ordered computers and let them sit in a DOD warehouse for six months as they tried to find someone to install them. When they went to get the computers, they found out that most of them had been stolen. Welcome to Club Fed.
Watching a 60 minutes report on Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. Wow.
Anthony, I hear it's impressive?
It's extremely impressive. When the terrorists launch a rocket Israelis calculate if it will hit a populated are. If the answer is yes the fire a missile with a really smart guidance system to take out incoming projectile. It knocked down 85 percent of the rockets used in the last attack.
You know what I find funny about the whole thing is that I remember getting into arguments with liberal engineers in the 1980s who insisted that "it's impossible to use a missile to hit a missile." They were mocking Reagan's SDI plan and they were actually claiming it could never work under any circumstances. They didn't mean that we lacked the technology, they honestly claimed it wasn't possible because missile don't move in straight lines, they kind of wobble. Thus, they basically move randomly and that makes it impossible to intercept one.That struck me as nonsense at the time. Indeed, the one thing I know about science is that nothing is impossible... some things just take more brainpower than others.(As an aside, at the same time, I still recall the scientific community mocking the idea that there were other planets out in the universe. That struck me as really stupid. If it happened here, then it happened in other places too.)
Really? They didn't think there were other planets in the universe? That sounds more like something religious fundamentalists would come up with. Jumping in on the "nothing is impossible" theme, I think that expression needs to start being qualified b/c the left keeps pushing that idea beyond reason.
tryanmax, You young wipper snapper! (or whatever old people say...)Yeah, in the 1980s there was no proof of other planets, there was only a theory. And the vast majority of the scientific community honestly laughed off the guy who claimed he could find other planets by measuring the "wobble" of stars -- which is exactly how they find them today.I still remember Carl Sagan or somebody just as famous saying, "there are no other planets, our solar system is unique." That struck me as ludicrous just given the odds, but that was not an uncommon thing to hear.
Actually, in my lifetime, that's been pretty standard. Whenever someone has suggested they could do something or prove something, all the people who are in that field but couldn't think of it themselves scream that "it's not possible, there is such thing."And looking back at history, I see the same in pretty much every field of endeavor. The so-called experts are always trying to stand in the way of progress.
Andrew, I don't think our Dem captors will give us much of a choice. When were they ever into giving people a choice?**Except for killing human babies, that's ok. People were arguing you couldn't hit a missile with another missile? I guess they never heard of a little thing called space rendezvous. Mastered in the 60's, they were moving faster than an ICBM. I thought the whole SW thing was funny as hell. Mainly all of these (apparent)smart people arguing against it. They didn't understand the programs intent, not one bit. But then they were pawns in the game. Suckers the whole lot of them.
All I meant by qualifying "nothing is impossible" is that libs have twisted the idea to mean that we don't have to accept any trade-offs to achieve our goals. Sure, we can put a man on the moon, but a hot-air balloon ain't gonna make the trip. You see what I'm saying?
Max, The whole anti-SDI thing was really eye opening for me. It proved that smart people could be very blind when they wanted to. It also taught me that the left hates America. I say that because the argument they used against SDI was that if we became "safe" because we couldn't be hit, then we would do bad things, i.e. we couldn't be trusted. So America could only be trusted so long as it could be destroyed.That kind of argument infuriated me.The "couldn't hit a missile with a missile" thing was based on the idea that missiles wobble in their flight path and thus you couldn't predict where it would be at any particular point. I thought it sounded like nonsense... and I've been proven right on that.
Ah, yes, I see what you mean about the qualifier. I agree, the left has expanded that idea into a stupid realm where "nothing is impossible" translates into "if it doesn't already exist them someone must have stopped it." That is, of course, false.
Andrew:The whole anti-SDI thing was really eye opening for me.I had a friend who was working on a classified Star Wars project in the early 90s. He mentioned that he and his fellow engineers were at a bar listening to some Union of Concerned Scientists spokes blowhard on TV claim that some difficult technical aspect of it couldn't be done. He said they just smiled because they had accomplished that aspect two years before. Of course, it was classified so the information couldn't be released.
K, It doesn't surprise me. I've spoken to enough engineering types to know that the science is always years ahead of what anyone will admit when it comes to military projects or high tech commercial stuff.I also wouldn't be surprised if the UCS scientist was lying through his teeth.
The wobble argument sounds like a red herring. A missile wobbling sounds like they do not have a clue of what they are talking about. Besides how many bullets do you see wobble? They spin, any wobbling indicates a lack of control. Great little story K, it's amazing what's in the black programs. Besides those scientists can argue all day, the people that believed we could do it. Are now on the ash heap of history. It's funny the left picks the stuff we really can't do. Then attempts to legislate it into reality. Like, solar, wind, electric cars, etc.
Max, The wobble argument sounds fake to me too. If a missile were that random, then it couldn't hit anything.That's an excellent observation, by the way, that the left is quick to tell us that science can't do things conservatives want, but they happily believe it can achieve fundamentally impossible things if only industry would stop holding back things like cars that run on water and perpetual motion machines.
Max, some of those things might actually be possible if they didn't let their cronyism get in the way. A coworker of mine (who has some strange hobbies) told me about a plant he toured that was making an alternative type of solar panel material. It didn't gather as efficiently as the typical glass kind, but it was much, much more durable. Durable enough, in fact, to be used as a surface for restricted access roads. Plus, it is much cheaper to produce than the traditional glass ones, so the efficiency issue is easily offset. So why don't we have this stuff on every driveway in America? Because the government is trying to sue them out of existence.
tryanmax, Never mess with a crony, the government will shut you down or kill you trying.
The things the left is pushing like solar is a pure fantasy. There is a reason this stuff was never realized. I've been hearing the solar dream my whole life, I'm born and raised in Arizona after all. People were always talking about it and how we needed to put money into it. But nobody ever asked the question, why wasn't this done in years past? One thing that the solar people will not talk about is the promised yield. It will never be met, one inherent problem with solar. Is when the panel heats up it looses efficiency. The cause is something no tech can ever beat. Like these other so-called alternative technologies. They run against the laws of thermodynamics. They will never match natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric. So of course the left says lets make everything else just as expensive. It is funny to think the worst place to put a solar panel is in the sunny desert.
The amazing thing about solar and windmills is that they are sold as modern, futuristic solutions when they have been around forever. But if they were great technologies, they would have a liberating effect and greens would hate them.There are exceptions, but generally Greens don´t love the earth as much as they hate individualism and material progress. They like trains only because they are more collectivist than cars. If there were no cars, they would hate trains. If there were no trains, they´d try to take our horses and bikes away. Upon accomplishing this, they´d probably oppose shoes. Likewise, they prefer energy sources that are objectively expensive and unreliable. If someone came up with an engine that runs on water, or if aliens gave us the perfect energy source - clean, safe and cheap - nobody would be more horrified than the average "watermelon". James Delingpole (who wrote a book titled Watermelons) calls windmills "eco crucifixes". I think this is brilliant. The pantheistic pagan aspect of the eco movement is undeniable. The true believers are much scarier than the shameless rent seekers.Many think as we become less Christian, we become more enlightened and rational. There is absolutely no evidence for that.Andrew, regarding the ammo thing, I´m glad if there´s nothing to worry about. Some people feel better believing in conspiracies, others make money out of them. Alas, I´m in neither group.
Max, there actually exist solar panels which solve the heat loss problem and actually gain >100% efficiency as a result. My question is, who cares? Why are so many people investing time, energy, resources and money into increasing the efficiency of a technology that nobody uses? I'm all for sticking a solar cell on the top of every traffic light and the like, but let's just stop pretending that we're going to power cities this way. I take that back, I'm sure there probably is a way to power cities with solar, but as I pointed out earlier, there must be a trade-off. Whatever that is, the greenies won't like it. How many solar cells does it take to destroy a habitat?
Check this out. Whaddiddai say?
El Gordo, Agreed about the environmentalist movement, they hate people and that's their primary goal. And you are right that if someone gave us the perfect totally clean energy source they would be outraged because it helps people.On the ammo thing, I don't see any evidence to support the claim, so until that changes I'm not worried about it. Like you, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. But that's not to say that I don't believe people with bad motives will do bad things for whatever reason. I just want actual proof before I believe it. Conspiracy theories never offer proof, they offer paranoia and rumor hidden as "truth."
tryanmax, That's hilarious. So now we need to create vast fields of solar panels, BUT not put them anywhere. Welcome to the world of the environmentalist whackos.
I'm sorry tryanmax, that's physically impossible, you can never have 100% efficiency in anything. I'll bet it's marketing hype(they say things that are laughable to the experts). For no solar panel on earth can reach 100% efficiency. Since 100% of solar energy reaches does not reach the earth's surface. Then you have the night issue, and another little problem. Something NASA was talking about with it's mars rovers. Dust, something in a lot of abundance out here. Solar works in off grid settings, but it is a complete waste on grid. I haven't even mentioned costs vs. life. The fact that people keep pushing things like solar, displays a profound lack of education. Especially in basic physics, people think math was hard. Ask Andrew he is the resident genius.
Yea Andrew, those vast fields of solar panels that never reached their hyped output. So those loons have found a way to limit themselves. The whole alternative market is another racket. It's a way to make a few bucks as long as you have morons putting taxpayer dollars out for it.But we all know what it really is about.
Max, you're right, it is a gimmick, but it has to do with the way solar cell efficiency is measured. It is calculated by dividing watts out by input light and surface area. Because they've developed cells that can also capture heat, they are technically able to ignore a portion of the input on the assumption that the heat is also coming from the sun. I'm sorry, I thought the ridiculousness of the claim would make the gimmick obvious. But that isn't even the point. The point is that we continue to pour money into a technology that has reached its apex of development and still is insufficient to support the need it purports to address. That alone should illustrate the futility of the pursuit, and yet we forge ahead.
Don't look to me for answers about physics! Trust me, I'm no expert on that and I have the grades to prove it! LOL!
Again, probably too late but...I agree with you, Andrew, that economically the minimum wage makes no sense. But politically it looks bad. However, it isn't wages that is currently killing jobs. It is the benefits. For some of the low paying employees you may pay as much in their benefits (esp. healthcare) as you do in wages.The other problem I have with it is the minimum wage argument is a complete gift to union workers. Why? Because for many of them their wage is based off the minimum wage. So instead of paying Biff $40/hour, the contract states that you pay him about 6x minimum wage.I don't have a good political argument at this time.
Koshcat, Ultimately, I think fighting the minimum wage is a rather hard thing to do politically because it sounds like you are opposed to people being paid decent wages. Also, there's really no way to point to people who are hurt by the rise because you can't identify anyone.You're right about the unions. Raising the minimum wage usually results in lot of automatic pay increases across the board.
Mionimum Wage is PointlessEver notice that a Premium Bugher meal at McD's casts about the same as one hour of work at minimum wage.You can legislate the amount of money you pay someone but you cannot legislate the value of the work that they do.This is the fallacy of minimum wage.