Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 565
  1. #321
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But as I pointed out before, that doesn't mean the government is a party to all contracts, only that it is the arbiter of contractual disagreements. Because the Government can prosecute rape laws does not mean that it is a party to all sexual activity.
    The threat of that arbitration is what makes contracts usable, if no they would be worthless.

    ---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not quite sure what that sentence means. Slavery, at least in this country, existed because of a set of rules, not in absence of them. You stated that all rules were permissible in your last post as long as the majority voted for it.
    As regards our political and law making system, yes.

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would it need to be a majority of unskilled workers in order to be a problem?
    Why would the reverse be a problem?

    ---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's my supported opinion. Yes. And you've offered an opinion which has been debunked. We went through the definition of the word and I clearly demonstrated you used the word incorrectly.
    Your opinion is noted and duly disregarded as foolish. Locking a door is a use of force.

    ---------- Post added at 01:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you are conceding that MW laws are unjust?
    You've not supported that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #322
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your opinion is noted and duly disregarded as foolish. Locking a door is a use of force.
    I've challenged you on this definition several times. It remains unsupported by you. So, I formally challenge you to support this use of the word force or retract your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You've not supported that.
    You have offered no reason for MW laws and when I compared them to a law which would criminalize being gay, you simply said unjust laws exist. I think we are done. You have clearly nothing more to add to this. You cannot offer a reason why MW laws should exist outside the immediate short-term benefit. You can offer no rebuttal to my claims that MW laws are harmful. You have essentially offered your opinion while admitting you don't even understand the concepts we are discussing. So, I'll let Squatch continue to bang his head against the proverbial wall if he so chooses. I'm out.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #323
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I've challenged you on this definition several times. It remains unsupported by you. So, I formally challenge you to support this use of the word force or retract your claim.
    Someone is trying to invade my home, I lock the door in order to stop them, the door and its locking is a physical use of force to stop them.

    Just like the rest of your argument where you've attempted to limit the premises and definitions, this too has failed. The uses of force is not just limited to physical violence.

    ---------- Post added at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    You have offered no reason for MW laws and when I compared them to a law which would criminalize being gay, you simply said unjust laws exist. I think we are done. You have clearly nothing more to add to this. You cannot offer a reason why MW laws should exist outside the immediate short-term benefit. You can offer no rebuttal to my claims that MW laws are harmful. You have essentially offered your opinion while admitting you don't even understand the concepts we are discussing. So, I'll let Squatch continue to bang his head against the proverbial wall if he so chooses. I'm out.
    You're saying MW wage laws hurt everybody?

    and buh-bye.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #324
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Someone is trying to invade my home, I lock the door in order to stop them, the door and its locking is a physical use of force to stop them.
    Not really. Locking a door is not use of force. Not in a legal sense that I am aware of, and certainly not in the normal use of the term "force" or "use of force".

    Attempting to break down the door is a use of force.. locking the door is not.

    Your use of the term force, flips the meaning when applied anywhere else.

    https://youtu.be/pZWKeq5I_pc?t=114
    For example in this clip, from 143 seconds to 152, you would say that Homer is imposing his will upon the other boxer through superior use of force.
    When in actuality, homer has done NOTHING.

    Like wise, locking a door is not a use of force against another person, not in a lock out and not in a home invasion situation. If anything it is an act of protecting one self from actual use of force.
    To serve man.

  5. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  6. #325
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Like wise, locking a door is not a use of force against another person, not in a lock out and not in a home invasion situation. If anything it is an act of protecting one self from actual use of force.

    Yours and Iblesd's nuh-uh responses are silly and tiresome. If I lock the door that is an action that forces...whatever...the robbers to go elsewhere, or maybe they break down the door. In a lockout,it forces the employees to go home without fulfilling their end of the contract.

    make (someone) do something against their will.
    "she was forced into early retirement"
    synonyms: compel, coerce, make, constrain, oblige, impel, drive, pressurize, pressure, press, push, press-gang, bully, dragoon, bludgeon; informalput the screws on, lean on, twist someone's arm
    "he was forced to pay"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...m=122&ie=UTF-8
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #326
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    If I lock the door that is an action that forces...whatever...the robbers to go elsewhere, or maybe they break down the door. In a lockout,it forces the employees to go home without fulfilling their end of the contract.
    Yes, but you are confusing, purposefully, the context and meaning of such things.
    If I take the last cookie, then you are "forced" to make another selection (even none at all). This however is not me using force AGAINST YOU, and there is no reasonable understanding of such that can be construed that way.


    Look at the definition you picked, it assumes an understanding of the ones that come before it,. When it says "make" it is assuming the use or threat of action against the person. As in #2 "especial with the use or threat of violence.
    You keep pointing to non violent actions as an application of "force".
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
    "he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
    synonyms: strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; More
    2.
    coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

    This is the problem, everyone reading the idea of force as it is properly understood, sees your application of it is incorrect, because it is.
    However there is a legit way of understanding the use you have choose, unfortunately .. it means nothing, it becomes a truism and doesn't reveal anything about the situation you describe.

    You say, "both parties use force" ... well. Yea everyone expels energy in the act of movement. Now what does that have to do with individual rights and how they interact in the work place?
    You say, the employees choices "force" the employee to do things they don't want.. Boy I will say, like go to work for money.


    Quickly you should recognize that white washing all actions as force as you have fails to differentiate in the same way that the idea of "use of force" is intended. In this debate, it is precisely that distinction that is needed.
    So, to be clear, you are not being clear and you are not communicating ideas that illuminate this issue.

    Here is the deal, when you speak of force, if you are not referring to the use of physical violence, or threat there of.. it is not relevant or should not be relevant to worker/employer relationship.
    The employer can "force" a person to be employed at $X an hour. That is totally fine, morally, legally, that is how things should be, at least how you are using force.
    An employer can not "force" a person to be employed at the same $X an hour. Now that is true as well, because in this use it refers to the threat or use of physical violence.


    Look at the original exchange
    post #295
    Quote Originally Posted by COBOY
    just as employers have hired goons and used force to prevent employees from coming to work during a lockout. A simple thing such as taking away the timeclock so the employees can't punch in is a use of force.
    See here you have equated and confused the two senses of the use of Force. Ibelsd was clearly referring to threat of physical violence, and as I have done, he explained how the others sense of force is not relevant to the discussion.


    Sadly, I suspect you desire the confusion to remain, as your case is a poor one, better to have a distracting issue.
    To serve man.

  8. #327
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, but you are confusing, purposefully, the context and meaning of such things.
    If I take the last cookie, then you are "forced" to make another selection (even none at all). This however is not me using force AGAINST YOU, and there is no reasonable understanding of such that can be construed that way.


    Look at the definition you picked, it assumes an understanding of the ones that come before it,. When it says "make" it is assuming the use or threat of action against the person. As in #2 "especial with the use or threat of violence.
    You keep pointing to non violent actions as an application of "force".
    Well, yes, if I build a large castle with military garrison in your territory I'm forcing you to accept my rule over you even though no physical violence might ever take place. Your insistence on requiring physical violence is intentionally too narrow.

    ---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is the problem, everyone reading the idea of force as it is properly understood, sees your application of it is incorrect, because it is.
    However there is a legit way of understanding the use you have choose, unfortunately .. it means nothing, it becomes a truism and doesn't reveal anything about the situation you describe.

    You say, "both parties use force" ... well. Yea everyone expels energy in the act of movement. Now what does that have to do with individual rights and how they interact in the work place?
    You say, the employees choices "force" the employee to do things they don't want.. Boy I will say, like go to work for money.


    Quickly you should recognize that white washing all actions as force as you have fails to differentiate in the same way that the idea of "use of force" is intended. In this debate, it is precisely that distinction that is needed.
    So, to be clear, you are not being clear and you are not communicating ideas that illuminate this issue.

    Here is the deal, when you speak of force, if you are not referring to the use of physical violence, or threat there of.. it is not relevant or should not be relevant to worker/employer relationship.
    The employer can "force" a person to be employed at $X an hour. That is totally fine, morally, legally, that is how things should be, at least how you are using force.
    An employer can not "force" a person to be employed at the same $X an hour. Now that is true as well, because in this use it refers to the threat or use of physical violence.


    Look at the original exchange
    post #295

    See here you have equated and confused the two senses of the use of Force. Ibelsd was clearly referring to threat of physical violence, and as I have done, he explained how the others sense of force is not relevant to the discussion.


    Sadly, I suspect you desire the confusion to remain, as your case is a poor one, better to have a distracting issue.

    How do you conclude that "others sense of force is not relevant to the discussion"?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #328
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Well, yes, if I build a large castle with military garrison in your territory I'm forcing you to accept my rule over you even though no physical violence might ever take place. Your insistence on requiring physical violence is intentionally too narrow.
    That is by definition.. the threat of violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    How do you conclude that "others sense of force is not relevant to the discussion"?
    Like this.

    First, trade is based on property rights.
    In property rights discussions the use of violence or threat there of is an inherent violation of property rights.
    No other sense of force inherently violates property rights, and is thus not relevant to trade debates.
    As long as two parties are operating within their rights, especially in regards to their own property there is no need for the gov to step in, nor should we make laws to prohibit that activity.

    So what are some other uses of force other than violence?
    There is the force of reality. Such as, its my cookie, and if you want it you have to deal with me.
    There is force of natural consequence. Such as, if I choose not to associate with you, or not grant my permission for you to use my property.. then by consequence, you are forced to live in a world where I don't associate with you, or where you do not have access to my property.

    What else?
    Force of logic? Where I offer such a compelling argument you are compelled to engage in trade?

    What have I missed?
    To serve man.

  10. #329
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is force of natural consequence. Such as, if I choose not to associate with you, or not grant my permission for you to use my property.. then by consequence, you are forced to live in a world where I don't associate with you, or where you do not have access to my property.
    If I had a contract with you for the next two years that decision would violate that contract and the property due me as I was willing to uphold me end.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #330
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    If I had a contract with you for the next two years that decision would violate that contract and the property due me as I was willing to uphold me end.
    Not relevant to the exchange we are in.
    To serve man.

  12. #331
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not relevant to the exchange we are in.
    You're joking, right? It's completely relevant and exactly to the point.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #332
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    You're joking, right? It's completely relevant and exactly to the point.
    So what is your point then? You don't appear to have added anything.
    Do you think you contradicted a point I made? Clarified? Added too?
    To serve man.

  14. #333
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what is your point then? You don't appear to have added anything.
    Do you think you contradicted a point I made? Clarified? Added too?
    Post 329 explains it. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it isn't relevant.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #334
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Post 329 explains it. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it isn't relevant.
    Well, i don't see how your post is relevant, soo I guess, I will guess.


    So I said ..in part
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    There is force of natural consequence. Such as, if I choose not to associate with you, or not grant my permission for you to use my property.. then by consequence, you are forced to live in a world where I don't associate with you, or where you do not have access to my property.
    Then you responded
    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    If I had a contract with you for the next two years that decision would violate that contract and the property due me as I was willing to uphold me end.
    So you are bringing up contract violations, in relation to what I said.
    As I see it, in relation to force of violence, what you say in no way establishes that it occurs in this situation. So, it is not relevant to my post.
    Did you intend it as a contradicting statement? Do you think it countered something I said?

    Don't make me guess, explain it to me if you think I haven't gotten it.
    To serve man.

  16. #335
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Why a "force of violence"? I've already established the use of force as not necessarily including violence.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #336
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Why a "force of violence"? I've already established the use of force as not necessarily including violence.
    Which are irrelevant..

    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 328
    Like this.

    First, trade is based on property rights.
    In property rights discussions the use of violence or threat there of is an inherent violation of property rights.
    No other sense of force inherently violates property rights, and is thus not relevant to trade debates.
    As long as two parties are operating within their rights, especially in regards to their own property there is no need for the gov to step in, nor should we make laws to prohibit that activity.

    So what are some other uses of force other than violence?
    There is the force of reality. Such as, its my cookie, and if you want it you have to deal with me.
    There is force of natural consequence. Such as, if I choose not to associate with you, or not grant my permission for you to use my property.. then by consequence, you are forced to live in a world where I don't associate with you, or where you do not have access to my property.

    What else?
    Force of logic? Where I offer such a compelling argument you are compelled to engage in trade?
    And the circle is complete, and you still need to answer my question.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 334
    Did you intend it as a contradicting statement? Do you think it countered something I said?
    To serve man.

  18. #337
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Cowboy,

    First, I'd like to refocus the thread a bit. The only part directly related to my OP was the discussion that you didn't respond to.

    Given that we agree you would only be willing to pay your miner up to $1100, and that the actual amount you pay him could well be different. Does the analogy offered make sense that prices and marginal utility are not identical, but closely related?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The threat of that arbitration is what makes contracts usable, if no they would be worthless.
    Well that isn't really the case given modern Contract Theory and the Theory of the Firm, but let's ignore that for a moment.

    How does your statement mean that the arbiter is party to the contract?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    As regards our political and law making system, yes.
    Ok, so in regards to our political and law making system, slavery would be ok if the majority voted for it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why would the reverse be a problem?
    You don't see any problem with reducing a group of people's income to zero and reducing the income mobility of the most economically vulnerable in our society?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #338
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which are irrelevant..
    Which what? Forces other than violence?

    ---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well that isn't really the case given modern Contract Theory and the Theory of the Firm, but let's ignore that for a moment.

    How does your statement mean that the arbiter is party to the contract?
    How else would it be enforceable?

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cowboy,

    First, I'd like to refocus the thread a bit. The only part directly related to my OP was the discussion that you didn't respond to.

    Given that we agree you would only be willing to pay your miner up to $1100, and that the actual amount you pay him could well be different. Does the analogy offered make sense that prices and marginal utility are not identical, but closely related?
    Sure.

    ---------- Post added at 01:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, so in regards to our political and law making system, slavery would be ok if the majority voted for it?
    Not with me personally, but do I think it is possible, yes, probable, no.

    ---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You don't see any problem with reducing a group of people's income to zero and reducing the income mobility of the most economically vulnerable in our society?
    How many are we talking about?

    Isn't the usual talking point from the right about the MW that these are beginning jobs for teenagers? What damage are we talking about doing to them?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #339
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Which what? Forces other than violence?
    Yes.


    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Isn't the usual talking point from the right about the MW that these are beginning jobs for teenagers? What damage are we talking about doing to them?
    O.. I know.. I know!
    Paid Job training, and foot in the door positioning on better jobs. Also, opportunity to build up a resume.

    Personal example. When I got my first job it was as a bag-boy in a local grocery store, I was qualified to do little more than push buggies at the time(the most mind-numbingly simple job I ever had). Min wage went up when I worked there, and they cut the bag-boy staffing. By that time I had increased my skills, as well as built up trust, simply for showing up on time, and being trust worthy. They eventually moved me to Dairy (based solely on ability to show up on time, and work diligently, as well as being trustworthy). Now, here is the thing, I could have learned my managers Job, as he would have been happy to hand off more of his duties to me. I did not and left, but I would have had the opportunity to replace him several years later, as he was gone and a co-worker i worked with filled the Job. There were a lot of other skills I picked up, like working the liqueur sections (basically dusting the bottles and making sure no one tried to shove some "Grey Goose" or "Mad dog 20/20" down their pants), I had the opportunity to learn the names and strength of nearly every alcoholic drink on the shelf (many, many wines included). I could have easly parsed that into a bartender Job, as I was very friendly and people loved to tell me how to make their favorite drinks.

    So, a simple chain of opportunities for the totally inexperienced, that were removed for many people by raising the min wage.

    Of course, hey who cares about a bunch of bagboys anyway... make min wage $15, and bag your own groceries and complain about there not being buggies at the local store, or their parking lot being a mess, as well as discover the joy of "self check out". Anyone who want to be a bartender, they can just pay for school to teach them the names of everything and how strong they are. All those introverts (like I was) can just go to therapy to become people persons. (notice the pattern of spending time and money on skills that I was paid while learning).
    To serve man.

  21. #340
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes.
    You're saying that no forces, other than violence, are in play between employer and employee?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 01:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 06:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •