Hixter

It's pretty clear that Obama and Cameron are leaning in and smiling for a photo of themselves.

And Obama's selfie is up at HuffPo.

I doubt most Americans even know who Raul is.

So your only point is that business owners (not just "the right") with minimum wage employees resist efforts to force them to pay their employees more money? Well, duh. I thought we were discussing the recent demand that the minimum wage be doubled to $15, historical wage increases of the past, inflation and the standards and cost of living.

Past increases have been on the order of 10% (much less than a dollar) every few years. The protesters are demanding that the wage be raised by $7.75 -- more than double the current rate. No, if you'll look at the articles/charts that Don Draper posted, you'll see that they would be in the $9 rage.

No I'm not. And that article is comparing minimum wage to productivity, not inflation. The article says that the actual value of the minimum wage has fallen 20% from $9 in 1967 to $7.25 in 2013. As I said, the wage should be adjusted for inflation, so raise it back to $9 -- several states have already done so. The protesters' demands to raise it to $15 are ludicrous and unworkable.

You pointed out a $5.05 increase over a period of 35 years; today's protesters are calling for a $7.75 (107%) increase overnight. Nobody would complain about tying minimum wage increases to the rate of inflation, but doubling pay overnight would undoubtedly result in a loss of jobs and higher consumer costs. There's no other way that it could turn out.

That was more than 35 years ago, so you can attribute the change in minimum wage to inflation. Take a look at what a Big Mac cost then compared to what it costs now.

Anything the employer pays will come out of the consumer's pocket in the end through higher prices. Forcing businesses to raise prices will result in business closures and more unemployment. $7.25 per hour is better than zero dollars per hour.

But how would it actually work? What would the standard of living look like? Should someone who flips burgers be paid enough to live where home prices are in the 7 digits and rents are $2000 or $3000 per month? We're not just talking about fast food workers, we're talking about people who work in hotels, grocery stores, shops and laborers. We're talking about doubling the pay of millions (perhaps tens of millions) of workers -- no small feat. And, in the end, consumers like you and I will pay for it every time we buy something. That's not necessarily true. McDonald's has 1.8 million people

No, it didn't. Perhaps you think that was my intention, but it was not. Please define what you think a living wage would be, what the standards of "living" would be, and how it would be paid for. Yes and yes. Most members of the military never see any combat. Those who do spend a small fraction of their time in service in a combat zone. Only if they are married. And the married folks will typically only collect it for a year or two out of a 20-year career. Unmarried soldiers get no housing allowance - they live in the barracks. Married soldiers only get an allowance if base hous

Should fast food workers in places like Manhattan, the Bay Area or Orange County be paid $40 or $50 dollars per hour to be able to afford to live there? They are paid an additional $7.50 per day. How many of us would walk through IEDs for seven dollars? Who pays those billions of dollars? (The answer is us.)

I'm not suggesting that. I'm just pointing out that there's often more than meets the eye when we are faced with stories about people living on $7.25 per hour.

I remember reading an interview where a certain member of Wilco said that he'd cut his long, blonde hair in the early 90s after being called Nelson one too many times.

What about child support payments by the father? Things like that get left out of the equation.

Look up a couple of posts.

No, but I haven't seen anyone reporting on the plight of minimum wage workers ask them if they live with their parents or receive housing or food benefits, either. A new enlistee earns $1400 per month in base pay and receives $350 per month in meal allowances. He/she is then required to pay for his/her meals at the chow hall. I assume that $350 will just cover 3 meals a day in the chow hall, but it won't go far off post. A few things to consider: 1) Military members are not paid hourly, so there's no overtime involved. They typically work far more than 40 hours per week; (Anecdote Alert)

It's now December and, as the CBS correspondent noted, signup figures haven't been released and the administration is stonewalling. The fast food protesters are demanding $15/hr, which is more than many enlisted service members earn. Despite what you'd like to believe, I put plenty of thought into my statement, although it was a very simple one. You're doing it wrong if you're an adult working full time and your total income is $15,000 per year. I live in a city where the cost of living is quite cheap, yet the local fast food restaurants advertise starting pay of $9.50 and up. Also, let

If you'll check what was written, the poster said "trading anecdotes rather than facts," thus insinuating that I was not being factual. I, on the other hand, never claimed that the poster wasn't being factual.

Another indicator of how poorly healthcare.gov is doing: 741 people signed up in New Jersey during the entire month of October, while 50,000 residents signed up for newly legalized online gambling the first week it was available.

The last I heard, the number was 10% of where the administration has hoped they'd be. That said, it doesn't really matter because the figures that have been released don't mean squat because they're just the people who have added a plan to their shopping cart, not actually paid for, or received, insurance. CBS Washington correspondent Sharyl Attkisson doesn't seem convinced, either: Have the centrifuges stopped spinning? Have any facilities been shuttered? Has work on their nuclear weapons program been halted? No, nothing has been implemented as of yet. Nothing has changed, except they

Or Saudi Arabia. Or Kuwait. Or any of the other regional nations that will be drawn into a nuclear arms race once the Iranians get the bomb.

The original poster's remark was "trading anecdotes rather than fact."

Not at all. But the regime is what counts. They call the shots. If mushroom clouds erupt in the region it won't matter how friendly and well-meaning the citizens are.