dann said:
No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe it would. Maybe it would even bring more customers, those who didn't want to go to an illegal prostitute. In that case it wouldn't reduce illegal prostitution, it would increase the number of johns instead.
And you do tend to take the point of view of the consumer, don't you?
It may increase overall demand for prostitution, but would greatly decrease the demand for illegal prostitution. Its like legalizing pot.
Politicians and employers in Europe say it all the time. (BTW, did Bush then raise the minimum wages after the election?)
Most states have their own minimum wage. The US is a very large conglomerate of vastly different environments. A wage that would get you a nice house in one city wouldn't get you a studio apartment in another. Most on the right would prefer to leave the sales tax issue up to individual states, and encourage them to do so if they feel that it is necessary.
No, it is demonstrably true! It depends: When a company introduces new technology to turn out more goods using fewer workers, it may simply lay off the rest - or it may become more competitive and hire more people (again).
It would sell more product because people have more money to buy more product. If they instead lay people off, that dollar is going elsewhere, and another company is expanding and hiring because of it.
Or it may move to Mexico. Or ... In Denmark many slaughterhouses are moving to Poland. My point was: technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!
Shifts of labor from one industry to another, or from an old technology to a new are necessary for an economy to advance. How many jobs do you think there were cleaning stables back in the day? There were layed off when the auto came.
Many pro labor groups would rather tinker with the economy and prevent buisnesses from laying off workers when shifts in the economy are necessary. In this case, you have a large number of workers doing unproductive work, and nothing the company can do about it. Or, maybe the could pack up, and move somewhere else, where they can choose an appropriate work force.
Apparently you've never heard about people in the real world being laid off as a result of industrial rationalization. OK, then you haven't.
It happens all the time, the economy is not static, requirements for labor forces change. Being in engineering, these changes happen very fast, everyone I know has been layed off multiple times, I've been layed off twice in recent years. However, everyone I know finds something new and exciting to work on. Course, the smart ones see the winds of change, and jump ship early.
I don't know what underwear and stealing has to do with this.
Its a south park episode that makes fun of a good number of dot com ventures, who have a product they know they can make, but have no idea how to sell it.
The underwear gnomes collect underwear, the southpark kids ask them why, they explain:
step 1: collect underwear
step 2: <everyone is silent>
step 3: Profit!
I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.
I've been out of work, and known a lot of people who've been out of work. I've seen software developers take jobs at starbucks or walgreens because they are having trouble finding a new job. They work through it, have an income, and eventually find the position they are looking for.
Please explain how prostitution is being forced on anyone. Unless you are dying of hunger, it is a choice.
