Christopher Goff's Comments
Page 1 of 8  first | prev | next 
Oct 29, 2006 | comments: 9
Christopher Goff Mar 26, 2008, 9:37pm EDT
"Tax the rich. They'll still be rich. And we'll have more taxes. Just don't let those taxes go to stupid projects (that's where the real debate should be).

(I guess even the super rich need their scary witches, too - but she is a good fairy to the working poor)"

-- How absurd! A good fairy for the working poor? What benefit to they receive, other than being told that money was being stolen from somebody else on their behalf and that they would never see any of the benefits from the thievery. A donation has been made in your honor ...

She's worse than robin hood, because at least robin hood didn't keep it to pay for his own pet projects after stealing in the name of the poor.
Mar 26, 2008 | comments: 8
Christopher Goff Mar 26, 2008, 9:31pm EDT
What did the other 50% want?
Mar 7, 2008 | comments: 28
Christopher Goff Mar 8, 2008, 11:13am EST
cool
Jan 24, 2006 | comments: 8
Christopher Goff Feb 11, 2008, 11:31pm EST
Let's diagram this, shall we.
1. What evidence do you have to suggest that a person can't live off 5.15 an hour?
2."Most jobs (unless corporate or proffessional) are already paying minimum wage or barely above it." -- How can this be true if the median income is in the upper 20-lower 30K.
3.So you presume that employees have no control over what they can make. What gives you that impression? There is a reason that there is a lot of turnover in low paying jobs. People leave them for higher paying jobs. Yes, employers would pay lower, but that is a good thing. That would give people with even lower skills an extra ladder rung for them to work up into the job market. With the current glass ceiling they can never attain employment at all because their current skills (or lack thereof) only command a rate of less than the current minimum wage.
4. Paying greater than nothing at all does not create poverty. These people were paid nothing at all because legally they are not allowed to work for the lower rate (in a world with a minimum wage). We have effectively barred them from employment -- thereby causing unemployment and subsidy to those unemployed
5. Where's your evidence for low-income families, violence or homelessness? Minimum wages are primarily paid to high and medium income teenagers. I haven't seen any causal relationship between working for minimum wage and violence. In fact I would presume that the opposite is true, i.e. that those that take the investment in their employment future by working at a lower income while picking up skills are more likely to not be involved in violent activities.
6. These people aren't living by themselves and they aren't paying income taxes.
7. To use what as an excuse? Is there such a thing as too many resources?
8. Please follow up on this article again. I am not sure what you are after in the remainder of the comment. I am confused as to who is suffering and why. I don't believe we are loosing jobs. The jobs are changing and for the better! Lower valued (in the worth that employers dictate through wages) jobs are exiting and higher valued, more service oriented and creative jobs are coming along. The only expectation is that things will continue to change. The employment market will become more aggressive and dynamic by the sheer nature of the expanding consumer demand for different products and services.
Aug 23, 2007 | comments: 28
Christopher Goff Oct 13, 2007, 11:07am EDT
Tim,
What does that have to do with anything
Feb 28, 2006 | comments: 2
Christopher Goff Aug 23, 2007, 8:28pm EDT
What have you been up to?
Aug 21, 2007 | comments: 205
Christopher Goff Aug 23, 2007, 8:22pm EDT
A couple of problems of social medicine:

Poor incentive structure for efficiency or increases in productivity; decreased choice (just look at certificate of need regulation); lowered flexibility in types of services provided; poor incentive to reign in increasing costs because of the loss of the profit motive

I think the only responsible "social medicine" is probably the subsidization of services for the poor. Anything more than that causes considerable problems, since government regulators (and their regulations) always suffer from the information problem (see Hayek, "The Use of Knowledge in Society") and can never know what is best for any one person at any point in time.
Aug 23, 2007 | comments: 28
Christopher Goff Aug 23, 2007, 8:13pm EDT
I think you are trying to capture far too much in one piece and aren't all too successful at it. I see the religion, patriotism, government control, liberty, Federal Reserve (? don't understand that reference), war and terrorism, etc. I can appreciate the attempt to explain how the masses of the United States and all other "civilized"countries in the world are controlled by their own soma of choice.


You will have to explain this one:

"Anything, in the universe, that isn't somehow balanced eventually consumes itself and dies... unless it finds a way to balance itself. "

What does this mean? How can you even hope to prove this statement?

Pretty good, but it needs some work. I think it is far to sensationalist personally...
Nov 9, 2006 | comments: 8
Christopher Goff Nov 9, 2006, 10:05pm EST
Cool eyes
Sep 17, 2006 | comments: 3
Christopher Goff Sep 21, 2006, 7:35am EDT
Why is that?

Would it pass a cost-benefit analysis? I doubt it.

What makes it worthwhile?
Sep 16, 2006 | comments: 3
Christopher Goff Sep 17, 2006, 1:27am EDT
Good comment.

Perhaps you would like to talk more about the efficiency vs. inefficiency. In this case I favor inefficiency of governmental action for the sake of individual liberty and personal freedom.

The efficiency of a centralized dictatorship is that the direction of "society" only has to obey one vision and desire. I don't think we move towards benevolence in the long run.
Sep 11, 2006 | comments: 3
Christopher Goff Sep 16, 2006, 9:57pm EDT
Per your advice, I will submit this to a couple of groups
Sep 11, 2006 | comments: 3
Christopher Goff Sep 16, 2006, 9:55pm EDT
I don't think that the question is too general. I think it is quite an appropriate place to start.

If individuals have prior illness, there are obvious problems with incarceration. If mental health issues develop because of lock-up (which seems quite likely), then we have to figure out how that will impact recidivism and even retention rates of the multitude of programs.

And interesting related question is whether it is correlation or causation?
Aug 8, 2006 | comments: 15
Christopher Goff Aug 8, 2006, 2:15pm EDT
Raising the minimum wage helps teenagers from higher income families.

Additionally, it would (theoretically) help illegal workers more.

There is little evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage helps the poor in any way.

This artificial structure comes at a cost! Wages might go up, but benefits go down, insurance, health care, time off, and any other fringe benefits. There is no benefit without costs!!!
Jul 15, 2006 | comments: 15
Christopher Goff Aug 1, 2006, 6:11pm EDT
The Canes. I like them because they brought hockey to North Carolina...
Jul 27, 2006 | comments: 3
Christopher Goff Jul 27, 2006, 7:06pm EDT
I agree!

The site has changed for the worse for those folks.
Jul 27, 2006 | comments: 1
Christopher Goff Jul 27, 2006, 7:05pm EDT
Nice pic!
Jul 4, 2006 | comments: 9
Christopher Goff Jul 4, 2006, 6:47pm EDT
That's fair
Page 1 of 8  first | prev | next 
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.