carpandean

I was thinking of illegals working under the table for under minimum wage, not legal immigrants working tough jobs for above minimum wage. That is a different problem (well, the fact that natural-born US citizens won't do it is.) One which includes ...

I'm not sure that I buy that a family of six living off of the income of two low-skilled jobs generate much demand. We don't know if we do because we choose not to allow any citizen to legally take a job at such a wage. Not that I'm advocating such an extreme, but if we allowed the market to set salaries, rather than artificially inflating them (again, I'm not saying this is entirely bad), then we might actually have a large supply of "low-skilled labor in the USA for low wages." We say that it's not good enough for our citizens, but we look the other way when somebody comes in illegally and does it. If our citizens didn't also qualify for public assistance, we might well see them do the same jobs illegally.

I don't know. There's already a supply of labor in this country that there isn't demand for, especially low skilled labor. Things were a little different when an increase in demand for product meant a corresponding increase in demand for domestic labor. That's not really how it works anymore.

You don't need a car to fight against oppression!! :ph34r: Personally, I don't mind background checks or required classes, as long as they meet three requirements: 1) The process is fast and simple. Unnecessarily long and difficult processes become de facto restrictions. 2) The cost is low. The founders were against restrictions that gave the rich unfair access to power (slave-issue aside, of course.)) 3) There is not a lasting record after the check. If government oppression is, at least in part, one of the driving forces, then they cannot have a list who is armed and (by elimination) who is not. But the reality would not be that black and white. It would not be the military or "the government", en masse, coming to take over the country. People forget that the military is made up of citizens, too, many of whom are as (if not more) staunch supporters of then Constitution and, in particular, the 2nd Amendment. Can you imagine what the Texas National Guard (for example) would do if the full military were ordered to occupy. The same is true for police. Go on YouTube and watch some of the videos of Sheriffs (not deputies, but the actual Sheriffs) from around the country speaking out against gun control. My favorite quote is something like "I will take off my badge and stand at the front in opposition, if I am ever ordered by the Federal government to confiscate weapons." None of the police officers that I know support NY's Safe Act. You would end up with a split military; part pro-government and part pro-citizen. The latter would be supported by the armed civilians (including many police officers), making an opposition force that no government would choose to fight against.

BUT WHY IS THE RUM GONE?!

Perhaps, but had there never been China (or any other cheap labor source), there wouldn't be the same number of manufacturing jobs in the US now instead. In other words, it wouldn't be a one-to-one shift. Far from it, in fact. The difference in what we allow/expect for compensation, even after factoring in shipping and other logistic associated with overseas production, would lead manufacturers to produce less of fewer products than what we see now and sell them at higher prices. There would be some more US jobs, no doubt, but mostly we'd just all have less cheap s**t.

Don't forget productivity increases due to process improvements and automation. Had they never sent a job overseas, there still would have been a substantial decrease in the demand for (low/unskilled) labor in manufacturing.

Back then you could have the older ones take the younger ones out to work the field while you got frisky on the homestead.

If having sex with him was like being his teammate, you could understand why ... he always finishes, but doesn't help out on her end.

I should have looked at what situation he was in. Was thinking of RFA offer sheet compensation, not an unsigned college player becoming a UFA.

Has to be our pick. I would say that it's probably worth it. We have the Islanders' second, too, so would still have one (not to mention three first-round picks.) The only question is whether one or both of the second-round picks could be used to move the Blues' pick up in the first, or even be combined with the Blues' pick to move either our or the Islanders' first up, should either end up being middle of the round (no, they wouldn't help us move up to get in the top-2 should we miss out on them.)

Put three stickers on every window: 1) ADT 2) NRA 3) BOD (beware of dog) and see how many criminals decide your house would be a good one to go into.

65 points was what I used for my Tank chart and it worked out quite well ...

My two thoughts on FO%: 1) I have never seen a strength-of-competition FO rating. Until I do, I'm not convinced by the "it's only 3 more faceoffs" argument. I've said it before, but if you're a 60% faceoff guy against primarily the top faceoff guys on other teams, then swapping in a 50% faceoff player who normally faces other 50%-ers, wouldn't just cost the team 10%. More than likely, it would cost 20-30%. 2) One would logically expect a strong interaction effect between a player's FO% and his (plus his linemates') skill level. Sydney Crosby spending time after practice to get 5% better at faceoffs does a lot more for his team than replacing a 55% 4th-liner with a 60% 4th-liner. The problem is that it easy to find several options for the 4th line, so it's also easier to choose one who has a higher %. When talking about top-line centers, a GM will rarely have multiple options. Even in those rare cases, there will likely be more critical differentiators.

Only if you're really over-thinking it. Two seconds on Google Images to jokingly point out that a guy who has an attractive wife might not care as much about where he ends up. It's not like anyone here was taking her picture or was talking about doing anything with her. Lighten up, Francis. :P

Nah, she's cute:

Yeah, I wouldn't care either ...

On improving the team ... Regier: Such generalities. Bolster. Bolster. Murray: We have needs everywhere. Advantage: Murray.

I try hard now ... ... and I'm gonna gets paidz! **metal guitar rift**

Does it matter? Unless they changed the definition of "two-way contract" in the last lockout, it just affects salary, not where he can play.

Woohoo, my jersey is valid again! Welcome back!

True, but being traded to a team heading to the playoffs is often a good enough reason to waive one's NMC.

It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff, the men from the boys, the awkwardly feminine from the possibly Canadian.