en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/618882 Comments by diophantus http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57561627 This is probably a dead thread at this point, but to respond to both comments in brief: 1) I keep referring to the age discrimination law because the arguments made by others seem to oscillate between (and I am paraphrasing) "I don't think age should matter" and "looking at age in any form is illegal." These are two different statements. What we think should be fair is debatable and subjective, but what is legal is far less so. Legally, age discrimination has been defined by the ADEA since 1967. Whether we think it is fair or not, it protects older people from discrimination--not younger. As to your question of who can enforce it, the EEOC can and will. 2) You bring up another point that Missouri is an "at-will" state. While this is correct, this does not mean that, "employers can terminate employment without any given reason." It DOES mean that you don't necessarily have to work through a disciplinary process to terminate an employee. It DOES NOT give you license to violate federal law including ADEA or FLSA standards nor does it shield you from fiscal responsibility involving any lawsuits brought against you by terminated employees who can show that you violated federal law in their termination. 3) The whole purpose of an economy whether it be marxist, capitalist, etc. is to allocate scarce resources that have alternate uses (to borrow from economist Lionel Robbins). Regarding "my" second theory with which you disagree, it is not "my" theory. Artificial minimums interfere with the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses and ultimately CANNOT change that underlying reality. The damaging results of these systems (in this case, the contraction of available jobs in the pool when minimum wage increases) are again not just "my" theory. They are very well documented in the field of economics. khorr, Your answers appear thoughtful. If you are interested in economics, I would encourage you to check out Mr. Sowell's "Basic Economics." It is a college textbook, but I recommend it because it is so readable to those of us in the general public. I don't believe you would regret reading it. Cheers! Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:16:54 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57561627 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57381756 The age-discrimination law (ADEA) is designed to protect older, typically better compensated employees from being replaced with younger, cheaper employees--not vice versa. Specifically, from the department of labor's website, "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment." There are some other laws that will come into effect if you receive federal financial assistance, etc, but this is the one to which I assume you are referring. Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:53:52 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57381756 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57381467 Thank you. I don't have to be the only one taking the same stand in this article. Mr. Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent and very readable book (no college required) on this very thing cleverly entitled, "Basic Economics." A couple of items that come to my mind: 1) Suppose there are 10,000 people employed in MO under the age of 20 making an average of $10 per hour. Now suppose minimum wage is dropped and subsequently the average pay drops from $10/hour to $7/hour, but the number of EMPLOYED under the age of 20 raises to 14,286. (For the sake of this example, both cases are roughly $100,000) It is easy to say that the average pay dropped 30%, but this doesn't factor in the 4,286 ADDITIONAL people who were making $0.00 per hour that now have a job. 2) Moreover, being unemployed, especially when you're young, is a punishment that keeps on giving the rest of your life -- not just the short time you are unemployed. If you want a "real" job, you simply MUST have experience before you will be considered for hiring. When you can't get that requisite experience because a company can't afford to hire any more beginners at an artificial "minimum wage," then you lose immediately and throughout your career. Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:51:18 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57381467 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57379582 The age-discrimination law (ADEA) is designed to protect older, typically better compensated employees from being replaced with younger, cheaper employees--not vice versa. Specifically, from the department of labor's website, "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment." There are some other laws that will come into effect if you receive federal financial assistance, etc, but this is the one to which I assume you are referring. Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:33:39 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/84585767.html#IDComment57379582 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/83453142.html#IDComment55230642 This is a common argument given against enforcing rules prohibiting prostitution. Generally speaking it is amazing how many of these people who argue that police should worry about "real" crime are the first to call when prostitutes set up shop in front of their homes and are picking up and servicing tricks in front of their children. I would also ask if drug enforcement is a "real" crime because prostitution rings are prime hotbeds of this activity and one of the most effective ways police can target their anti-drug efforts. Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:42:46 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/83453142.html#IDComment55230642 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/79399112.html#IDComment47478340 I suppose I come at this from a little different perspective. Though I am not affiliated with SRC, I have read both of the books produced by Mr. Stack. Some businesses succeed and some fail. The consequences are real and tragic for those who work for these companies when they don't succeed and yet these failures are very necessary to the free market which strives to allocate scarce natural resources that have alternative uses (to borrow from economist Lionel Robbins) to where they are most needed. Many people lost their jobs when the horse-and-buggy market fell out, but the economy as a whole had to adapt to the automobile and was better able to use those employees elsewhere. Simply stated, the gains and losses are the nature of the beast and cannot be changed. Looking at this from the other side, given that it cannot be changed, would you rather have closed-book management where the bosses come in one day and announce that the business is closing (surprise!) or would you rather have open book management where you can actually see the financial state of the company for which you work and make intelligent, informed decisions on your own as to the status of the company? I would rather have the latter. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:29:33 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/79399112.html#IDComment47478340 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/78762497.html#IDComment46264946 I have to agree. Maybe her upbringing is an absolute travesty and did, in fact, constitute several contributing factors to this event just as rain can contribute to motor vehicle accidents; however, just because the rain contributes does not imply that the rain is at fault--the driver is. Likewise with murder. Killing innocent people is not something a society can tolerate or explain away and continue to function. Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:28:08 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/78762497.html#IDComment46264946 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/69552657.html#IDComment42566941 Out of all the money that the government confiscates from my paycheck, an extra $500k in eight years (out of how much total revenues in 8 years?) is a SMALL price to pay to insure that these guys who care so little about their duties as an elected official to even finish out their terms don't become career politicians. Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:39:23 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/69552657.html#IDComment42566941 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/69319182.html#IDComment42253101 It's important at this point to look at the issues and not our own personal agendas. His name is Nidal Malik Hasan, and latest reports indicate he shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. The same statement was made before 3000 innocent Americans died on 9/11. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any reports that indicate he had been deployed previously to Afghanistan or Iraq. Additionally, if the wars were all about the oil we are now stealing from these countries through some nebulous pipeline, why are we paying $2.50/gallon? My condolences to the families of these soldiers. I hope that screening procedures are improved and not subjugated to political correctness so that this type of personality is not allowed to get this far where this much damage can be inflicted. Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:33:57 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/69319182.html#IDComment42253101 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/51749742.html#IDComment28787635 Again, my condolences. I can see how disturbing the situation would be. Whether Mr. Revak was innocent or guilty, I wish Ms. Williams' family and all of you in the vicinity a quick resolution to this already two-year-old mystery. Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:51:17 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/51749742.html#IDComment28787635 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/51749742.html#IDComment28782413 I believe the point of kahnanite's post was that due process is guaranteed and we are blessed to live under this system. If you are personally involved with this whole tragedy, my condolences to you. I must, however, disagree with your comment, "What happened to the Justice system is that they had to wait until they had the evidence they needed to get this man." and the tenor of several similar ones in which he is automatically guilty without concrete evidence presented against him, which I am attempting to consolidate into the following: Nothing "happened" to the US justice system that they had to wait until they had the evidence. . . it was designed this way from the beginning. Taking a step back and taking a deep breath from the emotion, can you honestly say that you want people being arrested with no evidence simply because some nebulous group of "they" nebulously "knows" (and I'm not sure how do define this word if you mean without evidence) that someone did something? If we take this route, where do we stop? Are YOU willing to live under a system where YOU yourself could be arrested at any time by police and held without evidence because they "know" you did it? As a law-abiding citizen, I'm certainly thankful that I don't live under such a system, and I hope that a far greater percentage of the US population than a sample of this story's comments indicates is also thankful for due process. Due process is not a constraint to acquit the quilty and pervert justice--it is the premiere defense to protect the innocently accused and their families who depend on them just as much as the victim's family depended on her. I don't know if he is guilty or not, but I do know I can wait until the evidence is presented to reach a conclusion. I hope for the sake of our country I'm not in the minority. Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:24:51 +0000 http://www.ky3.com/news/local/51749742.html#IDComment28782413