It's at the southern end of the box canyon that is the Willamette Valley (the end that abuts the mountains), and to the north is Linn-Benton County "the grass seed capitol of the world" ( https://www.google.com/search?q=grass+seed+capital+of+the+wo... ). If you have grass-pollen allergies, then Eugene really sucks. For everyone else it is fine except when the farmers burn their fields (which they aren't supposed to do, but enforcement is patchy).
The purpose of high minimal wage is to decrease inequality. It cannot become equal tax on everybody, unless you inject money into the system. The ones who are at very bottom would gain a lot, a lot more than increase in the cost of a latte. For example, for an apartment to become less affordable for a software developer, it has to become more affordable to a janitor. I am not even talking about the goods from Targets and Walmarts, which cost exactly same across the country.
So what I'm not clear on, and I wish people would provide some real example would be this issue of how businesses that currently employ people working at minimum wage actually are affected -- do they pass on the cost increase to their customers, hire less people, accept less profits, or are the increases in cost offset by more sales. I personally don't like the idea of a minimum wage being set by random politicians. So if $15 is good and it helps the economy, then why now $25/hour? I mean sure let's raise it or whatever so their is some base level of the ability for people to live, but where is the point of diminishing returns, I would actually like to know rather than just be like, $15/hr, yay!! Then 3 years later, "based upon the great success of $15/hr, lets go to $18/hr!!" its like uh ok what is the background reason for stating that the economy can absorb it other than saying "I dunno, I want my boss to pay me $18/hr, so lets vote yes!" Of course if he hires less people because of that (and I'm not fearmongering, I'm just saying lets say that actually happens), then that's not good right?
Oakland passed a new minimum wage ordinance last year (the year before maybe?) and a lot of the small local businesses around me raised their prices. They also put cards on their menus explaining the increases. It's possible they stopped hiring. It's possible the let go of staff. But most of them definitely raised their prices a bit.
But the thing is, these places aren't the places that people living on minimum wage frequent. They are yuppie/hipster magnets with overpriced lattes and fancy salads and fancy burgers, etc.
The corner store didn't raise prices. The grocery store didn't raise prices. The gas station didn't raise prices. Landlords didn't raise prices.
My impression is that the direct financial impact of raising the minimum wage in the form of increased prices only impacts people who have more disposable income.
Now, there are other impacts (like lost jobs, lower hiring, etc) but the consensus from economic studies seems to be that those effects aren't statistically significant.
So, minimum wage earners have more to spend on necessities and those of us fortunate enough to have more disposable income have to spend $2-$3 more for a meal or $0.50 more for a coffee.
There was massive amount of questionavle mergers lately: Altera + Intel, Fairchild + Onsemi, now this. We stepping into the age of monopolies, dear readers.
Altera + Intel? I get it, Altera was a 17B dollar deal, but come on. Intel buying AMD would be more cause for concern about monopolies, and that would be a far smaller deal.
Quartz oscillators are usually made in at leas 10th of kHz range, for whatever reason. Second most stable oscillators are LC and would require large coils for lower frequencies.
> EU countries are as a rule quite far ahead on the curve of progress, see: abortion
EU (esp. Scandinavia) has much, much more tight regulations of abortion, compared to English world, esp. Canada, which has none. As a socially conservative I consider this good.
