Niels

I agree that it is likely the Chinese government is exerting at least some influence on the publicly-released numbers, but in cases of new disease emergence, changing testing standards, and the development of a uniform set of symptoms to permit diagnosis without a testing each individual is normal. The same happened with Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and the Spanish Flu. We just get to witness the initial confusion more readily because of the faster speed of modern communications and the faster onset of symptoms relative to other diseases (e.g. AIDS). Someone on the Wikipedia article updates this chart (which despite the caveat to be somewhat wary of the numbers), which I think is a reasonable source of hope: Looking at the numbers, it is obvious that this disease isn't extremely contagious or extremely deadly. That's not to say it should be shrugged off, but under the assumption anyone reading this is from a developed country, in all likelihood if you were to be infected, medical professionals could administer antivirals and treat you symptomatically until your immune system won. The greatest risk you'd face is if too many people needed medical care too quickly that it overwhelms the medical system's ability to provide care for everyone. (Think how the US can easily rescue 100s or 1000s from natural disasters, but the response breaks down if asked to help 100,000s quickly, as in New Orleans after Katrina.) The bigger risk in terms of worldwide casualties is if the virus gets a foothold somewhere with a less-capable medical system, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, trade between China and that part of the world is relatively extensive, so increased risks for populations there ...

If you are in the US, it was released on 03/09. If you are elsewhere, check the list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4686844/releaseinfo

Seems a more pertinent "what happened" question is: "What happened with Trump and the Republicans' plan to repeal Obamacare?" Seems it failed bigly. Here's some sad trombone music.

Obama allowed guns to be illegally exported to drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the death of a border patrol agent. Obama allowed the IRS to illegally and indefinitely stall vital tax benefits to Conservative groups that opposed his policies. Pulled out of Iraq which created ISIS. Paid terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl. Iran deal. Paris Climate Accord. Interfering in Israel election. Benghazi was obviously caused by an offensive Muslim video. Castro is suddenly our best buddy. Bradley Manning released. Mass amnesty for illegal aliens. Releasing drug dealers from prison... need more treasonous acts? I don't see a court case resulting in a conviction of treason. "Treason" does not equal "did things I didn't like." Whatever Nugent has said and done, he did so to his exclusive audience that pay to hear him say and do it. You'll have to explain why a closed audience makes a difference. The Secret Service didn't think it was a laughing matter: they decided to pay Nugent a visit. Sorry, I got so excited listing all those Obama atrocities that I completely forgot to address this. I have never heard of this. I mean... never. I have never even heard of this theater. So really you're pointing at a tree that fell in the forest, and no one was even around to hear it. Another demonstration of using something awful to justify something awful. Did it even happen?... maybe more fake news? I don't know... but taking credit for this means Progressives can't even come up with an original idea. You do notice that I have never implied that there is anything illegal about any of this? The point is... you can say it, and you can do it... but you really shouldn't... not when things have gone just too far. Time to give it a rest. People are getting hurt. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means you didn't hear about it. And it did happen, and people saw it, and they had thoughts about it; that's why I was able to provide references. I do enjoy that even conservatives are calling people such as yourself who are suddenly conserved with a rendition of a Shakespeare play "whiny snowflakes."

It does take a special kind of reading comprehension failure to convert "right-wing terrorism also exists" into "Republicans winning elections is considered violent extremism." I'm sure there have been. Just as there were many who declared Obama a traitor (a remember, since treason is a capital punishment in the United States, this was equivalent to calling for the president to be executed. This is selective whining, considering that there was a production in 2012 where Caesar was replaced by Obama. (The production of the Obama version even garnered a positive review from The American Conservative. Liberals apparently didn't care too much one way or the other.) Remember when Obamacare was being discussed in 2009 and "the entire Republic* Party" declared that "death panels" would kill grandma. I'm sure those death panels will be here any day now to prove that the proponents of that theory weren't hyperventilating. /sarcasm * - used because apparently you think there is something called the "Democrat Party" in the United States. I'm aware that Kathy Griffin did this. Were there others? You did you the plural "Progressives." She lost pre-arragned gigs and was fired from her job by CNN. Pretty much what you would expect for doing something so stupid and heinous. By contrast, Ted Nugent talked openly about wishing to shoot President Obama and Hillary Clinton (Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch."). Unlike Griffin who was punished, Nugent was invited to be a guest at the White House after Trump became president. I never said anything about excusing the bad behavior of Steve Scalise's shooter. I did push back against the notion that only one type of person in this country can be an extremist.

Yes, I understand now. Republicans winning elections is considered violent extremism. So, to even the score Progressives need to destroy cities, poison the media, disrespect the President, hate your country, incite violence, and refuse to comply with the law. Yes, we are obviously cut from the same cloth. Until you guys can win elections... this is where you will be. Good luck with that. No - that is not what I said at all. But I'm sure you enjoyed turning over all those strawmen you set up for yourself. Post #2 in this thread is essentially: My comments at all points here have been to say that: My reminder was that every ideology has had violent extremists (for right-wing groups, this has included anti-government bombings and anti-abortion shootings) - it is not the exclusive domain of any group and anyone claiming such is both wrong and delusional. FFS, there are violent extremist Buddhists in this world. Somehow you decided that this meant that I was saying Republicans winning elections was violent extremism. That suggests a really really poor ability to read.

Someone makes a disingenuous point that "my side doesn't do this" gets told their point is disingenuous. If someone doesn't want to be told off for making a disingenuous point, they shouldn't make one. Violent extremism knows all ideologies, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

You asked. In reality, there are too few instances of members of Congress being killed or wounded to draw any conclusions. (Though, looking at the list, more Democrats have been killed or wounded than Republicans, though this is likely to be due to the fact that for much of US history, there were more Democrats in Congress than Republicans.) Interestingly, the one time that multiple Congressmen were shot in a single incident was in 1954, when 5 were wounded by ... Puerto Rican nationalists. So, while Lord Sunday is correct that there is not an analogous case of a shooting with the partisan roles reversed, he should take care to not overlook attacks that have been made or planned in the name of Conservative or Right-Wing extremism (a report on such incidents from the Anti-Defamation League is here, and some selected items described below). The 2nd worst terrorist attack in the US (after the September 11 attacks), was the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing, which was an act of anti-government extremism, in which the perpetrators, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, would be assigned as some kind of extreme-Libertarians to extreme-Conservatives.A mere year-and-a-half ago (Nov. 2015), Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., an evangelic Christian anti-abortion extremist (again, indicators of being an extreme-Conservative) shot 12 people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, killing three. Really, HackSlash's point about extremists of any type is really the most correct response.

It would have been better had there been more details about the plan and its funding. However, a move toward greater government involvement in ensuring health insurance access is likely in the United States, despite the fact that the GOP-majorities in congress and the President claim they want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a more free-market-friendly solution. I say the above based on polling on the subject, that has Americans saying "Yes, the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans" by a 60% to 38% margin. Although Republican voters were opposed (only 32% agreeing with the above statement), the poorest Republicans did agree (52% saying yes), and support for government ensuring health care coverage has risen in all age, income, and political groups over the prior year.

Yes, what has happened up on Washington has been, and is, ridiculous. However, just to make sure that we don't have people deciding that such lunacy is due to a single group of people, and aimed entirely in one direction, I submit the following regarding threats made to the lives of construction workers in New Orleans by a decidedly not-SJW crowd. In New Orleans, there were a number of monuments commemorating leaders of the Confederacy and the idea of white supremacy (yes, literally, "white supremacy," read the original inscription here, though it was later altered and then covered). The local government recently decided that they would remove these. And then threats came in from a small, but vocal, neo-Confederate crowd. The monuments were removed, but only with significant precautions made to protect the workers from the neo-Confederate crazies. Reports the Courier-Journal: Reports the Washington Post: (emphasis mine in both quotes) So yes, You have crazy SJW types threatening insufficiently-SJW people and forcing college campuses to close. AND You have crazy anti-SJW types threatening people in order to protect pro-white supremacy monuments.

Considering that it relates to the very first post in this thread: "Trump said he would save jobs at Carrier. The layoffs start July 20." - Washington Post, 05/24/2017 (Don't like the Washington Post? Here's some CNN, the local FOX affiliate, and the NY Daily News. The NYDN report even notes that the final planned layoffs are to be three days before Christmas.) The CNN report even has this to say about the remaining positions: Funny how things change in less than six months. Turns out you really can't fight the economic fundamentals, and that automation and globalization don't give a damn about minor publicity stunts. Who could have predicted that? (Raises hand and points to post #16 in this thread) On the other hand, I'm sure Carrier very much enjoyed the government subsidies and tax credits that Indiana threw at them, and which future Hoosiers will have to pay more in taxes to cover.

Trump: "Do it my way, do it now!" Congress: "Actually, no ..." Trump: "Well, this is hard. I give up." Clearly we are led by someone who truly understands "the art of the deal." /sarcasm

You're absolutely right it is a difficult thing to do with no money (which is a lot of people, because somehow, 46% of people in this country couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency - something that seems totally flabbergasting to me). The challenges are great, though they are not as great for the white working class that consensus thinks were most important in deciding this election. As that link shows, the poorest whites are still more likely than the poorest blacks and the poorest Hispanics to be able to pull together the emergency cash. Although I don't have numbers handy, I expect they also have a much higher rate of car ownership, which means that they'd have a better chance of not having to hitchhike to ND than an African American in an economically distressed urban area (e.g. Flint, Michigan). Regardless, I think you are right that the challenge is too much for many, which is why I would look favorably upon a relocation assistance program. The country is presently experiencing an all-time low in percentage of people moving, which almost certainly decreases overall national economic vitality (particularly if it prevents someone from following my WV to WY advice and increasing their cost-of-living adjusted contribution to GDP by 80%). I also happened to come across an article on the possible future effects of automation, which is quoted in part here: I think that really underscores how big of a disruption to the economy we are going to see soon. Even just the 9% in the next 1-2 decades would be 14-16M jobs, depending on the future rate of economic growth (it would be 13M if employment remained static at late-2016 levels). The fact that Trump's campaign is rhetorically a backward-looking one (the "again" part of "Make America Great Again"), and that he seems predisposed to disregard expertise really suggests to me that he's unprepared for the challenge to come, and may unfortunately delay us taking intelligent steps to try to get ahead of these automation-induced changes. I haven't had a chance to review the entire federal report upon which the article and quoted excerpt were taken, since it is 55 pages long, but I'm sure it has a lot of interesting analysis. The fact that it was requested and published by the current administration suggests that Pres. Obama, et al., perceive this coming issue, though it is not clear that they had any comprehensive ideas for addressing it either, and have obviously run out of time to come up with something. Thanks for the good conversation!

I do agree that one may very well still end up "screwed," but it is better to take action so that one may not, rather than remain as is, where it is already happening or looks certain to happen. Your point about automation and robotics is almost certainly correct, which is why I am highly skeptical about Trump (or any politician) claiming that they will "bring back jobs" that can easily be automated. Instead of trying to somehow reverse the trend of increased use of robotics, we really should be thinking about what we should do when they limit the number of jobs available by the 10s of millions. Maybe a universal basic income is the answer, maybe not, but forward-looking ideas are what really should be discussed, not trying to remake the economy of old, as I think Trump and his supporters will mistakenly try. There are some options. Below I've got the GDP per capita of each of the US states (both nominal, in yellow, and cost-of-living adjusted, in blue): (Higher resolution is here: http://i.imgur.com/WdfQqJR.jpg) If one is not happy with KY or WV, try out AK, WY, or ND. All of these states have an economic basis on resource extraction (so I am not suggesting someone suddenly move from being an unemployed ex-coal-miner in KY to a corporate lawyer in DE). Their level of educational achievement is similar (KY is in 47th place for percent of population with college degree and WY is in 40th), so lacking a degree is not an impediment. Yet, as the chart shows, it is much better to live in AK/WY/ND/NE/SD than KY/WV/AL/ME (again, I am trying to select states that seem broadly similar in terms of economy, education, and culture to make the relocation suggestion as fair as possible). Let's take moving from WV to WY for example. Despite Trump's claims, Appalachian coal jobs are not coming back: they peaked back in 1940, way before any of the environmental regulations after 1970. Appalachian coal has been undercut in the market by western coal (compare Appalachian coal at $1.92/mmbtu to Powder River Basin coal at $0.63/mmbtu) - the Powder River Basin is in Wyoming - and natural gas. But the fact that coal extraction in one place has been replaced by coal and natural gas extraction elsewhere means that there are opportunities for relocation with similar employment, and with better wages (again, see chart above), even if one is not working in the exact same job, just in the new location. Turns out this is probably happening to some extent: WV was the only state to lose population from 2010 Census and 2014 estimate.* Opportunities still exist, even for those of limited education, though they don't necessarily exist in WV, KY, southwest PA, southeast OH, etc. * - though part of the decline has to be attributed to the high rate of deaths from opioid overdoses in WV. Frankly, not being surrounded by that would be reason enough to leave even if there was not an economic reason, IMHO.

"The medium by which things are exchanged, not the value for which they are."

A totally fair point, which is why it would be great if there was some kind of assistance program aimed at helping people move to more economically-vibrant areas. We already have programs aimed at retraining people, but they often fail to result in meaningful improvement because of poor implementation and because the retrained person remains in a place with bad employment options. However, on the other hand, very few people have been perpetually poor (intergenerational income mobility is not as high as it used to be, but is still high). It should have been clear that the world was changing (as my original chart at the beginning of this conversation showed with respect to perpetually declining % of jobs in manufacturing from 1950 onwards). I mean, I can put up this article from the 1982 New York Times about an 80% decline in steelworker jobs in Jonestown, PA from 1977-1982. Not all the steel mills closed simultaneously, so an entire industry was not made unemployed and poor overnight, but it should have been obvious that (1) the industry was in decline and (2) finding something new to do, possibly somewhere else, would be advised. Well, the "American Frontier" was official deemed closed based on the data of the 1890 Census. Yet, several large internal migrations occurred after this time. First, the 1910s-1970s Great Migration I mentioned earlier. Second, movements induced by the Dust Bowl, such as the "Okies" who moved from Oklahoma to California in the 1930s. To get back to the earlier comment about poor people being unable to move because they are poor, I would note that uneducated Black sharecroppers and farmers who have had their farms foreclosed upon were also poor people - their net worths were probably not much different from $0 at the time they moved north or west, respectively. Yes, there are homeless and unemployed people in SF and NYC (there are everywhere), but this does not change the fact that on average the people in these places are more economically productive, and that these places have positive business/job growth (whereas rural areas don't) - see this Washington Post article and specifically the main chart in it. Specifically regarding the homeless people, I suspect that a large number of them have untreated mental health issues (which it would be great to address) and congregate in cities because there are more people, with more money, who might take pity on them and give a dollar - if not, organized assistance (government, religious, and/or humanitarian) are more concentrated in cities. Those responsible for approving policies that would be expected to reduce economic growth without a clear upside, and the persons who empowered them? I'd be equally resentful if I was forced to accept an eminent domain buyout of my property at below-market rates for a "bridge to nowhere" type of project that voters/politicians approved for some reason. This is all true - nothing is guaranteed. I want to make clear that although I do not approve of Mr. Trump as a person, and do not agree with most of his policies, I am not rooting for him to fail so I can be right and say "told you so" to people who did support him. Ultimately, I will be pleasantly surprised if he does a decent job, but I think if he does, it will be by pursuing more accepted policies (e.g. broad changes to corporate taxes and regulations), rather than one-off deals like the Carrier silliness or protectionist measures.

Maybe this is an unpopular response (in fact, I know it is), but if one is in an area with poor economic opportunities: then move. Every American literally moved to this country, or to the land that would become this country, or within this country in search of better opportunities. Native Americans followed huntable animals across Beringia. People from the Old World since 1492 have come seeking land, jobs, and fortune. The only exception might be African Americans whose ancestors were forcibly relocated here against their will, but even so, many of their grandparents moved internally seeking a better place to live in the during the Great Migration from 1910-1970. To show that I'm not speaking purely academically, I'll use my family as an example: On one side, my ancestors came here to escape the Irish Potato Famine and the brutality of British rule over Ireland. On the other side, they were Jews from the then-Russian Empire, who got tired of having their wealth and lives threatened by the repeated pogroms. Both sides had to move repeatedly for employment reasons before settling in New York for a few decades (ca. 1930-1990), then again moving to various other states in the 1990s. Point is: Americans used to move to seek better lives, and it is still a way to get ahead which is why those on upward trajectories move to vibrant cities like SF which are responsible for an increasing share of our nation's GDP. By contrast, those who refuse to uproot themselves like their own ancestors did, are, and think themselves to be, on downward paths. One poignant expression of this idea that sticking around somewhere that is economically depressed is a poor choice comes from an article in the National Review: (emphasis mine) Maybe you are right, maybe a reminder is necessary. When it goes poorly, I'm sure going to resent the negative impact on my life, particularly since it will come during what ought to be my prime earning years. I do hope that there are not worse things than protectionism that we need to be reminded are bad. For example, note the part of my ancestry about Jews and pogroms: we had the Inquisition (most intense in the 15th & 16th centuries) and those pogroms (19th & 20th centuries). A cynical reading of the repetitive view of history says they'll be more in the 22nd. Again, hopefully no "reminders" will be necessary that state-sponsored anti-Semitic violence is also bad.

This is a fair point. I did note that this was about the best ratio observed since 2000, so during both of the previous periods of economic growth (before the 2001 recession, and before the 2009 recession). Of course, we have difficulty in determining how many of those long-term non-employed people really want to work. One often reads about morons who claim "93 million people out of work" but that assumes that everyone age 16 or greater not working is "out of work." The fact that that number includes kids in 10th grade who should not be working full time, and my 85 year old retired grandfather who doesn't need to work is why it is a stupid number to trot out. Not that this is a criticism of your comment specifically, but one needs to be very careful about not just assuming too many millions of people from nothingness. Right, but purposely doing "something" for the sake of doing "something" is a silly way to go about making policy. Especially if one acknowledges the probability that the new policy will have negative outcomes. As I've pointed out, any attempt to force manufacturing back to the US will result in elevated investments in automation that will dissolve expected employment gains. Since the US doesn't have access to all the raw materials needed for manufacturing (China has 97% of all rare-earth element production) we'll still be importing things. Also, that capital for automation must be paid for, which raises the costs of things. An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisors found that "Middle-class consumers gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from trade." So there's why it is silly to do engage in change for change's sake: limited-to-no employment gains, limited effect on trade deficit, and a ~30% reduction in peoples' purchasing power, which will certainly make them feel a lot poorer. I don't want to be made poorer. I don't want other people to be made poorer. And I certainly don't want us to waste 5 or 10 years "trying" something new so we can re-confirm that protectionism and mercantilism are bad economic policies. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), and subsequent history should have taught us that already. There's no reason to think re-trying these ideas will not "hurt too much." This is an interesting idea. I'll posit that it is being applied incorrectly here: protectionism is antithetical to creative destruction. It protects that which already exists at the expense of what might be. One of the hallmarks of open and free trade is that industries must advance to maintain a lead over competitors worldwide. The fact that America has transformed from an industrial economy to one where intellectual outputs and ideas drive growth (see Silicon Valley as an example) has been demonstrative of Shiva's ideals. I'll end with an example of protected markets resulting in decreased purchasing power as I mentioned earlier. Here is an advertisement for a desktop computer from 1990: before we started significant trade with East Asian economies that now produce a large amount of our consumer electronics (but not the software that runs them; American firms mostly provide that). http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/page-7-386-prices-768788.jpg In inflation-adjusted dollars, the lowest model there ($1498 in 1990) would cost $2770 today. Skip over to Amazon and you can find perfectly acceptable computers for 1/5 and maybe even 1/10 of that price. For this reason 84% of homes in the US have personal computers (data from 2014), and I'm sure the value is higher among younger households with children. Households having these resources would never have been possible without free trade policies - the costs would have simply been too high, and we can thank trade for making it possible.

0%, 20%, same thing. What are numbers, how do they work!? You should try getting a better superpower.

Indeed, I did not, because I don't know if there are, and explicitly said as much. This is true - best I can find is that right now there are 1.4 unemployed pesons for every job opening. This ratio is the about the lowest it has been since 2000 though, suggesting a reasonably good employment market without too many "surplus" would-be-employees. For better or worse, we can probably expect significant retirements in the near future (Baby Boomers are reaching Social Security age right now by the hundreds-of-thousands per month). Their positions may require replacement by younger workers, but their aging will require additional health and home-services positions in the coming years. That will provide jobs for a number of people. Maybe - depends on what the plan is: Is it going to be giving out local or state tax cuts to specific profitable companies as Trump/Pence did? Most people like having their town run a police department, fire services, and a school district, etc. If you cut one company's taxes, the costs of these things need to be raised somewhere else. Now suddenly the rest of the town has less spending money because we're all subsidizing those factory workers. The hazard of companies threatening to leave in order to extort favorable tax conditions has not been addressed. If one plant/company is chosen for tax preference and another is not, the latter will be less-competitive and likely to shed workers. Result is just a transfer of the pain to different workers in a different town. Are we going to just raise tariffs? Yes, this will keep some jobs around, but it is an incentive toward automation, which ultimately will reduce the number of jobs in the future by attrition. As an aside, the CEO of United Tech has already announced that the jobs kept at the Carrier plant are not going to last: "we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down". Further, contrary to popular belief, the US has a lot of exports (2nd highest of any country). Put up a tariff up to protect workers from imports? Results in other countries establishing their own tariffs that will then decimate our exporting industries. Again, just a transfer of pain from one set of employees to another. Specific tariffs/fines for companies that move production overseas? (A Trump idea as of 4 days ago) In the short-term this might be better than general tariffs, since it is unlikely to result in retaliation that damages our own exports. However, without the tariffs being general, a company that has always been foreign and thus isn't subject to these penalties will always be able to undercut the American-based one that would be subject to penalties if it tried to move to a lower labor cost area. The foreign companies will gain market share and drive the American ones out of business. This outcome is actually worse than letting the American companies offshore, since a greater proportion of the earnings are likely to end up in the hands of non-American shareholders at the end. But, just so I can point out that I am not someone only able to criticize. A good solution would be to make the US more competitive through adjustments to taxes and regulations in a revenue-neutral manner. Decreasing corporate taxes probably won't have much of a positive effect - as I pointed out, Reagan's 1980s tax cuts were ineffective at changing trends - but they might a little. The key is that they must not be allowed to explode the federal deficit, since that will make things much worse in the future in terms of decreased budget flexibility and increased need to raise revenue for GDP-sapping interest payments.

Yes, that is correct, and here is a reference for anyone interested: "SoftBank and Saudi Arabia plan $100 billion tech fund" - October 13, 2016 http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/softbank-saudi-arabia-plan-100-billion-tech-vision-fund-based-in-london.html

And meanwhile 1/3 of Trump's supposed saved jobs at Carrier from last week have disappeared. Quoting from Indianapolis' NBC affiliate: (emphasis mine) I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation for why Trump's numbers on 11/29 don't match actual numbers on 12/05. (The non-innocent one quoted in the article is that he was claiming to have "saved" R&D jobs that were never at risk of moving.) Maybe he can spin a great headline out of the the ~400 people who thought their jobs were saved last Tuesday, and who were then put on the chopping block anyway this Monday. Or more likely, since the stunt is over, no one will particularly care except little local news organizations. Don't blame me for being pessimistic - I said one could not attempt to fight the actual economic realities.

I work in a scientific laboratory environment where anything on hands restricts ability to put on / take off gloves, and necklaces risk getting dunked into beakers when they're being examined unless they are kept firmly secured underneath a shirt or labcoat. Therefore, I have a wristwatch only, which is, like Hung Wang, used for timekeeping. Bringing in a phone, much less grabbing it with a gloved hand, just to keep track of experiment times is a big no-no.

To be fair, there are a lot of things that Ben Carson knows little about. For example, he correctly identifies that The Pyramids exist, then goes off the rails: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/151105-carson-to-archaeologists-wrong-about-the-pyramids.jpg But at least people can have some fun with it: Maybe he can use his authority at HUD to build grain silos in major cities.

About 25% of the way down this page is a table of the current, and planned future increases (if any) in minimum wages in each state: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx Of states that have chosen to have a minimum wage above the federal minimum one, the lowest are: Maine: $7.50/hr (though scheduled to increase to $9.00/hr on 01/01/2017) New Mexico: $7.50/hr Missouri: $7.65/hr (this value is automatically updated annually based on the Consumer Price Index) Within each state, counties and cities may increase their minimum wage above the federal one and state one (if it exists). So for example, New Mexico statewide is $7.50/hr, but it is $8.75/hr in Albuquerque and $10.91/hr in Santa Fe. Local ordinances can be highly important: in the case of New Mexico, those two cities represent 30% of the state population, and probably a higher proportion of jobs in the state, as people who commute into the cities for work will be subject to the increased minimum wage.