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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.