|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 19 2014 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 21:44 RvB wrote:On April 18 2014 14:07 IgnE wrote:On April 18 2014 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] I don't have a problem with a modest increase in the min wage. But to do away with EITC and the like you'd have to raise it a lot. CBO estimates that a $10.10 min wage would increase incomes for families up to 3X the poverty line by $12 Billion. Food stamps pay out $80 billion and EITC pays out $60 billion. sourceIf you want to do away with these programs (not to mention all the others!) you'll have to go well beyond what reasonable people are suggesting. [quote] Well it's a bit of a red herring - min wage won't affect just Walmart. It also ignoring the impact of higher prices on real wages, lower demand from higher prices, etc. I don't believe it advocated for a minimum wage. But even if it did, we all agree that minimum wage increases are a wash on unemployment. Lower demand from 1.4% price increases? Offset by worker raises? The effects of minumum wage on unemployment are highly debatable. I don't get how you can be so certain about such a widely debated topic. As far as I can tell it's actually pretty one sided to the idea that it doesn't matter much at all for employment. for every 10% wages you get a 0-1.5% decrease but only in the under 30 workers so it doesn't even really show up in unemployment. Most of the research claiming the decrease in jobs don't go over 1.5% and most if not all that say 1.5% are neoclassical based economic claims that have been shown to be wrong multiple times in the real world. So where is this data that supports the claim raising the minimum wage kills jobs? And is any of it supported by non-Neoclassical economics? Only a couple percent of workers earn the minimum wage so it's hard to notice even a substantial change in the data. CBO has a pretty middle of the road analysis on the issue: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf The EITC encourages more people in low-income families to work—particularly unmarried custodial parents,
often mothers, for whom the EITC is larger than it is for people without children.4 That increase in the number
of available workers tends to reduce workers’ wages,allowing some of the benefit of the EITC to accrue to
employers, rather than to the workers themselves.5 An increase in the minimum wage would shift some of
that benefit from employers to workers by requiring the former to pay the latter more. See? as for It's not a disingenuous argument. If there's no chance for profit, no one is going to invest. End of story. You do realize how empirically false this notion is right? Unless you are just using the most narrow definition which requires profit for something to be an investment. Which could not be more pointless to say. How much gets shifted? Edit: and how does it compare to wages being shifted to government. It's empirically true. We're talking about for-profit retailers. They aren't going to exist without profit. Or are we seriously proposing nationalization of the retail industry? CBO concludes that the net effect on the federal budget of raising the minimum wage would probably be a small decrease in budget deficits for several years but a small increase in budget deficits thereafter. It is unclear whether the effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits
The more I read from your source the more ridiculous reports like this seem. There is only a 66% chance that anything they said is right by their own admission. I can't help but see the irony of referring to Neoclassical based estimates like the CBO or others as meaningful while simultaneously dismissing actual science about climate change. When they bothered to ask outside economists about claims they make they didn't even get 51% of them to agree with them... Our economic thought as a nation is such a joke, except no one is laughing. That's econ for you  It's also why so much econ related public policy is still influenced by personal frame of reference. Ex. A business owner looks at his P&L and wonders how he'll be able to afford a higher wage. A economist may say that the higher wages will result in higher sales, but he's very skeptical of that. Except there are better ways of modeling that are shot down by Neoclassical defenders instead of embracing the obviously better methodologies. So if we were actually using the best methods available you might have a point. But we aren't, people keep using Neoclassical methods which failed on the most epic of scales in our recent past. I don't understand why you talk about claims made in these types of reports as if they are fact when you know there is barely more likelihood they are right than they are wrong and that's just because of the size of the rather useless ranges they estimate. But then you and/or other conservatives/republicans are so skeptical of mountains of scientific data, reinforced by an overwhelming majorities of peer reviews, and appeals to common sense regarding climate change...? It's just intellectually dishonest to assign more credibility to economic estimates than to climate science. So you can have it one way or the other but not both. Either the climate science is more credible than economics or they are both relatively useless. You cant be intellectually honest and assign more credibility to economics than climate science.
Modern economics doesn't just use basic neoclassical models, full stop, nothing else. So I'm not really following what your complaint is. Could you give examples?
|
GreenHorizon, people ARE rational, self-interested purchasers at the market, but they're bad at gathering information.
They make rational, self-interested decisions, but often based on faulty information. I believe all school should teach is that people should research things for themselves, instead of just listening to celebrities/the media.
"Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism, and she wouldn't lie to me!"
|
If people were rational, obesity wouldn't be a problem.
|
On April 19 2014 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 19 2014 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 21:44 RvB wrote:On April 18 2014 14:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe it advocated for a minimum wage. But even if it did, we all agree that minimum wage increases are a wash on unemployment.
Lower demand from 1.4% price increases? Offset by worker raises? The effects of minumum wage on unemployment are highly debatable. I don't get how you can be so certain about such a widely debated topic. As far as I can tell it's actually pretty one sided to the idea that it doesn't matter much at all for employment. for every 10% wages you get a 0-1.5% decrease but only in the under 30 workers so it doesn't even really show up in unemployment. Most of the research claiming the decrease in jobs don't go over 1.5% and most if not all that say 1.5% are neoclassical based economic claims that have been shown to be wrong multiple times in the real world. So where is this data that supports the claim raising the minimum wage kills jobs? And is any of it supported by non-Neoclassical economics? Only a couple percent of workers earn the minimum wage so it's hard to notice even a substantial change in the data. CBO has a pretty middle of the road analysis on the issue: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf The EITC encourages more people in low-income families to work—particularly unmarried custodial parents,
often mothers, for whom the EITC is larger than it is for people without children.4 That increase in the number
of available workers tends to reduce workers’ wages,allowing some of the benefit of the EITC to accrue to
employers, rather than to the workers themselves.5 An increase in the minimum wage would shift some of
that benefit from employers to workers by requiring the former to pay the latter more. See? as for It's not a disingenuous argument. If there's no chance for profit, no one is going to invest. End of story. You do realize how empirically false this notion is right? Unless you are just using the most narrow definition which requires profit for something to be an investment. Which could not be more pointless to say. How much gets shifted? Edit: and how does it compare to wages being shifted to government. It's empirically true. We're talking about for-profit retailers. They aren't going to exist without profit. Or are we seriously proposing nationalization of the retail industry? CBO concludes that the net effect on the federal budget of raising the minimum wage would probably be a small decrease in budget deficits for several years but a small increase in budget deficits thereafter. It is unclear whether the effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits
The more I read from your source the more ridiculous reports like this seem. There is only a 66% chance that anything they said is right by their own admission. I can't help but see the irony of referring to Neoclassical based estimates like the CBO or others as meaningful while simultaneously dismissing actual science about climate change. When they bothered to ask outside economists about claims they make they didn't even get 51% of them to agree with them... Our economic thought as a nation is such a joke, except no one is laughing. That's econ for you It's also why so much econ related public policy is still influenced by personal frame of reference. Ex. A business owner looks at his P&L and wonders how he'll be able to afford a higher wage. A economist may say that the higher wages will result in higher sales, but he's very skeptical of that. Except there are better ways of modeling that are shot down by Neoclassical defenders instead of embracing the obviously better methodologies. So if we were actually using the best methods available you might have a point. But we aren't, people keep using Neoclassical methods which failed on the most epic of scales in our recent past. I don't understand why you talk about claims made in these types of reports as if they are fact when you know there is barely more likelihood they are right than they are wrong and that's just because of the size of the rather useless ranges they estimate. But then you and/or other conservatives/republicans are so skeptical of mountains of scientific data, reinforced by an overwhelming majorities of peer reviews, and appeals to common sense regarding climate change...? It's just intellectually dishonest to assign more credibility to economic estimates than to climate science. So you can have it one way or the other but not both. Either the climate science is more credible than economics or they are both relatively useless. You cant be intellectually honest and assign more credibility to economics than climate science. Modern economics doesn't just use basic neoclassical models, full stop, nothing else. So I'm not really following what your complaint is. Could you give examples?
The frame is still the same old bullshit. Econ is weak on anything related to labor or wage, because it's full of hypothesis that have been chosen for obvious ideological purposes and no empirical ground at all.
The whole idea that an increase in minimum wage will result in a higher unemployment is highly doubtful, but it is still presented as one of the certainty of economics by journalists and students. Even the OCDE has gone further and further away from that kind of easy causation, after seeing that in reality nothing is certain.
On April 19 2014 09:15 Millitron wrote:
GreenHorizon, people ARE rational, self-interested purchasers at the market, but they're bad at gathering information.
They make rational, self-interested decisions, but often based on faulty information. I believe all school should teach is that people should research things for themselves, instead of just listening to celebrities/the media.
"Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism, and she wouldn't lie to me!"
People are not "rational". You cannot modelize the behavior of "people" with one word, as strong as it may be. Rationality is a concept made to simplify and apprehend our behavior in "economic" situations - economists use it to modelize the society and predict the evolution of certain variable. There are no "homo economicus" in real life, but people, with their own biography, their social background, their own set of desire, etc.
|
Canada11355 Posts
I prefer Jonathan Swift's view of humanity.
I have got materials towards a treatise, proving the falsity of the definition animal rationale, and to show it would be only rationis capax
|
Inequality is perfectly fine.
The poor min-wage employees are not who you make them out to be. They are students looking for beer money and housewives looking for something to do once their children head to school. We should encourage these people who never move on from these jobs to skill up and get a better paying job.
|
Canada11355 Posts
Or people trying to put themselves through uni. I took the same summer job that put my dad through university and got paid the same hourly rate as he did 30 years ago. A lot of wages have simply not kept up. Now I played it smart and went through community college and inexpensive universities, but that still doesn't account for the flat lining of low paying jobs. (And that's with a minimum wage. I'll bet if there wasn't one, I'd have been making less then my dad thirty years ago. In the mean time tuition and the cost of living....)
The thing is, the more businesses consolidate, the more leverage companies have to depress wages. And then more and more jobs turn into 'temporary', 'beer & housewife' jobs (what does that even mean? Dual incomes are as often out of necessity due to low wages, not boredom.) But just how much of the labour force can you move out of "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him" to temporary, stepping stone work? It seems to me, you'd want an increasing population with a large pool of young workers, not an aging population. Otherwise, wouldn't you wind up with labourers with families in these 'beer & housewife jobs'... or else a whole of temporary foreign workers? Or are there not actually that many minimum wage jobs?
|
On April 19 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Inequality is perfectly fine.
The poor min-wage employees are not who you make them out to be. They are students looking for beer money and housewives looking for something to do once their children head to school. We should encourage these people who never move on from these jobs to skill up and get a better paying job.
You are dangerously out of touch with reality. When you go on a tour of American Walmarts and complete your ethnography detailing the beer and weed money employees of this nation's fine retailers let me know.
|
On April 19 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Inequality is perfectly fine.
The poor min-wage employees are not who you make them out to be. They are students looking for beer money and housewives looking for something to do once their children head to school. We should encourage these people who never move on from these jobs to skill up and get a better paying job.
And who's going to sell shit at walmart then? You do understand that some people need to work shitty jobs because the system doesn't work if no one is doing the low payed jobs, right?
|
It should be noted that it's not so much that minimum wage hasn't kept up as much in some cases. In terms of college education, those costs have outstripped minimum wage to such an absurd degree that it no longer becomes feasible. This has become true of many things actually. The necessities of life have all tracked well with wages, but the things that are encouraged in order to "get ahead" have become out of reach for those same wages. Education, housing, and investment have all become incredibly difficult for the average person to partake in to improve his/her plot in life.
|
WASHINGTON –- The Obama administration is delaying a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline to gain clarity on the pipeline's proposed route through Nebraska and allow more time for comment from other government agencies.
In February, a state district court in Nebraska invalidated the route that had been proposed through the state. The State Department told representatives from congressional offices on Friday that they are extending the time period for agency comment until there is more certainty on the route.
There were supposed to be 14 days left in the agency comment period -- a 90-day period that started with the release of the final environmental analysis at the end of January. Given the continued uncertainty about the route, State said it will give agencies at least those additional 14 days once there is a decision on the Nebraska route.
The State Department said it is is reviewing the 2.5 million public comments that it has received. The extension announced Friday applies only to agency comments, however.
In a call with reporters Friday, a senior State Department official speaking on background said that, because the route through Nebraska may change, "the prudent decision was to allow additional time."
Source
|
Seems excessive, I read through the report; and it was well-done; this feels more like dithering. You don't always need every bit of information to make a decision (much as I like analysis).
|
On April 19 2014 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 08:03 Danglars wrote:
Must you mention climate science three times while talking about a CBO report? Is attempts to point out hypocrisy so central to your argument?
What grounds do you have that the Congressional Budget Office is using inferior methods of modeling? Everyone's a critic, and you haven't pointed to better analysis of minimum wage or EITC. Furthermore, you completely disregard the point that only 2% of workers actually earn the minimum wage and reach no point yourself. You would have to read several pages of the thread to understand. "Everyone's a critic", was that a way of introducing yourself into a discussion your 'critic'al statement clearly denotes you have incomplete knowledge/comprehension of? (the discussion, not the topic at large)"Is attempts to point out hypocrisy" Is that your way of suggesting there is a reasonable way to assign more credibility to (Neoclassical) economics than to climate or other sciences? Well you seem to have a lot of criticism of one report without a lot of basis. It's pure assertion; you assert they're using outdated models, you assert that their conclusions are simply unfounded and meaningless. I suppose you have experiences where people just nod their heads and accept your words at face value, but really all you're doing is baseless accusations.
Maybe I missed the page where somebody compared climate science to the minimum wage, but I'm still wondering what connection you see in your mind?
But then you and/or other conservatives/republicans are so skeptical of mountains of scientific data, reinforced by an overwhelming majorities of peer reviews, and appeals to common sense regarding climate change...?
It's just intellectually dishonest to assign more credibility to economic estimates than to climate science. So you can have it one way or the other but not both.
Either the climate science is more credible than economics or they are both relatively useless. You cant be intellectually honest and assign more credibility to economics than climate science.
Is there some kind of point you're making besides "You're all hypocrites when it comes to science so stop it?"
|
On April 19 2014 12:34 aksfjh wrote:
It should be noted that it's not so much that minimum wage hasn't kept up as much in some cases. In terms of college education, those costs have outstripped minimum wage to such an absurd degree that it no longer becomes feasible. This has become true of many things actually. The necessities of life have all tracked well with wages, but the things that are encouraged in order to "get ahead" have become out of reach for those same wages. Education, housing, and investment have all become incredibly difficult for the average person to partake in to improve his/her plot in life.
But how is this possible,there has been virtually no inflation.. and the wages didnt realy drop?
I guess education and housing and meat are not considerd to be neccesities of life when it comes to calculating the inflation numbers.
It is such a fking joke and scam.
"we fear deflation because people will postpone purchases wich is bad for the economy"
Like wtf realy? who is stupid enough to believe it. People are so dumb its incredible.
Like i would not buy a car now if the car would be 3% cheaper next year, or like i would not go on a holiday now because the holiday would be 3% cheaper next year. Or like i would not eat this year because next year food will be 3% cheaper.
90% of the people spend all their monney every month no matter what the price level is.
The only thing that people might postpone in purchasing due to deflation is a house (and housing prices are not even taken into account when calculating inflation lol!), but even that is doubtfull.
Would you realy wait 1 year to buy your dreamhouse 3% cheaper next year?
No clue how people have gotten so dumb btw,maybe its all the mindless tv,commercials and internet porn they are fed every day.
Its fucking disgusting.
|
On April 19 2014 18:21 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 12:34 aksfjh wrote:
It should be noted that it's not so much that minimum wage hasn't kept up as much in some cases. In terms of college education, those costs have outstripped minimum wage to such an absurd degree that it no longer becomes feasible. This has become true of many things actually. The necessities of life have all tracked well with wages, but the things that are encouraged in order to "get ahead" have become out of reach for those same wages. Education, housing, and investment have all become incredibly difficult for the average person to partake in to improve his/her plot in life. But how is this possible,there has been virtually no inflation.. and the wages didnt realy drop? I guess education and housing and meat are not considerd to be neccesities of life when it comes to calculating the inflation numbers. It is such a fking joke and scam. "we fear deflation because people will postpone purchases wich is bad for the economy" Like wtf realy? who is stupid enough to believe it. People are so dumb its incredible. Like i would not buy a car now if the car would be 3% cheaper next year, or like i would not go on a holiday now because the holiday would be 3% cheaper next year. Or like i would not eat this year because next year food will be 3% cheaper. 90% of the people spend all their monney every month no matter what the price level is. The only thing that people might postpone in purchasing due to deflation is a house (and housing prices are not even taken into account when calculating inflation lol!), but even that is doubtfull. Would you realy wait 1 year to buy your dreamhouse 3% cheaper next year? No clue how people have gotten so dumb btw,maybe its all the mindless tv,commercials and internet porn they are fed every day. Its fucking disgusting.
No inflation ? 1 to 3% inflation a year for twenty years with almost increase in minimum wage. Not to mention inflation is a measure made out of a set of goods that represent the average basket of goods and services. But because it is the average of the average, it is grossly underestimating the impact of some goods, such as college as aksfjh said, but also house renting. To say it in another way, there are some goods that push inflation down, mainly new technologies and people "feel" inflation differently in regards to their income.
Also, deflation are always linked to crisis, so I don't know what you are talking about.
|
On April 19 2014 12:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Inequality is perfectly fine.
The poor min-wage employees are not who you make them out to be. They are students looking for beer money and housewives looking for something to do once their children head to school. We should encourage these people who never move on from these jobs to skill up and get a better paying job. And who's going to sell shit at walmart then? You do understand that some people need to work shitty jobs because the system doesn't work if no one is doing the low payed jobs, right?
15 year old high school students are meant to take those low paying jobs.
That person only needs to make 7-10 dollars an hour for their purchasing needs. When I was floor managing a Mcdonald's 10 years ago, no one was making minimum wage, we had no single parents supporting children, and high turnover was part of the business plan because the store could only support like 4 people making a career out of it. Most everybody else moved up on the social ladder after putting in some time their. It shouldn't be a private owners job to top up peoples living wage, you get child tax benefit, or welfare if you feel you need more.
|
On April 20 2014 05:31 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 12:23 Nyxisto wrote:On April 19 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Inequality is perfectly fine.
The poor min-wage employees are not who you make them out to be. They are students looking for beer money and housewives looking for something to do once their children head to school. We should encourage these people who never move on from these jobs to skill up and get a better paying job. And who's going to sell shit at walmart then? You do understand that some people need to work shitty jobs because the system doesn't work if no one is doing the low payed jobs, right? 15 year old high school students are meant to take those low paying jobs. That person only needs to make 7-10 dollars an hour for their purchasing needs. When I was floor managing a Mcdonald's 10 years ago, no one was making minimum wage, we had no single parents supporting children, and high turnover was part of the business plan because the store could only support like 4 people making a career out of it. Most everybody else moved up on the social ladder after putting in some time their. It shouldn't be a private owners job to top up peoples living wage, you get child tax benefit, or welfare if you feel you need more.
Jobs and labor have no justification whatsoever if they don't permit people to live decently.
|
DETROIT (AP) — General Motors waited years to recall nearly 335,000 Saturn Ions for power steering failures despite getting thousands of consumer complaints and more than 30,000 warranty repair claims, according to government documents released Saturday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem.
The documents, posted on the agency's website, show yet another delay by GM in recalling unsafe vehicles and point to another example of government safety regulators reacting slowly to a safety problem despite being alerted by consumers and through warranty data submitted by the company.
A recall can be initiated by an automaker or demanded by the government.
Both GM and NHTSA have been criticized by safety advocates and lawmakers for their slow responses to a deadly ignition switch problem in 2.6 million GM small cars. GM admitted knowing about the problem for more than a decade, yet didn't start recalling the cars until February. The company says it knows of 13 deaths in crashes linked to the ignition switches, but family members of crash victims say the number is much higher.
Source
|
On April 20 2014 09:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +DETROIT (AP) — General Motors waited years to recall nearly 335,000 Saturn Ions for power steering failures despite getting thousands of consumer complaints and more than 30,000 warranty repair claims, according to government documents released Saturday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem.
The documents, posted on the agency's website, show yet another delay by GM in recalling unsafe vehicles and point to another example of government safety regulators reacting slowly to a safety problem despite being alerted by consumers and through warranty data submitted by the company.
A recall can be initiated by an automaker or demanded by the government.
Both GM and NHTSA have been criticized by safety advocates and lawmakers for their slow responses to a deadly ignition switch problem in 2.6 million GM small cars. GM admitted knowing about the problem for more than a decade, yet didn't start recalling the cars until February. The company says it knows of 13 deaths in crashes linked to the ignition switches, but family members of crash victims say the number is much higher. Source
Every time I hear about one of these I remember that scene from Fight Club basically describing what we have known auto manufacturers to have been doing since the 70's and the Ford Pinto.
You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. But I suppose pretty much everyone is in on covering these kind of practices up. And as I showed earlier the 'will of the people' is pretty much useless when it comes to getting legislation passed. Especially when it comes to even remotely complicated legislation.
|
On April 20 2014 09:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +DETROIT (AP) — General Motors waited years to recall nearly 335,000 Saturn Ions for power steering failures despite getting thousands of consumer complaints and more than 30,000 warranty repair claims, according to government documents released Saturday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem.
The documents, posted on the agency's website, show yet another delay by GM in recalling unsafe vehicles and point to another example of government safety regulators reacting slowly to a safety problem despite being alerted by consumers and through warranty data submitted by the company.
A recall can be initiated by an automaker or demanded by the government.
Both GM and NHTSA have been criticized by safety advocates and lawmakers for their slow responses to a deadly ignition switch problem in 2.6 million GM small cars. GM admitted knowing about the problem for more than a decade, yet didn't start recalling the cars until February. The company says it knows of 13 deaths in crashes linked to the ignition switches, but family members of crash victims say the number is much higher. Source
I'll be curious to hear the spin on how unions are to blame for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
