Lowry: Minimum wage hike will "give a small boost" to "teenagers working summers"
SUMMARY: In his latest column, Rich Lowry wrote that "[t]he effect" of a Democratic proposal to raise the federal minimum wage "basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summers or after school." In fact, the Economic Policy Institute found that 71 percent of those who would be "directly affected" by the Democratic minimum-wage proposal are age 20 or over.
In his January 5 column, National Review editor Rich Lowry, repeated a much-circulated myth that "[t]he effect" of a Democratic proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour "basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summers or after school." As Media Matters for America noted, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a majority -- 71 percent -- of those who would be "directly affected" * by the Democratic minimum-wage proposal are age 20 or over.
In an October 25, 2006, briefing paper, EPI reported that an "[a]nalysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey reveals that the workers potentially affected by a minimum wage increase are mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families."
Moreover, in his column, Lowry wrote that "29 states already have a minimum wage that's higher than the federal rate." But Lowry did not note that, as of January 1, 2007, only eight states have a minimum wage at or above the level proposed by the Democratic majority, according to the Department of Labor.
In response to similar arguments made in a January 4 Washington Post column by George F. Will, EPI senior economist Jared Bernstein wrote, in a letter to the Post on January 8, that Will "implied that only those earning the current minimum of $5.15 per hour would benefit," but that, "[i]n fact, the proposed new minimum wage would benefit any worker earning between $5.15 and $7.25."
From Bernstein's letter:
George F. Will ["The Right Minimum Wage," op-ed, Jan 4] greatly underestimated the number of workers who would benefit from the higher minimum wage under consideration by Congress. He implied that only those earning the current minimum of $5.15 per hour would benefit: fewer than 500,000 workers. In fact, the proposed new minimum wage would benefit any worker earning between $5.15 and $7.25, the proposed new federal minimum.
Our research shows that 5.6 million low-wage workers have earnings that place them in the affected range and thus would directly benefit from the increase. These workers are mostly adults (70 percent are 20 or older; half are 26 or up). About 40 percent of them work full time, and a similar share work more than 20 hours per week.
While many are not officially poor, their incomes typically place them within the bottom two-fifths of the income scale (less than $36,000).
In other words, millions of American workers need and deserve this long-awaited raise.
From Lowry's column:
The Democratic substance is vanishingly thin. They will raise the minimum wage, but 29 states already have a minimum wage that's higher than the federal rate. The effect of the hike basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summers or after school. FDR would yawn.
* When EPI includes those who would be "indirectly affected," which are defined as "workers currently earning above $7.25, likely to be affected by 'spillover effects,' " the total percentage of adult workers affected is 79 percent.
... completely out of touch with the economic status of a large segment of the people of the United States, or does he just not care?
It's not like the bottom 70% are really people.
for classic terms like 'the great unwashed' to return to active use in conservative vocabulary.
It's worse than I thought! I never new that 70% of the people in the U.S earned less than $7.25 per hour. It must be a much worse situation than I thought.
----- It's worse than I thought! I never new that 70% of the people in the U.S earned less than $7.25 per hour. It must be a much worse situation than I thought -----
Careful, that wasn't what was said. I don't want you slipping into a depression unnecessarily.
where only part time jobs, and not many of them are min wage? in central indiana mcdonalds pays 8 dollars
it’s about unions being able to justify wage increases through collective bargaining agreements for their rank and file in the future. This rather poorly disguised ploy by liberals has little to do with the poor minimum wage earner trying to feed his/her family and everything to do with liberals trying to bolster their union member voter base. It is really all about getting votes and campaign contributions by increasing wages for union members and very little about compassion for the poor. Anyone who is paying attention ought to be able to see that. Unfortunately, artificially increasing the minimum wage instead of letting natural market forces dictate wages is a sure fire way to increase the cost of everything since the minimum wage is used as a quasi index for non-minimum wage earners too. So while the minimum wage earner and others seem to benefit from increased wages in the short run, they actually end up paying more for goods and services and gain very little if any increased buying power in the long run. You may think it's a good idea to increase the minimum wage but lets be honest, its about votes and campaign money, not compassion.
the dynamic is just the opposite. Regions that have strong union membership raise the wages of that region. Businesses must raise their wages to remain competitive with the union shops to lure good employees into their fold.
As for unions supporting Democratic candidates that is just common sense. Why would unions support Republican candidates who actively seek to dismantle their livelihood?
I don’t disagree that unions increase the cost of labor. What I’m saying is that the increased minimum wage will be the reason/excuse the unions will use to increase wages in general for their members in the future. As a result, the unions will collect more in union dues from their members and contribute/invest more to liberal politicians who perpetuate an ever increasing return on union investment. For unions and liberal politicians it’s a win/win. For the minimum wage earner it’s a break even at best.
Right there is the fundamental disconnect. 'The cost of labor' as so eloquently stated is a working stiff's milk and honey. The price of his/her labor is what feeds his/her family.
"What I’m saying is that the increased minimum wage will be the reason/excuse the unions will use to increase wages in general for their members in the future."
Unions BARGAIN for increased wages regardless of the minimum wage. Do you think unions haven't negotiated for wage increases since 1994 or whenever the last minimum wage hike was enacted? Union contracts are written and agreed upon with an expiration date. So no this minimum wage increase has nothing to do with contract negotiations.
"As a result, the unions will collect more in union dues from their members and contribute/invest more to liberal politicians who perpetuate an ever increasing return on union investment."
Union dues don't go directly into the pockets of politicians, sorry. In fact, the unions decided before the last election cycle to invest their money into recruitment and expansion efforts, not candidates.
I don’t disagree that unions increase the wages of workers. Does that sound better?
What I’m saying is that the increased minimum wage will be the BARGANING position used to justify increased wages in general for their members in the future.
I never said anything about union dues going DIRECTLY to liberal politicians. It is first deducted from the workers pay check in the form of union dues, then deposited into the unions bank account and then distributed to liberal politicians through campaign contributions.
[link to www.opensecrets.org]
Let me reiterate… for unions and liberal politicians it’s a win/win. For the minimum wage earner it’s a break even at best.
Gota go...have a great day!
Amigo!
Six union contracts during my tenure not ONCE have I ever seen the minimum wage even MENTIONED during bargaining the whole specioius reasoning is without merit.
My union dues do NOT go up when I get a wage increase and we have a seperate fund I contribute to that goes to political action. Now all unions may not have the second but I of all my friends that belong to different unions I dont know a single one where their dues go up when their wages do.
I am a union member and my wage has NOTHING to do with the minimum wage, NOTHING. Its all about rightwingers searching around for ANY reason whatsoever to oppose helping the most vulnerable among us while avoiding seeming to do an Ebeneezer Scrooge impersonation no matter how ludicrous and logic free they are. Like this contention ludicrous and logic free.
If his argument is correct (which it isn't), then the conservative outcry over a minimum wage hike destroying small businesses would be irrelevant as well (which it is according to everything that I've read from credible sources). Because if it is just a bunch of teenagers working after schools and summers, then certainly their wages would not knock a large dent into the economic growth of the US of A. Right?
This is a relatively well known, and somewhat respected publication making this pronouncement. They should maybe review facts and figures before publishing what is essentially their opinion of the matter, and passing it off as fact.
"If his argument is correct (which it isn't), then the conservative outcry over a minimum wage hike destroying small businesses would be irrelevant as well (which it is according to everything that I've read from credible sources). Because if it is just a bunch of teenagers working after schools and summers, then certainly their wages would not knock a large dent into the economic growth of the US of A. Right?"
You are assuming they make sense and or use facts.
They don't.
Plus, they don't CARE.
By this breakdown, an increase in the minimum wage would benefit the lower and middle clase who have already suffered wage decreases during Bush's reign. This tripe about 'after school' workers is false and insulting.
[link to www.jobwatch.org]
If one examines the numbers even more, we see that (minus the jobs created through defense contracts) the purported job growth in the US during Bush's time is low and well below that predicted by use of the Bush tax cuts.
...for a blogfight on this issue - this is one where "faith-based" libertarian ideas come into genuine conflict with real people's lives.
I wonder if anyone can defend George Will's $0 minimum wage idea...
If you look at the official White House spin...
[link to www.whitehouse.gov]
The economy is great, there are new jobs. Everything's peachy! However, as you point out... it really depends on the details. Who's getting the jobs or wage increases and what these 'new' jobs really are. The facts will set us all free :)
When Democrats are in control, they say things are great, Republicans say they are bad. When Republicans are in control, it's the other way around.
In a situation like this. Bad news is blamed on the president by the left, and the congress by the right. You can guess what they will do with good news.
Better to have people unemployed than to let them enter into a contract with their employer that pays them a wage that YOU find objectionable?
Slavery died 140 years ago. If I don't like how my employer treats me, I'm free to leave. I know that sounds harsh, but it makes a lot of sense.
Labor is a commodity, if the price is artificially increased, do you think an employer will buy more or less of it? Of course, it is easy to paint an enemy of minimum wages as cruel and unfair. What is truly cruel and unfair is denying some people entry into the labor market in order to make yourself feel good.
In states that have raised the minimum wage above the federal one, business is booming, unemployment is low, and none of the gloom-and-doom that wage-hike naysayers predicted has happened.
...get into a data war I'm pretty confident in what we would actually find.
Throughout history I suspect you will see that most minimum wage increases likely bear a near-zero correlation to GDP growth, employment growth, or per-capita income. I think any correlation will be negative, and statistically weak if not insignificant - I suspect you guess it would be positive if anything.
Unless you firmly believe that artificially raising the wages of a small portion of the population has a large positive effect on the economy. Arguing these points will be a waste of time. The fact of the matter is that unless a substantial portion of the population is affected by the legislation, the effect on the economy will be minimal.
Equally important to me is why people think it is appropriate to artificially legislate price floors for anything, even labor. Supposing your job pays $50k a year, how would you like the government to decide that yours is really a $100k a year job? How about when your employer decides to replace all those jobs priced reasonably at $50k a year with 40% fewer employees or machines?
It's called "debating facts rather than assertions."
Take a look at this list of states with minimum wage laws:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Now, look atthe unemployment rate by state:
[link to money.cnn.com]
Discuss.
Try to limit your comments to things that can be verified or disproved. Sweeping generalisations are not accepted as proofs.
---------- Discuss.
Try to limit your comments to things that can be verified or disproved. Sweeping generalisations are not accepted as proofs. ----------
Before I say anything about those links...
You need to look at rates before and after any changes in the wage floor, not just the raw rate of unemployment. My point in trying to avoid this discussion is that these changes are rather insignificant on a grand scale, and that it is likely difficult to measure the effect since economies are quite dynamic.
But since asking for any statistical rigor to be applied would likely be called sour grapes... Of the states with <4% (chosen because I got sick of flipping back and forth) unemployment in Nov 2006 from Hawaii down to Oklahoma, we see:
YNNNNNNNYNNNNYYYYN
6 out of 18 have laws setting it higher than the national floor.
19 out of all 50 have laws setting the wage higher than the national floor.
Check my counting, I wasn't careful. From this metric, which I already have called out as extremely poor there appears to be no strong link. 33% of low-unemployment states have stronger laws, 38% of all states have laws.
What I'd pay to see is some solid logic on why one would think that a wage floor would increase the amount of labor bought in an inflation-fixed environment.
It was your assertion, unsupported by data, that raising the minimum wage increases unemplyment. of necessity. I took a few minutes out of my (non-minimum-wage) work day to find some data that seemed to cast doubt on that assertion.
Your position now seems to be "it is likely difficult to measure the effect since economies are quite dynamic." I don't know how this ties to your position that higher minimum wages increase unemployment, so perhaps you can shed some light on this.
I am not sure why you feel the onus is on me to disprove an unsupported assertion. My position is that a higher minimum wage is good... that there is a compelling public interest in paying people a wage sufficient to live. Your counterargument seems to be that it will increase unemployment, and you seem to feel that I should accept this on faith. The data I found is at worst, ambiguous, but certainly does not support your premise.
asking for any statistical rigor to be applied would likely be called sour grapes
This was gratuitous, and unnecessary in my opinion. I see no reason why you are assuming I am arguing in bad faith. You have equated the minimum wage with the immoral institution of slavery and accused your opponents of intellectual laziness if not dishonesty. Not the best way, IMHO, to ensure a respectful hearing of your views.
I had a big ol' reply but lost it to the title-Nazis.
Let's see if I can quickly summarize, and then work for the rest of the day so that I don't end up earning min-wage myself.
My take on the data: Empirical studies have been carried out that show various conclusions. I don't think any show an increase in employment. Do we really think that labor is a magical Giffen Good type commodity (negative price elasticity)? For us to go back and forth on our favorite studies won't illuminate anything.
For your theory to work, that minimum wage increases would cause no increase in unemployment, you would need entry-level labor to have absolutely no price elasticity. That certainly isn't a trait shared by many, if any goods, nor for capital used by a business. Looking around my floor here at work, it doesn't fly in the middle-class environment either. If everybody who does my job decided they need to be paid twice as much, there would quickly be far fewer of us.
In terms of the dynamic nature of economies, there is a lot more that goes into the unemployment rate than what the minimum wage. Finally, I think you would find that in most of those states that have those higher minimum wages that they also have proportionately higher costs of living so that there is little difference in the real minimum wage between those states.
---------- This was gratuitous, and unnecessary in my opinion. I see no reason why you are assuming I am arguing in bad faith. You have equated the minimum wage with the immoral institution of slavery and accused your opponents of intellectual laziness if not dishonesty. Not the best way, IMHO, to ensure a respectful hearing of your views. -------------
Never did I say that you were for slavery, lazy, nor that you were arguing in bad faith. The only remark I made that had anything to do with slavery was to say that we are free to leave our relationships with our employers.
that "that minimum wage increases would cause no increase in unemployment;" I made no assertion in this regard. Certainly, my support for a higher minimum wage would be tempered somewhat if there were even a small increase in unemployment - I might withhold it altogether if there were a significant increase. I just see no evidence for that happening.
In terms of the dynamic nature of economies, there is a lot more that goes into the unemployment rate than what the minimum wage.
I agree with this. I challenge your assertion that an increase in the minimum wage would, of necessity, increase unemployment. I understand the general thrust of your argument above, but I submit that just looking at price elasticity in entry level jobs is somewhat simplistic. What about, for example, the dynamic of better paid workers buying more products, thus boosting employment?
All I am saying is, in the absence of a clear downside, why not pay people better? A couple bucks over a couple years won't break the economy, it might do some good, and we can take it from there.
...However, if not forced to be fair... most people will not be fair. That's a sad fact. If we had fair wages and nice folks as bosses, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
... say $1,000,000 a year is fair then?
I think the fairest wage is the one for which I agree to trade my time and services.
I think a fair price for you to pay for my house is $2,000,000, that doesn't change the fact that you'll pay me at most about 10% of that.
That tactic was old in Socrates' day!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Henceforth all wages shall be set by Valentinian. For we are incapable of handling our own affairs!
only Keynes and Galbraith.
You're showing patience and you are a good teacher (you draw good pictures).
Kindly hang around. You're needed here.
Adam Smith, Ricardo, Ownes, Forrier, Werben Veeblen, THOSE I have read HAVE YOU? Then again how relevant is that? Lord help us all from someone who has read A book and thinks its the font of all knowledge. How about the college textbook on economic theory I read, does that count? Or is only what YOU read what counts? Your snide stupidity is pathetic
between Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman...
and Keynes, Galbraith et. al. .
You should read Von Mises when you get a chance. And Friedman wouldn't hurt you, either.
Is doing EXACLTY that right now, exactly as it SHOULD be done.
Wasn't it 'sebefan' who was calling for a fair discussion above?
His suggestion is nonsense... and does nothing but disrupt, deflect and annoy. Classic Righty bs. Good work.
------ Me:
I think the fairest wage is the one for which I agree to trade my time and services.
Val:
Reductio ad absurdum
That tactic was old in Socrates' day!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Me:
I decree
Henceforth all wages shall be set by Valentinian. For we are incapable of handling our own affairs! ------
Not hard to see where the discussion devolves. He decided that my minimum wage was too high, but his is just right.
when the name-calling starts: "classic righty", ad nauseum.
Keep it going you're making headway.
What? That you HAVE NO POINT, as per usual
His reductio ad absurdum is aimed at your statement why not 1 million dollars. AND as he correctly pointed out its a well known logical fallacy. Either you know that and are being dishonest or you need a serious referesher course in reading comprehension.
So you have decided $1M per hour, day, or week is too much?
He did ignore the idea that people should be free to engage in the labor market and negotiate their own wages.
...I challenge the premise as invalid.
You seem to be asserting that only government can limit freedom. My counter-assertion is that the power of large businesses to set prevailing wage rates also limits one's freedom of action; in other words, a single individual is most definitely not on equal terms with a large business. Joe Shmo and Wal-Mart are not equal players negotiating rates in a free and fair market. Markets are not self-managing. The "invisible hand" of Smith was based on a world of artisans and small shopkeepers, not transnational corporations.
Again, this is an article of libertarian faith, that employers and employees are on equal terms when it comes to wage negotiations. I see no support for this in the real world.
Negotiated Wages
I think the fairest wage is the one for which I agree to trade my time and services.
While in some cases this is absolutely correct, the types of jobs we are speaking about generally don't leave much room for negotiation. Have you ever argued with the manager of your local fast food chain for a better wage for flipping burgers? It doesn't usually end with them saying "You know, you're right. I will pay you 2 USD more an hour than the company standard wage." They aren't being cruel or mean, that's just how the company works. They aren't allowed to negotiate wages for entry-level jobs, generally speaking.
Second, if you are working full-time at a minimum wage job it is usually because you need to, not because it’s your career of choice. It comes between feeding your children and having a house over your head tonight, or letting them starve while you hunt around for a better wage, which would you choose?
Last, minimum wage increases are not artificially raised by some far off government. A government "by the people" is suppose more of a collective bargaining tool. We the people say that we the people, as a whole, will not work for less than 7.25 an hour. It’s just negotiating on a larger scale. The business men have a voice in Congress too.
...I don't think what you think is a problem is, nor do I think what you find to be a good thing is. :)
I suspect an experienced employee does indeed have some leverage, or they are probably not a very good employee in the first place. If the skill set you have leaves you with no edge in the world then either you have not identified your competitive advantage, or you have much bigger problems than your wage level and are a good candidate for charitable assistance.
The fact that a company with minimum wage jobs at the entry level does not ever budge shows that the job they are filling likely is not worth minimum wage. I would consider the players in this game to be the employee and the company, not the manager, seeing as your giving him or her no power to decide anything here. ----- Second, if you are working full-time at a minimum wage job it is usually because you need to, not because it’s your career of choice. It comes between feeding your children and having a house over your head tonight, or letting them starve while you hunt around for a better wage, which would you choose? -----
Of course, if the minimum wage's artificial price of labor leads to fewer jobs, as it must, then what of the people who have no jobs at all because of it?
I know the tendency is to paint someone who doesn't believe in the minimum wage as a mean-spirited oaf. In reality, minimum wage opponents have every bit as much compassion as you. I know it would be tough to try to raise a family on the minimum wage. I would be all for having no minimum wage, and making up the wage differences with assistance (yeah, yeah preferrably private in my mind).
Regarding the government stuff, I'm not interested in being bullied by the majority of "the people" - let alone the majority of the people that "the people" elect. "The people" decided to go to Iraq. I suspect we agree on how that's panned out.
In every debate I have with a libertarian on this issue, it doesn't take 30 seconds for them to pull out the stock answer:
If I don't like how my employer treats me, I'm free to leave.
Do you guys have to sign a contract requiring you to pop off that line whenever this subject comes up? The consistency is, to date, 100%. I'm not kidding.
Let me paint you a picture. Man is working to support his family. Because the companies hiring for his skill set have successfully arbitraged the cost of labour, the best man can do is, say, $5.15/hr.
Man now has a choice, take the wage offered or watch his family starve. How "free" is he, Mr. Compassion Troll?
possibly be to gain some skills that are are "worth" more in the market place. I will accept the fact that skilled workers are worth more than the federal minimum wage (as currently set) and the economies of states with higher than federal minimum wages are doing well (although at least two have unemployment rates above the national average), it still seems there should be some incentive for entry level / retail workers to gain skills that make them more marketable in the job market.
Because every low-wage earner has the time and money to go to college or vo-tech. Good point.
Average salary of a high school grad is about $28.6k or $14/hr.
If Bill Gates walked into a bar with 9 other people who earned 10k a year their average wage would be in the tens of millions. Talk about the MEDIAN wage.
... are a lot of HS grads making $1B a year? I doubt this distribution is all that skewed.
Whatever the case, the data I saw didn't have a median, or percentiles or anything. Just a mean.
I did see on the BLS that having a HS diploma cut your chances of having a minimum wage job approximately 40-50% if I recall.
Which is obviously a more pertinent statistic. Even ONE on billion dollar high school earnere skewers the stats to some extent and there are enough rich high school graduates that got rich to skew the stats. I am a high school grad that makes very good money, but there arent that many good union blue collar jobs left anymore, we still skewer the stats since we arent the norm.
[link to www.factbites.com]
This "average" (arithmetic mean) income is higher than most people's incomes, because high income outliers skew the result higher (in contrast, the median income "resists" such skew).
Um, because there wasn't one provided in the first article I grabbed?
---------------
Which is obviously a more pertinent statistic. Even ONE on billion dollar high school earnere skewers the stats to some extent and there are enough rich high school graduates that got rich to skew the stats. I am a high school grad that makes very good money, but there arent that many good union blue collar jobs left anymore, we still skewer the stats since we arent the norm.
----------
Put down the skewers and enjoy your wad of cash, I said earlier that an arithmetic mean is a weak statistic.
The point stands that a high school diploma cuts your chances of earning minimum wage in half.
---------
This "average" (arithmetic mean) income is higher than most people's incomes, because high income outliers skew the result higher (in contrast, the median income "resists" such skew).
-------------
I said earlier I don't know anything about ACCOUNTING. I certainly will admit to understanding probability distributions rather well. I agree, and assume that the average is greater than the median. I also suspect it is closer than you think.
2000 decennial census says HS grad earns a MEDIAN of $27,351. Assuming even 2.5% inflation, that's $31.7k in 2006 dollars or about $15.25 an hour.
These are folks who worked 35+ hours a week and 50+ weeks.
No HS degree implied a 20-25% reduction in wages.
Just thought I'd take the 2 minutes to be a bit more complete.
So the average is 31 K, I will accept that about 50% above the poverty level, not bad. Of course median means there are the same number BELOW that as above it. Which means there ARE certainly a singinficant number of High School Grads at or below that poverty level (assuming a family of four) THOSE are the ones, in this context, I am talking about. A minimum wage hike will help THEM. My overall point about there not being a median is that this seems to be done a lot, when speaking about this subject there is no question median is a more pertinent stat yet you rarely see it and usually see the mean, I think that is done purposely. Hey, you are a reasonable guy and a good poster, I enjoy conservative perspectives given rationally as you have, for the most part, done. Good job overall
is that NO low-wage earner has the time or opportunity to get more saleable skills. Why do you do that?
Many DO. And many never try. Some are content to GET BY, believe it or not. If you haven't seen that, I don't know where you've been.
in central indiana pay 10-12 dollars with NO-read that-NO experience
somebody must have a gun on 'em.
what incentive is there to move up in skills (might be something as basic as punctuality or reliability, or a leadership attitude--I've paid a premium for those), and earn a higher wage, if the wage is just going to be moved up, the equivalent of an unearned reward?
if the MINIMUM wage is just going to be moved up...
The seething hatred!
Seriously, what is this skill set that only gets paid $5.15? Most fast food restaurants hire at rates above that. The fact of the matter is that the majority of minimum wage earners are young, part-time workers.
You propose to tell that company that instead they must pay this guy $7 or $8 an hour? Fine. That makes you feel good. Like I already said, they will close their doors, or more likely, hire fewer workers, grow slower, and/or replace labor with capital.
Not sure what you mean by arbitrage wherein you buy something at a price and can turn around and sell it for more. At least that's my understanding of the word. Arbitrage opportunities disppear because there is "free money" to be made. It's a sort of disequilibrium in or between markets.
..when wingers equate disagreement with "hatred."
You're pulling assertions out of your anatomy, without providing any facts to back them up. These assertions would affect real people's lives if put into practice, so I'm countering them. I don't call that hatred, I call it "debate."
I love
..when wingers equate disagreement with "hatred." -----------------
Never been part of a wing.
Debate not hate? Your debate is to say I'm consistent with some other population because I claim that we are not indentured to our employers (except maybe for soldiers), and then call me a troll?
Nice.
-------------------------
Do you guys have to sign a contract requiring you to pop off that line whenever this subject comes up? The consistency is, to date, 100%. I'm not kidding.
... Mr. Compassion Troll ....
-------------------------
Valentinian has several valid points. Cut the cutesy crap and make a solid point. Otherwise, there is no discussion....just petty sparring of nonsense. Again, good work.
nothing BUT solid points. You can't grasp them, or you don't want to.
He has regurgitated the same stale rightwing talking points we hear every time this subject comes up.
another of the blazing comets who appear on the site, posts a ton for a few days and then "disappears". remember smokedcorn?
I live in Columbus, OH. I was enjoying reading all the (primarily local) coverage of the format change at WTPG-1230AM here in town. It ran a lot of Jones/Air America radio programming, which I listened to quite frequently. Station management swung the pendulum to the total opposite end of the spectrum starting this morning.
Anyhow, there must have been something mentioned about it somewhere around here.
One thing led to another, and I ended up reading y'all venting about the need for a higher minimum wage. Big time pet peeve of mine, so I registered.
Anyhow, I likely will disappear shortly. My daughter turned a month old yesterday, and I have 3.5 months to learn everything I can about accounting for a work-related exam.
some of these Utopians need to be able to call you names. You're giving them more than they can handle, and they HATE it.
Well that's kind of strong. Utopians aren't capable of hate.
Its the same old, same old. This is a societal responsibility question. Congress is setting the level like it has been done since the minimum wage began. The same arguments show up every time. Rightwingers scream the sky will fall, then the minimum wage is increased and the world never ends we dont get mass unemployment. The next time it the minimum wage gets increased we hear the same arguments about what WILL happen that that didnt happen LAST time we increased it and somehow never materializes when the wage IS increased.
...the sky would fall, just that it does more harm than good.
Obviously my cynicism regarding a minimum wage means to you that I believe in burning crosses, federally-sponsored super-sized ten commandment monuments, and that poverty is funny.
I didnt assign those specific over the top claims to you but they ARE made and they are never shown to be true just as you have not as YET shown that there is any significant rise in unemployment due to a minimum wage increase just the same old, same old baseless assertion.
Why is labor like a Giffen Good? Why do people buy more of it when the price goes up?
For unemployment of minimum-wage earners not to go up, you need the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
Is like a Giffen Good, just because it fits your MODEL doesnt mean it actually EXISTS. A better question is why do the stats we have SEEN show that it DOESNT seem to significantly effect employment? There are two good reasons why it wouldnt and they have been gone over many times. The first is you havent shown why employers are already employing people they dont NEED in order to run their busniess, and its counterintuitive that they would. Second putting more money into the hands of people that actually spend it especially if it is enough to be disposable income will create a demand for more products which will take more people to make and distribute. So that even IF they lose a MW job at the Mickey Dees HERE, the demand created by more people spending more money will create the demand for more people there he will get another minimum wage job to meet THAT demand and it will be MORE MONEY. You can keep making arguments about why it MIGHT happen all day meanwhile the record shows that last time we upped the minimum wage it DIDNT happen. When you can cough up some evidence of it actually happening it will be a point to address until then its the Martian death ray argument, it cant be shown to be real.
...with the exam.
I bear no ill will, but when you enter a discussion by comparing your opponent's position slavery, you should expect some elbows thrown in response.
I hope you return to the debate. I am more than willing to be convinced, but I have yet to encounter any counter-argument that "you are always free to get another job," which in my mind is a cop-out.
------
Seba, best of luck
...with the exam.
------
Thanks - I know nothing about accounting! Um asset, liability, shareholders' equity, credit and debit?
-------
I bear no ill will, but when you enter a discussion by comparing your opponent's position slavery, you should expect some elbows thrown in response.
------
Fair, if I said you were a proponent of slavery. I only said that we are NOT slaves.
------
I hope you return to the debate. I am more than willing to be convinced, but I have yet to encounter any counter-argument that "you are always free to get another job," which in my mind is a cop-out.
---------
As I told roundhouse (if I recall), I suspect we have similar visions and absolutely different ideas on how they should be achieved.
My point is that price floors, or ceilings, or supply rationing almost universally generates deadweight loss. If we find the market-clearing price of labor to be objectionable, perhaps there are better ways around that than to impose price floors on buyers (employers).
We are a charitable nation, and helping the less fortunate should be a goal we seek to achieve.
If I thought for a second that raising the minimum wage would be a net benefit to mankind, I'd be all for it.
I for one don't think you are misanthropic, but I do think the "I can always get another job" philosophy is more a dogmatic belief than a truism equally applicable to all people in all situations.
If I thought for a second that raising the minimum wage would be a net benefit to mankind, I'd be all for it.
I think, given the size and timeframe of the increase that is being discussed, we are talking about a mostly symbolic gesture, here. Thus I don't feel real strongly about it - what gets my goat is the George Will $0.00 minimum wage. I think the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy is one that is often misused to excuse rank social irresponsibility.
I think, in general, the Left underemphasizes the character issues that, in many (but not all) cases, lead to people being economically disadvantaged. Similarly, I think the Right generally de-emphasizes or de-legitimizes the fact that there is a whole constellation of social causes of chronic poverty.
A truly altruistic approach would take both factors into account.
I am not holding my breath, however, for this idea to catch on...
who's too bright for some here.
guys like the one i gave as an example, smokedcorn, "disappeared". and what is your function, beside cheerleading? i could write that stuff in my sleep. you go seb, they just can't deal with someone like you....yada yada...
your words.
You give yourself (and your cohorts) way too much credit. Concrete thinkers unite! There's so much irony in your posts, it's actually funny. lol
What out of spite? What evidence do you have that this is true? They will employ LESS workers? So they are employing excess workers just standing around because they are so nice they just hire people so they will have jobs even though they dont need them but NOW that they have to pay them more they will close up shop because they are so mad. This makes NO sense.
---- What out of spite? What evidence do you have that this is true? They will employ LESS workers? So they are employing excess workers just standing around because they are so nice they just hire people so they will have jobs even though they dont need them but NOW that they have to pay them more they will close up shop because they are so mad. This makes NO sense -----
Would you drive more or less if gasoline was $7 a gallon?
Suppose I own a company that, all else being equal, runs best with 10 employees, but can be managed with as few as 8. Suppose I have a $50/hour economic profit before payroll, and that there are plenty of workers willing to fill the positions for $4 an hour, but no less since there is a competitive market for said employees. In a situation without price floors, I pay 10 employees $4 an hour.
At a government-mandated $5 an hour, I have a few options. I now have to pay $5 an hour. If I still hire 10 employees, I experience a $0 economic profit and become pretty indifferent to operating my business. I could hire fewer employees, but that would likely raise wages further at my company since working here will become relatively less attractive.
How about at $7 an hour? Now I cannot even afford to hire 8 employees. Barring an understanding that things will get better in the future, it seems the short-run best solution is to walk away and close up shop. Why would I waste my time employing people, and take a loss relative to my next best option in life?
Look, I already said that this has a small effect. This all happens at the margin. The fact is that few people earn minimum wage, and that few businesses would be in the position outlined above. My point is that at this margin, the legislation is a net negative. Employers will understandably hire fewer people, and replace labor with capital where possible.
You COULD operate your business with 8 employees but are employing ten. Exactly how many companies which pay minimum wage can you SHOW use that business model because most businesses I know of personally that pay minimum wage employ EXACTLY as many employees as they HAVE to not one more. So I dont believe in your business model. I think its a unicorn, sounds great, never seen one. Since we are making up hypothetical scenarios out of whole cloth here is mine. My widget company employes 10 people to make my 1000 widgets a week. Now that the mean government says I have to pay them more per hour I lay off two of them to show the mean government how pissed I am. This week I make only 800 widgets and tell the United Widget corporation that the reason I couldnt make my quota is the wage increase. Now United Widgets could add one penny to the price of their Widgets and pay me more but they needed 1000 Widgets so next month I am out of bussiness because United Widgets is getting their product from someone that delivers. I like this make things up to support my argument scenario it I could probably make any point in the world this way.
If gas cost 7 dollaras a gallon I wouldnt curtail my driving very much. I already usually drive only when necessary and make enough money it wouldnt hurt me all that bad and as it increased the cost of living it would appear in my next wage hike, cola, a great union benifit.
he can work two jobs. he can move his family. he can take a job not using his skills for 10.25 an hour ( sallie mae starts people at this wage and all you need is a clean jail record and good attendance history)
please detail a skill where the employers have colluded to keep the wage at 5.15?
or housekeeper doing your grocery shopping? Sounds like you haven't been through grocery checkout, where many people pay with little plastic cards with the respective state's name on them. Hello? Families starving?
Guess you haven't heard of Section 8 and other such housing arrangements? Where do you live--San Marino?
Did it ever occur to you the reason people are using EBT cards and section 8 is because they are not making enough money to afford to pay for food or rent and meet their other obligations? Geeze!!!!! think for a change!
Val claimed those people are starving (as in no food).
Man is working to support his family. Because the companies hiring for his skill set have successfully arbitraged the cost of labour, the best man can do is, say, $5.15/hr.
**************************
How about this? Before this Man has children that are his moral obligation to clothe, feed, educate and support he should either improve his skills in order to make more money - or keep his pants zipped.
oh the inhumanity!!!
Everybody here didn't want to be the one to say "keep his pants zipped". And then you just stepped out and did it. You'll get 86'ed for sure, now.
And pathetic poster on this site. Your pathetic snide sniping is worthless and annoying trolling. I hope YOU are 86'ed you add nothing, not one thing to discussion and only aim to antagonize us. You must have a sad and pathetic life to find that entertaining. You are piteous
equals "contribution" to this site, then you da man. Alas, such is not the case.
In terms of snideness, nobody here can match you. Roget's can probably help you with your worn-out "sad" and "pathetic" tags you love to use when things hit close to home.
Pious and pompous are words that come to mind as you begin one of your monotonous ruminations.
And next, O HALO'd ONE, you'll be telling us that YOU'VE never thought people should have thought twice about having kids, or at least postponed it. Not YOU.
That worked 15 years for a company that up and moved to Indonesia? He COULD afford that kid when he had him, now not so much. In your world poor people are immoral by dint of being poor and should be punished for being poor. Its sad and disgusting. You know I have a good paying job but when I had it for 15 years a guy pestered me in a restuarant. I dont really remember what happened next but he got hurt real bad. When the police came the waitress said he had attacked me so I didnt get into any trouble. What if she hadnt seen that? The chances of me being convicted of assault are pretty good. I would have lost my job had a felony on my record and so one mistake that took ten seconds and my livlihood is gone and the kid I could easily afford yesterday is now hurting while his dad looks for a minimum wage job. Things happen. In your world maybe nobody gets a bad illness or an injury from a car accident at a crucial juncture in their life maybe on major industry moves out of a city. That world is not this one. Not everyone in poverty is there because they are immoral. Your libertarian scolding and pious moralizing about responsibility is heartless and doesnt take into consideration that bad things happen to good people. The world isnt fair did someone tell you it was? While the WORLD isnt fair people should be. We can cushion the blow somewhat to the most vulnerable among us. YOU want to punish them for being poor. Sad
Employers will employ only as many as they NEED to do the work they need done. They are not charaties that give people jobs out of some sense of social responsibility. They need to make 1000 widgets per week to make their contract they employ enough people to make 1000 widgets a week, if they have to pay 5 dollars an hour they will if they have to pay 8 dollars and hour they will hire only as many people as necessary to make 1000 widgets a week and not one more nor one less. It IS easy to portray people against the minimum wage as heartless especially when they talk about how labor is a commodity without any concern that labor is made up of PEOPLE who have families. That minimum wage hikes make the lives of those families a small degree more livable. Those who always take the side of wealth and have no care about PEOPLE who work, where all wealth is created, do seem heartless to me. Labor is prior to and more important than capital, as Abraham Lincoln once said.
"Those who always take the side of wealth and have no care about PEOPLE who work, where all wealth is created, do seem heartless to me."-Solon
That is the heart of the matter isn't it?
Capitalists without conscience, market utopians. Let the market sort it out, they say, as if the market is the great oracle of all that is just and proper and wise. These market fundies perform acts of extreme unction for an economic monster that rewards loyalty, hard work and sacrifice with outsourcing and automation.
without conscience, utopians. Let the sort it out, they say, as if the is the great oracle of all that is just and proper and wise. These perform acts of extreme unction for an monster that rewards , work and sacrifice with and .
Is that really the game we want to play? Seriously? Though I'm sometimes tempted, I try NOT to think of everyone on your side that way, I'd prefer you didn't think of me that way.
Who was talking to you?
I'm just over here sketching. You are free, in fact encouraged to ignore.
As an aside, what on earth happened to our beloved Buckeyes Monday night? (noticed you live in Columbus, I am a former Columbus resident:)
...to point out that it is pretty easy to generalize and minimize your opponent's argument by saying "oh he/she is a stupid loyalist."
Regarding the game, it will be some time before my former roommate (a UF grad) and I are on speaking terms again. Absolutely embarassing.
that is an unsupported conclusion. So, we both can agree that generalization is an easy defense tactic.
Dismissiveness is another sign of a weak argument. It was a nice manuever to dismiss the crux of my argument. Namely, how does one reconcile the cruel reality of outsourcing with compassionate conservative devotion to the market?
While what happened to the Buckeyes was truly an embarassment it offers an interesting analogy. UF (underdog, everyman. David) discomfitted OSU's (corporate giant. Goliath) superior leverage by distributing the ball (wealth) liberally.
Apt analogy? Maybe. Looking forward to constructive criticism.
Dismissiveness is another sign of a weak argument. It was a nice manuever to dismiss the crux of my argument. Namely, how does one reconcile the cruel reality of outsourcing with compassionate conservative devotion to the market? -------------------
First, I don't find trade, which is what outsourcing is, to be a threat to the economy. It is an object of political posturing. Second, I thought we were talking about minimum wage. If we'd like to combine the two, an increased minimum wage would only encourage more outsourcing, by diminishing the relative cost of labor in other countries. Still, I suspect that very few minimum wage jobs are outsourceable (a word?).
--- While what happened to the Buckeyes was truly an embarassment it offers an interesting analogy. UF (underdog, everyman. David) discomfitted OSU's (corporate giant. Goliath) superior leverage by distributing the ball (wealth) liberally.
Apt analogy? Maybe. Looking forward to constructive criticism. ----
I think that's a stretch. More likely, Ohio State and the Big Ten wasn't as good as you or I thought -- see Michigan vs. USC as well. If you want to tie the game to economics, Florida simply leveraged it's competitive advantages (primarily speed) to achieve victory.
Perhaps a better criticism of political or economic systems to arise from the game is one we need to keep in mind with democracy. Any poll or vote before the game showed that a vast majority of people thought the Buckeyes were clearly better, while in reality I think we now realize that was wrong.
"First, I don't find trade, which is what outsourcing is, to be a threat to the economy. It is an object of political posturing."
That is a nice objective view but tell that to folks in my family who now earn half what they used to because of outsourcing. So while politicians are posturing, the good jobs have left the country and in their wake is a slew of minimum wage service industry jobs.
"I think that's a stretch. More likely, Ohio State and the Big Ten wasn't as good as you or I thought -- see Michigan vs. USC as well. If you want to tie the game to economics, Florida simply leveraged it's competitive advantages (primarily speed) to achieve victory."
Maybe it was a stretch, I've been known to fall on my face while reaching for my toes. But to extend the analogy, maybe like the Big Ten, our economic system is not as good as we think and could use some adjustment.
That is a nice objective view but tell that to folks in my family who now earn half what they used to because of outsourcing. So while politicians are posturing, the good jobs have left the country and in their wake is a slew of minimum wage service industry jobs. ----------
That's sort of like me saying that unions are bad -- look at all the folks in my hometown of Cleveland that had their unions price them out of the competitive labor market for steel. My father, grandfather, and best friend's father all lost jobs or were negatively affected by the sapping of the industry, and the resulting permanent shutdown of mills. I have to admit my initial reaction was very isolationist, xenophobic, and protectionary. In reality I find unions to be a mixed bag (yeah, yeah more bad than good), and realize that there is more to any economic situation than one variable. The point is that we could both pull in anecdotes to make any number of things appear bad.
The changing nature of the economy is what it is. You cannot force manufacturing jobs to stay in the country without creating even more inefficiencies. The fact is the world is shrinking; artificially inhibiting trade, and increasing wages is like trying to force an inflated balloon to be two-dimensional.
While I generally prefer my fellow countryman to a foreigner, I'm not sure it is in the best interest of either to deny the latter a job because he is willing to do it for a lower price than the former.
---- Maybe it was a stretch, I've been known to fall on my face while reaching for my toes. But to extend the analogy, maybe like the Big Ten, our economic system is not as good as we think and could use some adjustment. ----
Agreed, but probably not if we leave it at that. :)
On the football front, maybe we can someday get ND in and pad our records with one more win per year.
I'm not an economist I'm an artist and as such I'm at a disadvantage in this discussion.
I would implore my more knowledgable fellow posters to take up this civil discussion on minimum wage.
Thanks again. Peace.
(ND has it way too good to join our Big Ten rabble of commoners)
An artist! That explains it! :)
Thanks back at you for the lively discussion. Hopefully we can accept that we both would prefer an improved world to the current one -- even if we disagree on how to achieve it.
Oh, and a minute ago OSU was Goliath. Now we pale next to all the faux-Irishmen generated by Our Lady and her pal Touchdown Jesus. Point taken though. All good economists focus on incentives, and ND doesn't have any for leaving its military academy-filled schedule nor for splitting all of the BCS money it currently gets to keep.
Unions are much more good than bad. I make at least as much as a steelworker but our industry is booming. The difference is they CANT outsource my job in order to make more profits not to make A profit to make MORE profits.
And your evidence that a 7 dollar an hour minimum wage as opposed to 1 dollar a day in Indonesia would encourage outsourcing more than 5 dollars and hour as opposed to a dollar a day is what again? The argument about whether or not there SHOULD be a minimum wage is over. Conservatives lost that in what 1955? NOW the only question is what should it be, in real dollars it is lower now than it was in 1955. That alone should blow your labor is pricing itself out of the market argument to pieces. Corporate profits are skyrocketing. There are MORE profits why shouldnt wage earners get a piece of that? Employers are paying their people LESS in real dollars than they did in 1955, Meanwhile they are making more mone in real dollars. I would be glad for conservatives to make the argument that no one deserves a minimum wage. I love when they take the position that property is more important than people. I encourage you to tell your republican leader he should lead a charge to get rid of the minimum wage. Until then we HAVE one, its at its lowest level in more then 50 years in constant dollars. It was at its HIGHEST in 1968 about 7 50$ in constant dollars, in 1969 unemployment for men was about 2%
I havent seen enough of your posts to characterize YOU in this category. You so far have been making libertarian arguments but hey didnt you basically lump those of us that agree with a minimum wage at all with slave owners? I say those who always or even consistantly take the side of wealth and power over real people and their needs now only you know if you fit that category if you do, then I stand by my statement. It seems heartless. If not then only wear shoes that fit. This may or may NOT be you. However if you are going to snivel about OUR characterizations perhaps you ought to be more careful about YOURS. Slavery? please.
Why don't I pre-invoke Godwin's Law, and just assume you'll call me a Nazi soon? Please point out to me once and for all where I called anyone a GD slave owner? I'm getting really sick of defending myself from an absolutely baseless charge.
Sorry. You're also not going to get me to begrudge someone else the wealth that they have accumulated, nor attack all the poor as lazy good-for-nothings. If I happen to come down on what appears to be the side of either, it's because *I* think it's the right side.
Why do you think I would believe what I do? Do you think I'm rich and like to exploit people? I am not, nor do I. Do you think I'm just mean-spirited, and like to see babies starve?
Maybe I just think it's the right thing to do.
-----------
Gladly...
Better to have people unemployed than to let them enter into a contract with their employer that pays them a wage that YOU find objectionable?
Slavery died 140 years ago. If I don't like how my employer treats me, I'm free to leave. I know that sounds harsh, but it makes a lot of sense.
Labor is a commodity, if the price is artificially increased, do you think an employer will buy more or less of it? Of course, it is easy to paint an enemy of minimum wages as cruel and unfair. What is truly cruel and unfair is denying some people entry into the labor market in order to make yourself feel good.
----------------
Whether I actually WOULD call you a Nazi really isnt the point is it, just that it would be good for your argument if I did. You know very well where you lumped those who support a minimum wage hike with being slave owners if it is an overstatement its not that much of one you conflated MW hike with slavery its not that different. As far as being done with me who cares? Respond, dont respond, dress up in a clown suit and dance a jig its all the same to me I will respond to whatever posts I choose to I suggest you do the same.
And here the argument is. It boils down to I THINK, MAYBE, even though it demonstably didnt happen last time, and hasnt seemed to happen in states that increased their minimum wage, all evidence shown so far has been to the contratry but I THINK, MAYBE, it will cause significant unemployment. I have FAITH that despite all evidence to the contrary it will, so, I THINK people ought to forgo a direct benifit and raise in their standard of living on the CHANCE that I am right and it MIGHT hurt them in the longrun. Its not really a compelling argument. IF you can show it WILL happen then we can have the discussion about how many are helped vs how many hurt and how much but you havent shown it will, you havent come close to showing it will. You keep making the same arguments I keep answering them and you dont really try to show where my refutations of them are wrong, just repeat rinse and repeat. Can y0u SHOW me that significant amounts of businesses have excess workers they dont NEED? No you cant, which is why you havent tried. Its a chimera.
Food is also a commodity, I buy as much as I need to EAT AND LIVE, if it cost more I will still have to buy enough to EAT AND LIVE. Can you show that businesses are just hiring people to hang around and NOT do essential work out of a sense of social responsibility because if you CANT then this argument that they are going to, in significant numbers just fire people it wont wash. ALL wealth is created by those who work, not one bit by buying and selling. The wealth a business creates is directly proportional to those doing its work. Without those workers there is NO WEALTH CREATED. The workers are the MOST VITAL PART of a business without them there is no business. If a company employes what it NEEDS not more because they are charitable. This isnt the first time I have made any of these arguments you havent addressed them but keep making YOUR arguments the reason I am beggining to think CARE about the welfare of the people being discussed here isnt your main concern is you keep making arguments you are nowhere NEAR baking up. You cannot begin to show them to be correct yet you just keep making them either this is a religious dogma for you or you dont really care whether or not your arguments have merit for some other reason.
------------------- Employers will employ only as many as they NEED to do the work they need done. ------------------- This is naturally constrained, in part, by the state of the labor market, namely the price of labor.
------------ They are not charaties that give people jobs out of some sense of social responsibility. They need to make 1000 widgets per week to make their contract they employ enough people to make 1000 widgets a week, if they have to pay 5 dollars an hour they will if they have to pay 8 dollars and hour they will hire only as many people as necessary to make 1000 widgets a week and not one more nor one less. ------------ Do you seriously believe that employers have no price elasticity relative to the price of labor? Even if you have this belief, what happens to the price of widgets now? I hope you are not a consumer of widgets.
--------------- It IS easy to portray people against the minimum wage as heartless especially when they talk about how labor is a commodity without any concern that labor is made up of PEOPLE who have families. ---------------
Just because you can model something mathematically, and just because it fits a definition of commodity, does not mean that you do not care about people. This is a hogwash argument. I have already made it abundantly clear that *I* find support of a minimum wage to be morally objectionable.
Otherwise why would I be arguing this point? Just to be arguing? Do you think I am a minimum wage employer? Do you think I have millions invested in one?
---------- That minimum wage hikes make the lives of those families a small degree more livable. Those who always take the side of wealth and have no care about PEOPLE who work, where all wealth is created, do seem heartless to me. Labor is prior to and more important than capital, as Abraham Lincoln once said. ----------
You got me, I'm on team wealth. Like I already said, what do you have to say to the people that are without work because of a minimum wage? How many more degrees of livability have you added to their lives?
The same thing I have to say about the martians that are going to shoot death rays at us, when the actual REAL not hypothetical example shows up we will see. You have not even ATTEMPTED to show this is actually going to happen.
let the market decide
not spoken here.
That like Kryptonite.
THAT'S like Kryptonite.
You act like they are laws of physics like gravity instead of this economist says yet THIS economist says. You have heard that God put Economists on Earth to make Astrologers look good RIGHT?
There is no such thing as an "ideal" market that behaves as the faith-based argument maintains it does. Markets are flawed human institutions like any other, filled with dishonesty, selfishness, heroism and integrity. As in any other walk of life, we as a society attempt to form laws to avoid the worst abuses while giving people the freedom to excel.
The argument that markets should be completely free of any regulation is to me precisely equivalent to the argument that there should be no police but rather an armed citizenry, that vigilantism will keep the streets safe. Look at Baghdad. Look at Kabul. This is not a serious argument IMHO.
The facts really don't matter.
The idea that jobs are being created by Bush is sort of funny. Come to Michigan and say that.
neither creates nor destroys jobs. tie your entire economy to one industry and you get michigan
if you say jobs aren't plentiful? I'll go where they ARE plentiful, because I am free to do so.
Are you starting to get it?
those poor souls were free to leave. They were so free they were not restrained by the burden of owning an automobile.
The Table MMFA refers to in the write-up is a bit confusing. The lefthand column labeled "Total Affected" is the sum of the "Directly Affected" and the Indirectly Affected" columns. Total Affected = 10% of the workforce according to the table, or 13 million workers.
The asterisk in the writeup is misleading and reads as follows: When EPI includes those who would be "indirectly affected," which are defined as "workers currently earning above $7.25, likely to be affected by 'spillover effects,' " the total percentage of adult workers affected is 79 percent.
I believe the correct phrasing should be that 79% of the 10% Total Affected are age 20 and over, not 79% of the entire workforce. Only 6% of the workforce is "Indirectly Affected" according to the table, and 85% of that 6% is age 20 and over.
The last paragraph I wrote was indeciperable. I meant to say that the 79% referred to in the asterisk should be 79% of the 10% affected by the minimum wage hike, not 79% of the total workforce. I hope that is more clear.
What a joke. In Mexifornia all those minimum wage jobs are taken up by scanky law breakers......... ILLEGALS!
I am for raising the wage, but the illegals do not deserve a cut of it.
...but aren't illegal workers exempt from the minimum wage, by definition?
Your right of course, but just let Evillib rant a little more. He is coming off more and more racist lately. Look at previous threads regarding Keith Elison and muslims for more details...
..but it's so much fun to try and get her/his goat (we really need a neutral pronoun for people like me and her/him who have genderless screen names...)
Evillib was ripping on Olbermann on the Hannity thread before, he/she is an odd character, aggreeable at times, but then he/she goes on some anti mexican/muslim/etc rant for some reason or another. A while ago the only posts he would make would be about Nancy Pelosi's Orchards and something about illegal aliens working in them....
You don't debate Evil, you just poke her/him to see what she/he'll say...
you're so far removed from the trenches, you make yourselves look ridiculous. Legions of illegals have fake documents, never file an income tax return, etc. and you two seem ignorant of it. How can you be THAT uninformed?
`Well just plain ignorant. I lived for many years in California they kept doing studies to show what illegal immigrants cost and every time it seemed the put more INTO the system than they took out. Now I have seen studies done by advocacy groups that say contradictory things on this issue but here is something from the STATE of Texas, NOT an advocacy group that says Texas (obviously a state with a large illegal population) that also denies they are a financial burden.
[link to www.nshp.org]
A recent report by the Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn says that overall, illegal immigrants put about $420 million more into state coffers than they take out.
An official state document that contradicts the idea that immigrants are a financial burden can carry considerable weight Maybe the one ignorant of facts is YOU
uninformed is all. I guess that could be the same. My best guess is neither of them have heard of under the table payments or getting paid cash at the end of the day.
you never heard of ripping off dead people SS#?
Dumb fricking fools.
pay taxes they will NEVER recoup
maximum dependents, minimize withholding, never file a return...
...net--net--net--they come out ahead, cash at payday.
AND, unless that false ss# catches up w/them, enjoy the other benefits of citizenship while others attempting to enter legally are SOL in comparison.
BS SOLON..... Liberals wrote that article.
By the state of Texas the comptroller of the STATE OF TEXAS. Yeah that state is surely run by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Adult education look into it.
"aren't illegal imigrants exempt from minimum wage, by definition?"
My post made reference to the fact that many ARE documented (falsely), and with a Social Security#, they are not being paid sub-minimum wage.
So, kindly stop advertising YOUR ignorance and that of the other Knee-Jerk Reactionaries here.
Both your points have merit. What I pointed out is that those who do pay into the system more than they will ever take out. You are a fine one to talk about ignornace. You are the worst poster on this site snide, snivelling sniping, is the bulk of your troll posts. Your ignornace is palapable. I flush things with more on the ball than you have ever shown. Start making a contribution instead of your moronic sniping and you will see me treat you differently as of this point you are the internet equvilent of vermin.
doyen of Media Matters posters...you seem to see yourself as Gatekeeper here. Pretty funny.
You're more like a schoolyard bully, beating up on any "new kid", and being cheered on by the younger kids who wannabe like you. When your swaggering and shoving gets you punched in the nose by the new kid, you come unravelled. Hence your name-calling and hissing put-downs.
Mere tonnage does not a contribution make, by the way. Some of your own here deliver a more distilled message with excellent results.
I am a dewd! oK, A DEWD!
I am far from racist. Grow up you old softy.
according to the Dept. of Labor, as of 2005:
[link to www.bls.gov]
49% of babies are girls.
I don't get it.
You just pretend not to get it. Your hero Lowry claims that a very small group(9%) within an already small group (29% of minimum wage earners) is the reason why Democrats raised the minimum wage.
...correction. I said Democrats raised the minimum wage. Not yet.
Correction noted.
My point is that in trying to identify which groups are affected by minimum wage legislation, it makes more sense to look at the minimum-wage earning population that is teenaged (~30%) than it does to look at the relative portion of teenagers that make minimum wage (9%).
Honestly never read anything by the National Review, or Lowry, nor am I familiar with him.
Regarding age, I think it is instructive to look at the next age layer too, 20-25, and you'll see that the 25 and over segment is less than half of the minimum-wage earning population. Not that I find that extremely relevant. I think a greater proportion of the minimum-wage population being OVER 25, makes an increase MORE egregious by pricing out willing laborers in favor of incumbents.
but get your raincoat out. There's gonna be a $***STORM of name-calling comin' real soon, in place of intelligent replies to your thoughtful posts.
I'll be getting it too, just for congratulating you.
peanut gallery you provide. Name calling usually comes AFTER namecalling by conservatives here. As much as you WISH it were otherwise. He is being reasonable, there may be one or two namecallers but he is being very reasonable I expect mostly reasonable responses.
ahhh, ok.
There WAS any such thing happening. You cant. Since you said we should look at the amount of people making minimum wage are TEENAGERS I guess we should look at that 16 to 19 age braket which seems to be less than 25%
I am married and have 4 kids. I never worked for minimum wage. I always chose to work the jobs that paid more, even if the work was less than stellar.
I have a large staff, none of them worked for minimum wage until my state raised it in October. Not a single associate who was given a raise is the sole income for their families and all but one or two of those affected still live with their parents. When the minimum wage was increased, 90 percent of my staff had reduced hours due an increase in average wage. I'm salary, so I picked up an extra day to cover the fallout. I protected my higher wage earners as much as I could and cut the lower wage guys more because they are expendable and easy to replace.
Honestly, I'm not trying to be a bad guy. But we have an expense budget that we must meet to make money. I can hardly expect my employer to keep me around if the business I run is not profitable.
Perhaps it is different in LA of New York, where a wage floor in an overpopulated area may help prevent exploitation. But it does not work where I live.
In ways, I long for the days of Bill Clinton, where states were given the right to adjust their own minimum wage(even if my state flubbed it). I think he had hoped to end the federal debate on such a region specific issue. Oh well. Handouts rarely work, but they do wonders for approval ratings.
The minimum wage is lower now in real dollars than it has EVER been, it was higher in constant dollars than it was in 1955. We HAVE a minimum wage, keeping it up to some semblance of inflation is the right thing to do its NOT a handout. Remember what Roosevelt said?
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
The minimum wage is lower now in real dollars than it has EVER been, it was higher in constant dollars than it was in 1955. We HAVE a minimum wage, keeping it up to some semblance of inflation is the right thing to do its NOT a handout. Remember what Roosevelt said? ------------
You bet the real minimum wage has gone down. Likewise, the relative proportion of workers paid hourly earning minimum wage has monotonically decreased from 6.7% in 1997 to 3.0% in 2002.
Of course this is easily explained by astrolo-...
Less people making minimum wage is good unless more are making LESS than the minimum wage which is more than possible. Last I looked that number was more than one million. However the real issue is the buying power for those who DO make the minimum wage. In real dollars their wage has dropped in buying power their wage has dropped that translates to a lower standard of living. Now I agree that it is a good thing LESS of them are suffering from this but the issue is those who ARE.
I think the fairest wage is the one for which I agree to trade my time and services.
While in some cases this is absolutely correct, the types of jobs we are speaking about generally don't leave much room for negotiation. Have you ever argued with the manager of your local fast food chain for a better wage for flipping burgers? It doesn't usually end with them saying "You know, you're right. I will pay you 2 USD more an hour than the company standard wage." They aren't being cruel or mean, that's just how the company works. They aren't allowed to negotiate wages for entry-level jobs, generally speaking.
Second, if you are working full-time at a minimum wage job it is usually because you need to, not because it’s your career of choice. It comes between feeding your children and having a house over your head tonight, or letting them starve while you hunt around for a better wage, which would you choose?
Last, minimum wage increases are not artificially raised by some far off government. A government "by the people" is suppose more of a collective bargaining tool. We the people say that we the people, as a whole, will not work for less than 7.25 an hour. It’s just negotiating on a larger scale. The business men have a voice in Congress too.
it’s about unions being able to justify wage increases through collective bargaining agreements for their rank and file in the future. This rather poorly disguised ploy by liberals has little to do with the poor minimum wage earner trying to feed his/her family and everything to do with liberals trying to bolster their union member voter base. It is really all about getting votes and campaign contributions by increasing wages for union members and very little about compassion for the poor. Anyone who is paying attention ought to be able to see that. Unfortunately, artificially increasing the minimum wage instead of letting natural market forces dictate wages is a sure fire way to increase the cost of everything since the minimum wage is used as a quasi index for non-minimum wage earners too. So while the minimum wage earner and others seem to benefit from increased wages in the short run, they actually end up paying more for goods and services and gain very little if any increased buying power in the long run. You may think it's a good idea to increase the minimum wage but lets be honest, its about votes and campaign money, not compassion.
I have NEVER seen my union talk once about the minimum wage when negotiating.