Thinking Right

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Minimum wage is the best incentive to educate yourself. It’s the best money we spend for education.

Today, in the @ISSUE section, there’s another gay union article. Gay considerations are so ubiquitous now, that I saw some kids playing on the sidewalk chanting, “Step on a crack, your father’s Brokeback!”

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

It’s been an article of faith among conservatives since the Reagan years that the minimum wage is an example of “evil government interference in the free market.”

Yes, it is… and that’s a good thing. No, a minimum wage hike does NOT result in fewer jobs; this has been proven time and again, but it just doesn’t fit into the Friedman school (or church?) of economic thought, so it’s ignored.

The free market, on its own, does not benefit all of society; it benefits a very few at the top and pretty much screws everybody else. Fortunately, we’ve had a guiding hand controlling the excesses of capitalism and enabling a middle class to exist. That guiding hand is public control, aka “government.” (No, it’s not a dirty word.)

A minimum wage is similar in principle to many other hated-by-conservative-economist structures: Social Security. Occupational health & safety standards. Clean air and water laws. Workers’ Comp. Handicap access in public buildings. All of these cut into the sacred profit margins of the free market—but all of them are indicators of a civilized and just society that values people just a BIT more than profit once in awhile.

“Let the market decide” was bad policy back in the bad old days of the robber barons and the Depression, and it’s bad policy now. Capitalism exists to serve the people, not vice versa.

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Jim, a great commentary. It is so sensible that disagreements have already resulted, all the way back to robber barons and the Depression.

Capitalism exists to serve the people, not vice versa? If that is true, then it wouldn’t be capitalism. How about, it would be socialism. Or worse, communism.

By Amelia

July 12, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

“In an election year and certainly close to the time voters go to the polls”, immigration(xenophobia/nativism)gay marriage(homophbia)flag burning(anti-1st Amendment) is popular . Designed to bring out the “base”.

“In an election year and certainly close to the time voters go to the polls, raising the minimum wage is popular”. Designed to bring out the base. I beg to ask you Jim, why did you not classify the former as you did the later? The jist of your column seems to elude to the fact that Democrats are using the minimum wage issue to garner votes. I.E, bring out the base. Is turn about not fair play Jim? One side can choose issues that cater to the darker side of the human psyce, yet raising the minimum wage is some kind of cheap political trick. Go figure.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

As long as there are plenty of illegal aliens to go around, the minimum wage should stay exactly where it is. It’s the only way, and that 5 bucks an hour translates to big bucks back in Mexico.

I broke from the nine to five routine twenty five years ago, and decided to go into biz for myself. I wouldn’t pay anyone more than minimum wage. If they want more, let them do what I did, and risk it all, for financial independence.

If an employee came to me, and said, “I want a raise”, I’d have to get my “Trump” on. If they tried to form a union against me, I’d have to get my “Oxbow” on.

By Amelia

July 12, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Humans Dusty, ARE the engines that power a capitalistic, free market economy! Without them there is no capitalism period.

By deegee

July 12, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

AMEN, Amelia!

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Exactly, Amelia. Sometimes I think Dusty forgets that she’s a human, not a market. When the interests of the two come into conflict, whose side would YOU be on?

By I think with a silky, southern drawl

July 12, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Congress can give itself a substantial pay raises every year, but poor workers don’t need a break. Give me a break. I guess you have to acutally struggle at some point in your life to understand what it is like. People who start with silver spoons in the mouths seem to go out of their way and try to snatch the wooden spoons out of the mouths of those less fortunate.

I’m pro-business, and pro free-market. But above all of that I’m pro-people. I believe that hardworking individuals shouldn’t have to labor 40 plus hours a week, yet still not be able to make ends meet.

What would Jesus Do?

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Ah, dear Ameia, you may think of yourself as an engine. I don’t. I carry personal responsibility right to work and figure I am the one who must do my job right or get what is coming.

Keep your engine running, because that may be all you have going for you. Just don’t expect the government to furnish the fuel for your motor-vations.

By deegee

July 12, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

GM’s lack of vision has weakened GM more than the cost of labor. Nissan, Toyota, and Daimler-Chrysler have manufacturing plants in the US and seem to be doing very well. As long as the price of gas was relatively low GM could sell what they were producing. If GM couldn’t rein in the union that’s more evidence of their inept upper management.

If raising the minimum wage is inappropriate then should social security recipients be entitled to cost of living increases? If you are trying to make ends meet on social security alone then I would suspect that you are in a similar predicament as adults that are trying to support themselves on the minimum wage.

By J Tom

July 12, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

I think the supporters of raising the minimum wage should take a long, hard look at who the primary beneficiaries would be. It’s that group of people doing “jobs that Americans won’t do”. While we’re debating what to do with millions of univited ‘guest workers’, there’s a cadre of uninformed people arguing that we should give those workers a raise.

By Amelia

July 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Your point Dusty? Say something that makes a little sense every now and then how about it.

By MikeT

July 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Dusty you’re dumber than a box of rocks. A real Peg Bundy. Go back to your box of bon bons and get broader through the beam while your husband plays engine to support your stupid a#@.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis @ 8:28, I challenge the foundation of your thesis, which seems to be that “human wages” are the only commodity known to man that defy the laws of supply and demand. Every study I ever read showed that a minimum wage increased unemployment, most pronounced among the poorest of the poor. One would expect that empirically. The only benefit from minimum wages appear to be that it gives support to group (i.e. “union”) wage levels negotiated above the market. I know there are leftist economist who have attempted to show that the “total dollars” benefit to that narrow class of beneficiaries exceeds the losses suffered by those thrown out of employment potential; that finding is always skewed by the including the reduction of injury provided by government unemployment and welfare programs. The latter are actually unnecessary costs inflicted on the market by the government wage fiat.

I think you operate from bad information.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

I propose that the minimum wage be raised to $100 per hour. CEO of any company that pays less than that will have to be thrown into prison. Then we will all be making $200,000 per year, right?

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Dear Ameria,

Just following up on your designation of humans as engines. Maybe you forgot. Or maybe you have never worked. I prefer personal responsibility as the way to improve, not stoking an engine with a few more cents to improve.

By deegee

July 12, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

J Tom, I don’t know what your experience is but I can tell you that illegal laborers are for the most part NOT working for minimum wage. While they are generally paid at a lower rate than legal workers, a minimum wage hike will affect teenagers and elderly workers more than illegals.

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Mike T,

Miss Manners you are NOT. Are you out of your cell for exercise hour?

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Amelia,

Sorry I misspelled your name. Hope it didn’t make your engine stop.

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Jim, from someone in the employment business - minimum wage is pretty much a non-issue anymore. With the ubiquity of information (want ads, job boards, connected communities, etc.) workers have more information about jobs and wages for those jobs than ever before. I personally know of no one, not even babysitters, that make minimum wage - they all make more. Someone has already called you on this Jim, but GM didn’t fail because of labor costs, they failed because they couldn’t make cars anyone wanted to buy (Ford also). The person on the assembly line has nothing to do with that. Minimum wage is the Democratic political answer to Gay Marriage. Pump up the faithful over something that affects none of them directly (I’m still waiting to hear how a gay couple marrying will hurt a straight couple’s marriage…), the only thing raising minimum wage would do is maybe get some summer workers (high schoolers) some more money - that’s it.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

FACT….$5/hr equals $1/hr in 1970 money.

FACT…The rich/poor gap now equals the pre-French Revolution gap of Royalty/peasant scum.

FACT…the guillotine hasn’t been used in two hundred years. Many are rusting in museums, where the admission fee is, strangely enough, $5.15

By Amelia

July 12, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Dusty, I will certainly put my work experience and the level that I work at up against yours. But seeing as how there is absolutely no way for either of us to prove anything in that regard, I will let my comments speak for me and yours for you. I am sure that most on the blog can come to a logical conclusion based on that.

By Th

July 12, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

I challenge jbmlaw to actually name a study that shows raising the minimum wage resulted in lower employment. There are many people who believe this, but there must be some reason that states with minimum wages above the federal level have higher growth rates in jobs, wages and economic growth. The states are wonderful labs to test theories.

By 9to5

July 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Amelia, Dusty is one of the AJCs professional stay at home bloggers. One of the 24/7 crowd. She is notoriously ignorant. For more examples of her ignorance check out the Luckovitch blog from time to time. She is the perfect little bubbleheaded bushnik and is nothing more than a broken record.

By Th

July 12, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Can anyone name a country anywhere in the world with a large, comfortable middle class that does not have a strong union movement?

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Th, if someone presented the minimum wage hike as a “negative shock” to the economy, with the thought that it would essentially present a “tax” to businesses - you could use the Fair Model to run the numbers and present what a negative effect it would be on the economy, but the inverse could also be used by saying it’s a “positive shock” by giving consumers more spending power therefore providing a 4 fold increase in the overall economic impact. So, no matter what model you want to use, it’s the thought process behind what you want to prove with numbers like this.

By Susan

July 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

“Highlights: State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses

For a copy of the full report click here.

For additional information contact James Parrott at parrott@fiscalpolicy.org or at 212-414-9001 x221.

This report examines the effects of minimum wages on employment and payrolls in small businesses. The analysis makes several comparisons between states with a higher minimum wage than the federal $5.15 minimum and all other states (i.e., those states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails). Particular attention is paid in this report to the retail sector since that is the industry employing the most workers at low wages.

The last time the federal minimum wage was increased was in September of 1997. Since then, a growing number of states have raised their own minimum wage levels above the federal $5.15 level. There are currently 12 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have a higher minimum wage. These 12 higher minimum wage states comprise a diverse set of states and include five northeastern states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island), the five West Coast states (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii), and Delaware and Illinois.

To provide a thorough empirical basis for assessing the effects of minimum wages on employment, particularly for small business, this report makes comparisons between these two groups of states (higher minimum wage states and all other states) for the period since 1997, in terms of:

total nonfarm employment, total retail employment, employment and average payroll per worker for all small businesses (defined as those employing less than 50 workers), and employment and average payroll per worker for small retail businesses. The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy – the years 1998 through 2000 – as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).

In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states. Consider these examples:

Total employment in the higher minimum wage states increased by 6.2 percent from January 1998 to January 2004, 50 percent greater than the combined job growth of 4.1 percent for the other states where the federal minimum wage prevailed; and Retail employment grew by 6.1 percent in the minimum wage states versus 1.9 percent in the other states. And in looking at the growth in establishments, employment and payrolls for small employers with fewer than 50 employees, a similar picture emerges: small employers in this diverse set of higher minimum wage states generally fared better than small employers in other states between 1998 and 2001 (1998 and 2001 are the years for which the government’s County Business Patterns data make a comparison possible). (Small employers with less than 50 employees accounted for 95 percent of all establishments and 41 percent of total employment.)

The results for small employers included:

In the under 50 employee size range across all industries, the number of establishments increased by 3.1 percent for the higher minimum wage states compared to a 1.6 percent increase for the balance of the states; and Within the retail industry, the number of establishments increased by 0.6 percent for the higher minimum wage states (compared to 0.3 percent for all other states), the number of employees increased by 3.7 percent (versus 2.4 percent), total annual payroll increased by 17.9 percent in the higher minimum wage states and average payroll per worker increased by 13.7 percent (versus, 14.7 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, for the other states. We do not know enough from this analysis to conclude that increasing the minimum wage will boost employment growth over what it otherwise would have been. What does seem to be clear, however, is that it is hard to sustain the argument made by some observers that an increase in the minimum wage will result in adverse aggregate employment outcomes.

The analysis of employment and payroll data in this report — across all states since the last increase in the federal minimum wage — suggests that it is hard to argue that, in the aggregate, all businesses, or all small businesses, will be adversely affected by higher minimum wages.”

-courtesy of the Fiscal Policy Institute

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

THANK YOU, MR. KEYNES

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Th, yeah, the United States - Unions here are a shell of what they once were. However I can give you an example of a nation that had the strongest Union of all time.. The Soviet Union, the proletariat - you see how that worked out. Plus Germany and France are crippled economically and facing unreal competition from their neighbors Poland and the Czech Republic due to France and Germany’s outdated and underfunded Union contracts and worker arrangements. Union’s certainly have their place, but in today’s global economy they are better served by promoting safety and equal opportunity for their members

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Anyone else notice no rust belt states were in that study as “raising minimum wage”? So many other external factors at play in those numbers by the Fiscal Policy Institute cited. I mean, if California was it’s own nation, what is it… wouldn’t it have like the 5th largest GDP in the world?? It’s something like that.

By Susan

July 12, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

“Conflicting theories of the effect of minimum wage increases

Looking at the descriptive statistics, there is no reason to believe that minimum wage increases are the cause of labor market distress in the Northwest, or elsewhere. But should we expect them to be?

The claim that higher minimum wages are the reason for labor market problems in the Northwest is an extreme version of a particular economic theory, namely that mandatory minimum wages cause employers to reduce the number of employees they hire. This assertion is based on an overly simple model that assumes that wages are set in the marketplace the same way as the price for tee-shirts or bananas.15 When applied to the real world of low-wage work, this model makes several unrealistic assumptions, including:

Workers and employers have many options available to choose from.

Employers do not incur cost when hiring and firing.

Workers can enter the job market, leave the job market, change jobs, or get fired without incurring loss.

All employers have perfect knowledge of the productivity and ability of all workers.

All workers have perfect knowledge of the options available and the tastes and needs of all employers.

Each worker’s productivity is identical and all workers work to their full potential without the need for guidance or supervision. From the standpoint of an economist, this can be a useful way to simplify thinking about labor markets. However, it is far less useful for policy makers weighing a minimum wage increase. While the “competitive model” may be an apt descriptor of the job market faced by some workers under some conditions, it fails to account for realistic situations. As Alan Manning, an economist from the London School of Economics puts it:

What happens if an employer cuts wages by one cent? Much of labor economics is built on the assumption that all the workers will quit immediately (Manning 2003, p. 3).

Clearly, Manning’s scenario is not likely to happen. An alternative, more realistic model of the low-wage labor market states that:

Employers have power to set wages because workers incur substantial personal cost during unemployment.

Employers exercise that power by paying their employees less than what they would earn in a truly competitive market.

By paying lower wages, employers may cause higher turnover and incur higher costs to recruit, train, and supervise their workers.

While these assumptions may seem like common sense to the average worker, economists have only recently begun to incorporate them into analyses of low-wage labor markets. Using these assumptions, an increase in the minimum wage may not have a substantial impact on employment (and may even increase employment over some ranges) because workers are being paid less than what they are really worth economically to the firm. Rather than cause job loss, minimum wage increases would therefore correct a market imbalance by forcing employers to pay a fair wage. And by decreasing recruitment, training, and supervisions costs, increases to the minimum wage may not have a substantial impact on the cost of doing business for employers.16”

-courtesy of Economic Policy Institute

By Harold

July 12, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

A higher minimum wage just means longer binges and bigger hangovers for the minimum wage flunkies.

It’s not like they’re gonna run out and buy a house and set up a 401k on $40 more per week, but they CAN get 15 more bottles of Night Train for $40 a week.

We should get rid of all of them and hire undocumented workers instead for $2 per hour.

By Th

July 12, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

PTFMWB: The middle class in the US has been shrinking of late in case you have not noticed. The huge growth of the middle class here occurred in the middle decades of the last century, during the height of the union movement. An economist recently looked at census data and compared the median income of a working, 40 year old white male and found that wages peeked in 1973. The median wage for this working, 40 year old white male is now about 10% less than 1973.

The USSR did not have a strong labor movement. The unions were completely controlled by the government. Explain ,please, how 70 million lazy Frenchies who do everything wrong manage to produce the same amount as 1.3 billion Chinese.

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Some of you need to read Wooten’s last paragraph again. Go back. READ IT AGAIN. It is so sensible.

Don’t get involved in wordy edicts that make you forget what is called “common sense”. Academe has its lofty place, but knowledge learned from experience is one of our most valuable assets.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

The best example of the folly of paying more than minimum wage is found in the post office. Notice how slow and demure postal workers are? And just try asking one of them for a stamp….

Paying employees more than minimum only makes them disgruntled…..and you all know what disgruntled postal workers can do…….my own mail man is so slow and lazy that I’ve set traps for him from foul smelling flowers around the mailbox, to trained pitbulls who zero in on his cart. Nothing works. Nothing can work when you spoil the rabble with coin.

By Jim Wooten

July 12, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Susan and others so inclined, please don’t cut-and-paste. It’s possible to refer to special interests and point-of-view organizations, and to summarize their opinions/research for our benefit without overburdening the reader here.

By Van

July 12, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Question to the lefties on this blog. How many people are working at the federal mimimun wage?

Second question, how many that start working at the mimimun wage still are working at that rate after one year?

Lets put the spotlight on a different spot. Tell me, how many of your teenage sons and daughters are working at $5.15 an hour? I would bet that not many are after 6 months on the job, unless they are real slackers.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I have to second Mr. Wooten’s cautionary objection. I prefer brief, concise commentary. Edit, Dear Watson, Edit!!

By deegee

July 12, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Harold, How would you know the going rate for a bottle of Night Train? Try this one on, “Raise the minimum wage and it will all go up the nose or out the hose.”

By Eric

July 12, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Everybody talkin’ ‘bout Capitalism, Federalism, Communism, Socialist, ism ism ism… (apologies to John Lennon RIP)

All these things are THEORIES…. that is all, just theories. All would be perfectly fine and work to the benefit of all if you took one thing out of the equation…

humans.

As long as people are involved ANY system is flawed, because we are vile, greedy, uncaring sacks of meat who would 9 out of 10 times, step on someone else’s neck to further our own personal cause.

So in the end, it doesn’t matter what your system is or what you call it, until you removed humans from the question (please hurry Mother Nature, God, Allah or whoever the heck is running this disaster of a world) and clean house again and start over… humans are now the dinosaurs.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

July 12, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

A few years ago when I was in business management and had about 20 employees, my company wanted me to hire them at minimum wage whenever possible. I refused to do this because I felt it wasn’t fair to the workers to make $5 an hour, even if they were college students or part time workers. So I hired them at $1-2 above minimum wage. What did it do? It cost my business a few hundred dollars extra per month. It also helped to ensure that my employees would show up every day and work hard because they knew they were getting paid more than if they went across the street to get a job. This boost in their work ethic helped to increase profits far more than the few hundred extra dollars a month I was paying in labor. The business thrived because my employees wanted to succeed, they wanted me to succeed, and there was a greater feeling of respect allaround, which made its way to the customers and increased our business even more. It’s BS that unemployment will rise with higher wages or that funds can’t be found for those wages. When CEO’s make $200 million a year and workers make $5.15 an hour it’s bad for our country. When workers make more it helps our country in every way- they work harder, stay at their jobs longer which cuts down on new training costs, care more about their jobs, and have more money to put back into the economy. It’s not that difficult to understand.

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

I don’t know where you are coming from on the “shrinking middle class”. More people today own homes than they did in the 1970’s, look at the prices of cars, the ubiquity of strip malls and retail establishments. Certainly Georgia and the Southeast has done very well especially over the last 15 years. Maybe it’s definitions of middle class, and I’m willing to listen on your definition. Also, I’m assuming you are adjusting for inflation the 1973 wages you are making 10% less than. Although that statistic is valid, go do a wage comparison of what you make now with the current wages - you may find an even bigger gap in earnings, given (and I’m making an assumption here) you live and work in GA. My friends in CA, MA, and OH all make more than I do - CA and MA by 30-40%, we all went to the same MBA school and all hold similar positions. I know personally it’s no fun to see how I “don’t stack up” - but then I run a Realtor.com look up in their neighborhoods and feel much better about my situation!

My position on the USSR is that the government itself was designed for the abolition of capitalism and creating a “worker’s paradise” (Marx’s words, not mine).

The French have about a 600 year head start on the Chinese as far as the market type economies and global trade go. Wait 10 more years and your position about China vs. France may change significantly. One is on the way up, the other on the way down.

By Jim

July 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

“There are currently 12 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have a higher minimum wage. These 12 higher minimum wage states comprise a diverse set of states and include five northeastern states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island), the five West Coast states (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii), and Delaware and Illinois.”

Not coincidentally, most—if not all—of these places have a bloated cost of living. Their NET minimum wages are likely lower than the federal minimum wage.

A more useful study would include some states implementing the federal minimum wage and some implementing a higher wage, but all with a similar cost of living.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Th and Susan, check out Dr. Walter Williams, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/04/26/minimumwage,maximum_folly Dr. Williams is the head of George Mason economics.

I suppose Th and Susan agree with me, that minimum wage should be raised to $100 per hour, so we will all be making $200,000 per year.

By Harold

July 12, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Harold knows how much Night Train costs because it is the Golden Chalice towards which Harold strives daily. This MD 20/20 is killing Harold.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Van, somedays I make less than minimum wage. Cash flow for the self employed is cyclical. I have to pace myself, or I end up overdrawing my checking account. One month I incurred over 500 bucks in overdraft charges. I’m usually 45 days behind in my rent and car payments.

I’m not Linda Schrenko with a education budget to abuse. I’m not the mayor with bribe money. I’m not Bush, with a silver foot in my mouth. I’m me, and I need more customers. Anyone need any Comedy sketches? anyone? Jokes cheap here. I’ve got a million of ‘em….and for you good bloggers I can offer the deal of a lifetime: buy three jokes and get a free cream pie to throw during the upcoming election. See a partisan jackazz spouting off at the booths? Cream him! See a volunteer showing partisanship? Cream her!! In fact, any ostentatious public display of partisanship at the voting polls should be met with a salvo of cream pies. Our republic depends on it. Without it, we’re finished.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Susan’s Fiscal Policy Institute prominently lists a dynamic-sounding nonpartisan essay, “June 28, 2006: 99 Percent of New Yorkers Lose Under Bush “Tax and Borrow” Fiscal Policies.”

Good to know who were listening to.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

ERIC

All he is saying….is “GIVE KEYNES A CHANCE”.

All he is saying….is give keynes a chance…..

all he is saying…is give keynes a chance..

By Van

July 12, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Lets stop the theoretical talk and get to the real word.

According to the US Labor Department, of the 75 million working earning an hourly wage, there are less than 500,000 people earning the minimum wage. The biggest group earning less than the minimum wage are in the service industry, restraunt servers earn - last time I checked - about 2.83 an hour plus tips. In total about 1.9 million people earn at or below the federal minimum wage.

This will mean nothing to the far left Marxist.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Susan’s Economic Policy Institute prominently lists two interesting sounding essays: All Together Now All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy — by Jared Bernstein, senior economist of the Economic Policy Institute — explores how modern-day hyper-individualism has trumped a sense of collaboration and joint responsibility and thus, distorted America’s current political and economic debate. The book shows how runaway self-reliance not only has unbalanced the economic and political discourse, but also, and more importantly, has hamstrung efforts to develop effective solutions to shared social and economic problems. (Read news release.)

The Global Class War A provocative new book called The Global Class War, by EPI founder and former president Jeff Faux, explains how globalization is creating a new global political elite—”The Party of Davos”—who have more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens. Learn more about the book and Jeff Faux’s upcoming book signing appearances. (Read news release.)

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Harold is full of BULL….(the Schlitz Malt Liquour Bull)

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Can anyone else (I asked Th first) tell me where the talk of a “shrinking American middle class” is coming from? I understand the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is widening tremendously, but all that movement is coming on the upper end of that equation.

By MikeT

July 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

By Dusty

July 12, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Some of you need to read Wooten’s last paragraph again. Go back. READ IT AGAIN. It is so sensible.

Thank you Jim for letting us know Dusty’s worth.

By Nat

July 12, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

GM is a bad example to point out labor problems associated with minimum wage. GM is having to cut its pension plans because its execs pensions are costing it hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Most people don’t realize it though because the pension expense it one item on the income statement and not an itemized.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

The “Shrinking Middle Class” is a theoretical construct that emerged from the predicted, but unrealized dire consequences of globalization. (in other words it’s a media buzzword used to sell newspapers, soap, and cola much like everything else the media concocts)

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Now that you mention it “Foreskin”, I think the first time I heard that was in the NAFTA debates.

By Th

July 12, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

OK, I read the Townhall article. It says not many people make minimum wage and those that do get raises fairly quickly. Obviously paying the same person a little more did not cause the company to go out of business. The trick with any policy is to find the sweet spot where you do the most good with the least harm. A $100 an hour minimum wage would just explode inflation. Actually, I prefer the EITC as the preferred way to raise living standards for the working poor. The Townhall article did not give any data showing job looses due to increasing the minimum wage, just that not many people are effected.

The best counter argument is Jim’s which is that higher wages are often offset by living costs. Of course the flip side is that these people who are effected by the minimum wage would be in even worse shape if their states had not stepped up.

China has huge problems going forward. Their demographic projections look worse than Europe’s.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Remember Ross Perot’s chicken-little squawking about NAFTA?

Whatever happened to him? Sounds like a google in my future.

By Harold

July 12, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

The last paragraph says “If your skills aren’t worth the mandated wage, you’re zero.”

That is true per person but false in the aggregate.

Yum! Brands can fire one dishwasher but they cannot fire them all. They cannot just say “dishwashers are too expensive now!”

Without clean dishes, who is going to eat at Pizza Hut?

Back to the individual, anybody not worth $6.50 an hour is also not worth $5.15 an hour. There’s no difference in the eye of the manager. Both are equally worthless. It is a miracle if they show up sober and on time. It is an even bigger miracle if they remain sober thruout their shift.

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Th, can you provide a link to an article or something you have read regarding China’s demographic crisis? I would be very interested in reading about that.

By Th

July 12, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Van: thanks for making the point that raising the minimum wage will have almost no effect on our economy.

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Foreskin, Yeah old Ross was right about the Giant Sucking Sound, but I think he meant to say it would be heard in Mexico with all the manufacturing jobs leaving to Asia and all many of their citizens running here to find any work at all. Talk about a country that blew a golden opportunity.

By deegee

July 12, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Van, while it is true that very few people in the work force earn at or below the minimum wage, it is a place to start negotiation of pay for low skilled/unskilled labor. It is not an irrelvant figure. If you assume that a minimum wage rate should not be set by government then I would suspect that businesses will set one by default. In some industries it is likely to be higher than others depending on the seasonal nature of work, the weather, the supply of low-skilled/unskilled labor, etc. While market conditions have made the government’s federal minimum somewhat irrelevant, I think that it is a good standard and it should take price inflation into consideration.

By olcottr

July 12, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the more you have to pay your workers, the less workers you can afford. Just like the more tax cuts you give, the more the deficit will rise. (sic) Or maybe there’s more to it than that, go figure. Wealth is not some finite sum that happens to be distributed unequally. Wealth is either created by those who know what they are doing or it is destroyed by well-intentioned idiots. And of course there’s fear-mongering by those who benefit from manipulating class warfare. (sits patiently while libs draw parallels to last statement)

By Van

July 12, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Th,

You missed the point. Very few people work for a minimum wage. The market will either call for a higher wage, or in the service industry, it is set artifically low.

with about 1/6th of 1% working at the minimum wage, the whole concept of raising it is moot, window dressing. If the market place can not get workers at 5.15/hour, then the wage will increase until the jobs can be filled.

Personally, I feel that having a minimum wage is not needed. After all, why should the government tell a mom and pop store how much to pay the guy sweeping the floor? If it is too low, then no one will want to work there.

By Th

July 12, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Here is an article from: {AEI}(http://www.policyreview.org/136/eberstadt.html) about China’s demographics. Their one child policy and improved health care are creating a rapidly ageing population. I hope the link works.

The middle class is shrinking as a higher percentage of people now fall below the poverty line. This number has been growing ever since 2001.

By Stewart

July 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

The minimum wage does absolutely nothing to help the middle class. Only 4% of all workers make the minimum wage, and they are only at that level for a brief period of time. The reason that the Democrats support the minimum wage so strongly is becase they are heavily supported by the unions. You see, union contracts are pegged off the minimum wage, so when the minimum wage goes up, their pay is increased by the same percentage. And a minimum wage increase does costs jobs because fundamentally when wages are increased, productivity is decreased. Job providers will immediately respond by taking measure to increase productivity. The bottom line is that people need to work hard and educate themselves.

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Th, thank you for the link, I’ll check it out. Okay, now I understand where you are coming from on the “shrinking middle class” based on percentage of people falling below the poverty line - five years is a pretty short window though, especially the five years you pointed out which were proceeded by what many consider full employment rates for at least three or four years. No argument from me that the “have nots” are really being left in the dust, but that is a worldwide problem, not just here in America. And I don’t know if raising minimum wage would do anything to dispel that at all. Thank you for the clarifications.

By Susan

July 12, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

“By Jim Wooten

July 12, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Susan and others so inclined, please don’t cut-and-paste. It’s possible to refer to special interests and point-of-view organizations, and to summarize their opinions/research for our benefit without overburdening the reader here.”

I’d rather be ‘overburdened’ by reading the actual research of academics than someone’s opinions. Unless you have some magic wand and can ban me from the blog, then I will continue to comment, on topic, I might add, as I wish.

I find it very interesting and a commentary on our times that you would find a few more words a burden. When reading, most folks simply skip the parts that they do not find interesting. Those who are interested will read and either agree or disagree. You’ve got plenty of bandwidth, Jim.

If anyone here does not like seeing research cut and pasted from the original source, then I advise they simply move on and skip those burdensome words.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and its editorial staff, are not much for citing facts or research. The AJC’s online site and paper are riddled with frequent errors in spelling and grammar. It would be a great service to those who live here who are educated if we could all chip in and hire a professor to assist your writers. In the mean time, spell and grammar check are standard in most word processing programs.

My opinion is that I am raising the intellectual level of this issue and I will continue cut and paste from sources that are germane to the topic at hand.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

“If the minimum wage goes up, jobs will be lost.” This is clear, logical, and indeed self-evident to many conservative economists.

Unfortunately, it’s also false. The facts show otherwise.

Studies from a wide range of sources have shown that increasing the minimum wage does not result in job loss. Sources include not only the Economic Policy Institute, but also the Fiscal Policy Institute, the Levy Economic Institute, the Oregon Center for Public Policy, and others (including economists Card & Krueger, whose evidence was so strong that the Wall Street Journal has devoted years to trying to discredit it).

More importantly, most small-business owners themselves agree that the minimum wage level has no effect on their business operations, personnel levels, or profit margins.

Real hourly wages for hourly workers have fallen or remained stagnant for decades. If the minimum wage had kept pace with the increased cost of living since the late 70s, it would be over $10 an hour today. Productivity has gone up, and the workers have not gotten a share of the proceeds.

All that’s left, really, is a vague distaste for the idea of government stepping in to help the working class despite the “efficiencies” (read: failures) of the free market. Which is an entirely proper thing for government to do-—look out for citizens first, and “the market” second.

By Dan

July 12, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Has anyone thought that the votes that the politicians are really trying to get are the UNION VOTES???? Union contracts, and consequently, Union worker pay, is directly tied to the minimum wage, just like an interest rate on a loan might be tied to LIBOR or Prime.

Politicians are not going after one-sie two-sie votes by trying to appeal to unskilled laborers that probably aren’t registered to vote anyway. They are going after the Union vote, and the Union campaign dollars.

People, think outside the box a bit.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Van raises the idea that minimum-wage workers are a small class of food-service industry laborers whose wages quickly rise (if they have any “gumption” and “get educated,” etc.).

This is another conservative-economist fiction.

Here are the facts:

Roughly 4 million people are working two or more jobs and are still below the poverty level. Most minimum-wage workers (about 70%) are adults, not teenagers; working full-time, not part-time; and only about 40% of them progress to higher-paying jobs within a few years.

As for the “fast-food jobs” argument… Most poverty-level workers are working in agriculture, personal and home care, childcare, and home healthcare, as well as service and sales.

(Information drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics—not a particularly left-wing source, correct?)

By Play that funky music white boy

July 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Th, I just read the article you posted the link to. Thanks - I learned something new today, my first thought was - this is going to be the true test of Maoism vs. Capitalism for that nation. Thanks again. Others, you might find the article insightful.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Dan: It wouldn’t be very productive to go after “union votes” when the union base is small and shrinking, and when the biggest (AFL-CIO) has recently undergone a major split.

There’s a much better percentage in appealing to minorities, churchgoers, or other, much larger and more influential, groups than unions.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

The world is now divided between the HAVES and the HALF-WITS

By olcottr

July 12, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

So what I’m seeing here is that it doesn’t matter if the minimum wage is increased or not?

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

So, Brian Curtis, you seemingly agree with me that the minimum wage should be raised to $100 per hour so that we will all be earning $200,000 per year. How do we address Th’s 11:16 comment implicitly arguing that the economic arguments for minimum wage are flawed, in that they only work under some narrow set of circumstances? Th, what is the “right” level for the minimum wage, and why is your amount better than mine?

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Ross Perot was the most prescient statesman we’ve ever because he predicted the “giant sucking sound” if Clinton would be elected.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Brian @11:54, instead of raising the minimum wage, with all those attendant problems with inflation, why don’t we simply fire everybody earning minimum wage and put them on welfare?

Why would we want employers free to hire and fire? Why would we want workers to be free to accept work - any work - at an amount below the level the Brians and Ths and Susans of the world dictate? Aren’t those who would tell us how to live our lives so much smarter than the rest of us?

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

JBM seems to be lost off in conservative-paranoia land, where any intervention in the free market is tantamount to “dictating how to live our lives.”

JBM, it’s a legitimate function of government to ensure the well-being and welfare of its citizens, and that can include intervening in the marketplace. Indeed, our “capitalist” society relies heavily on that very intervention already… so why complain when one of its acts might benefit the working poor?

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw, you are using the ridiculous, ($100/hr) to illustrate the sublime (market equilibrium).

A fiendish maneuver.

By Rod

July 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

This article is another example of the Republicans not caring about anyone or anything other than lining their already fat wallets.

Jim Wooten - you may have lots of money but the average American working on minimum wage needs this extra money. Quit thinking about yourself for five minutes and give a damn about someone else.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Rod, Mr. Wooten is saying that any raise in the minimum wage should be hard fought and slow to arise, so that those jobs remain unnattractive to American youths who need to evolve ways to become more productive and prosperous.

Stern Reprimand: Even a casual glance at Keynesian Theory reveals that a government’s deficit spending is the only interference any economy needs.

Laize Faire, Watson, Laize Faire!!

By Markus

July 12, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Here we go again with another screamer for socialist liberals in this nation: raise the mimimum wage! I grew up in the 1980s. My first minimum wage job was also my last: $3.35/hr at a grocery store. I said to heck with that and went to work at a restaurant easily making twice that just as a BUS boy. One of my friends chose to work construction as a plumber’s assistant for $8/hr one summer (a lot of money for a high school kid in the 80s).

Nowhere do I read in the US Constitution where the federal government needs to mandate wages in this nation, not the least of which is those whopping 5% of jobs in this nation that actually PAY minimum wage.

Nowhere have I ever seen, read, or heard where minimum wage jobs are specifically tailored to be a lifetime career.

Only in the world of a socialist liberal can the validation of forcing the government hand on those private business owners who pay minimum wage like in strip malls.

What’s next the socialist liberals want to force down America’s economic business enterprise? HEALTHCARE and PAID VACATION and FAMILY LEAVE time for minimum wage jobs? I’m just so SURE said businesses wouldn’t pass along those expenses to the consumer, OR, not hire more employees (oh wait, the French businesses have already done that… that’s why the youths riot over there with 25% unemployment).

I’m sorry socialist liberals: your beloved minimum wage whining is a crock, and we won’t stand for it and niether will the business owners. Get over it and GROW UP limpwristed liberals!!

By JK

July 12, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Yes, why is it that the poor people should just “make do” with less and less (as the price of everything increases but their wages do not), yet our own Federal Government can borrow BILLION$ from China to spend waging a useless war and paying bloated, fraudulent charges to the fat cats at Halliburton? Oh yeah, they don’t want us to think about that. Sorry. “SCROOOO THE POOR! POOR PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM! IT’S ALL THEIR FAULT!”

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

The minimum wage is primarily aimed at the lower orders, the modern day peasantry who have voluntarily rejected welfare etc or have been bounced off welfare after the GOP reforms that sick Willie eventually, kicking and screaming, grudgingly signed.

The snouts in the trough union types, beyond the really thuggish ones who are the modern day brownshirts of the democratic party (especially at election time), have ensured that GM and Ford and many other companies are in deep trouble because of ludicrous unaffordable benefits paid to historically pretty unproductive workers in poorly managed companies. US unionised car plants are generally speaking no where near as effective or productive as say Toyota who aren’t unionised and have no labour problems.

Its very easy to demand that a company pay low earners 8/9/10 dollars an hour - or even more. But if the revenues etc dont match up then either socialist income redistribution is needed or the company goes bankrupt. There is NO “right” - moral or legal - to a given wage level. Minimum wages as imposed today are arbitrary, essentially they dont reflect anything other than political decisions and are electoral pandering to primarily impoverished democrat voters, many of whom sullenly feel that the world owes them a living.

Lefties seem to think that employers should pay for everyone’s medical benefits and living large pensions, as well as many other benefits.

If you lefties feel hard done by, or feel others are, then sod off to Cuba and go live in a commie police state paradise!!

By Ed

July 12, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Anytime you hear a democrat liberal scream about Halliburton or “starving the poor” or a “useless warr” you know he or she doesn’t have a whole lot to say.

By Van

July 12, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, You are confusing hourly paid workers and poverty levels - apples and sand bags.

“The industry with the highest proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was leisure and hospitality(14%)” U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics

same like as before.

Sorry about the cut and paste, I can’t type that fast.

By red

July 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Who Works the Minimum Wage? The 1.6 million paid-hourly workers who earn minimum wages can be broken down into two broad groups.1

Over half (53 percent) are teenagers or young adults under the age of 23. More than half (54 percent) of these young workers live in families with incomes two or more times the official poverty level for their family size and 18 percent live in poor families. The average family income of these young workers is almost $50,500 per year. The average income for single young workers is $11,200. Over 63 percent are enrolled in either high school or college.

The other half (47 percent) are workers ages 23 and up. More of these workers live in poor families (29 percent). Yet, even within this half of the minimum wage population, the average family income is over $38,100 per year. The average income for single workers is $19,300. Over 30 percent of these older workers did not graduate from high school and another 36 percent had only a high school diploma.

Almost 43 percent of all minimum wage workers are children, 26 percent are married family heads or spouses, 11 percent are single family heads, and 17 percent are single people (another 3 percent are other relatives).

Less than 21 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families and less than 5 percent are sole breadwinners that work full-time year-round. Less than 5 percent of minimum wage workers are poor single mothers over 18 years old.

Over 57 percent of all minimum wage workers work part-time voluntarily. Only 25 percent work full-time year-round while over 28 percent work part-time part of the year.

The average family income for all minimum wage workers is $45,200 and their wages account for 35 percent of their total family income. The average income of single-nonfamily minimum wage workers is $16,800. Very Few Workers Remain at Entry-Level Wages for Long Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers move above the minimum wage within one year, and the median raise for those workers is over 10 percent.2 For full-time minimum wage workers, the median first-year raise is almost 14 percent. Entry-level jobs are not lifelong dead-end jobs. These jobs allow Americans to establish a track record of work that creates opportunities for better paying jobs.

By JK

July 12, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Ed, since YOU have soooooooo much to say that’s soooooooo informative and meaningful, why don’t you explain to us the virtues of Congress rubber stamping the borrowing of BILLION$ of dollars (the debt now belongs to you too, Sparky), raising their own minimum wage as a bonus for this amazing feat, and then telling the poor people to S-CK it! Yes, Ed, explain that to those of us with so little so say, that we might appear brilliant, scintillating, and well-informed like YOU!

By JK

July 12, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

BTW, Ed, you paragon of brilliance, the Army is finally ditching the Halliburton contracts because (surprise surprise!) they’ve been overcharging us. DOH!

By Markus

July 12, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Thank you Red! I’m sure though that those pesky little facts tossed out there won’t be comprehendable to socialist liberals on this board. You see, when your mind is wired in such a way that emotions override all rational and logical thought processes (like understanding the MAJORITY of minimum wage earners only work there TEMPORARILY under VOLUNTEER or non-mandatory status), any mbout of factual data will blow right through the air in the head. To them, it doesn’t matter. What matters is what they feel. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Many Republicans are hardly independently wealthy, they are pretty representative of the wider population. To moronically lie about ‘fat cat republicans’ is just typical liberal dishonesty. Limousine liberals are actually far more dishonest, the feminazi Pelosi has a large family business in CA, and she refused to unionize it.

Go talk to a few builders or other tradesmen or folks who have a small shop, many of them vote GOP and are not living large off sleazy million dollar share deals like the scumbag McCauliffe or Shrillary and her sleazy cattle futures scam or a library slush fund or presidential pardon sales etc.

By red

July 12, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

The main reason Haliburton got as many contracts as they did was that given the extremely pressing circumstances in Iraq virtually no other company had the ability to, literally almost overnight, start work. Tendering would have taken weeks if not months and still not necessarily saved much.

By We believe you

July 12, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Sure it is, “time for truth”. Sure it is. We true believers believe whatever you good conservative “Americans” tell us. And the tooth fairy left 32 silver dollars under your pillow, too, didn’t she?

By seeing through the smoke

July 12, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

To be entirely honest on this topic… I have to say that the minimum wage concerns me a great deal less than our borrow and spend government, at the moment. I suppose I tend to be in that murky middle — personally very conservative, believe in the liberal idea of responsiblity to society and to do something for the greater good.

I’m appalled by the corporate welfare and the unwarranted protectionism exhibited by this administration and our absent congress. I’d much rather we be working on something really important — like a functional energy policy that doesn’t penalize innovation (a good start would be dropping the 100% tarrif on alternative fuel from sugar beets) and actually working to have a balanced budget. The minimum wage issue falls into that illegal immigrant/flag burning/gay marriage non-issue stuff that is just a smoke screen to keep people from talking about the real issues. IMHO.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Ignoring you liberals’ unsurprising continuing fascination with fairies, Haliburton’s huge global expertise their regional ‘technological footprint’ instantly satisfied the pressing logistical needs, as well as the very obvious security needs for a company that could be trusted in the newly liberated Iraq.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 12, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Actually, We, Time for a Dump is a toothless redneck - he got 64 Roosevelt dimes for his teeth troubles.

By We believe you

July 12, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Oh, Time for Tea, I forgot to mention: good use of the word “feminazi” at 12:49. How original! How clever! The whole world is now illuminated for us with your striking use of the fusion metaphor! You must patent ALL your original ideas like that. We need you! Don’t you have more? Tell us about the time you ate little red riding hood in the woods.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 12, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Wooten has a point here - what is the value of ignorant lazy redneck labor? I have paid money NOT to have to be around them, let alone have to employ them.

Long ago, when people wanted something done in the south, they brought in slaves to do it, not so much because slaves were cheaper, but because they actually had a work ethic.

Bottom line, the typical Georgian is a blight upon humanity, a violent drunken or drug addicted lazy parasite given to filth and stupidity, always with his hand out. The Federal government has been subsidizing the South since 1865 - to what end?

By Nick

July 12, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

@ Markus

Put me into the “touchy-feely liberal” category, then.

The only fact that should matter is that there is still a significant amount of people trying to get by while pulling in a minimum wage paycheck. Frankly, that isn’t a fate I would wish on many people.

The problem with putting everyone into percentiles and categories is that it completely glosses over the real problems these people face. If anything, turning this problem into a numbers game is more akin to socialism than raising the minimum wage is. You start assuming everyone is the same instead of focusing on the individual.

Lastly, if there is such an “insignifcant” number of people actually trying to live on a minimum wage, then am I safe to assume the overall harm in raising it would be … insignifcant? Hmmm.

By Th

July 12, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

My thought on the proper level for the federal minimum wage is that it is slightly too low now and should be raised. I think 7.15 is too high, maybe 6.50. I think states should take the time to set a wage floor for their particular area based on their own economic conditions. The libertarian arguments for letting employers and workers sort out their own terms of employment were rejected over 100 years ago by the countries that we now call the industrialized world. The reason an inflationary minimum wage ($100) is not desirable is because it effects so many other aspects of our economy.

Does anyone know how many people make below the proposed new minimum wage? That is a much more important number than who makes minimum wage now.

By I think with a silky, southern drawl

July 12, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

This country is full of hypocrites. We send young men and women off to defend our “freedom”, then cut their benefits. We’re told to go to shcool, get a good education and job training, then jobs get outsourced. America has long been referred to as the land of opportunity, yet we tell hard working Latino brothers and sisters they are not welcome because they were not born here. Now, in this land of immense, and in a lot of cases excessive wealth, we tell people who worked hard for minimum pay they don’t need a pay raise. YES THEY DO. They deserve it. All these people need is the same thing that anybody who has EVER been successful has gotten: a chance, a hand up (not out), am I my brother’s keeper?

I sincerely hope so.

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 12, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

The biggest reason automobile and high tech manufacturers leave Georgia is not due to high wages but to an ignorant LAZY workforce.

Can you imagine buying one of those Mercedes built in Alabama - why not open a plant in Africa and put chimpanzees on the line?

By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 12, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Signing out from Russell Square, London UK - more tomorrow, mates and rednecks.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Pelosi is a feminazi! I dont understand your extremely obtuse attempt at making yet another witless, entirely irrelevant factually challenged point!!

It seems that this drooling liberal imbecile is obsessed with childrens FAIRY stories. Quelle surprise!

I see the closet Redneck is back (down) from its latest lsd trip, where are we today bubbakins? Your former Hall County chicken farm workplace to steal some ‘live’ food or just taking a break from your county sheriff’s dept litter pick up duties?

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Th @ 1:29: “The libertarian arguments for letting employers and workers sort out their own terms of employment were rejected over 100 years ago by the countries that we now call the industrialized world.”

Thus, you would have us emulate the economic powerhouses of old Europe rather than those backwaters like Hong Kong and Singapore. Thank goodness we have the French intellectuals to save us from libertarians and their preoccupation with “freedom.” We would not want the common rabble making decisions for themselves.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Chimpanzees on the auto assembly line? Why, sir, that would lead to the new Ford EBOLA with viral fuel injection and airborne shocks. It does zero to death in less than six seconds. It gets 25 million people per epidemic.

Is that what you want??

By Southern Democrat

July 12, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten and others, I think I agree that raising the minimum wage is not the best way to ensure that workers are able to provide for their families and/or earn a living while working hard. This issue, however, seems to be a flashpoint for a conflict between the two keystones of the American democratic experiment: opportunity for all (without a landed gentry or aristocracy) and a market economy. The market economy, as Mr. Wooten indicated, favors those with the most highly sought-after skills. Now, beyond sparks of ingenuity that lead to fabulous wealth, a la Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Bloomberg, etc., the most sought-after skills are in the professional class: doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives. Each of these professions requires advanced education. Even sought after “blue collar” professions, master electrician, aerospace technician, auto assembly, etc., requires a tremendous amount of training and education. Study after study shows that a primary determinant in personal choice of profession is the profession and choices of one’s parents… the rags to riches stories are by far the exception and not the rule. In fact, several recent historical studies have divined that the wealth distribution (percentage of total wealth owned by individuals) is virtually identical in 2006 U.S.A. as in 16th century England.

How do we continue to let the market work while providing for more opportunity for those without access and/or parents supporting them? Please don’t say schools because as a former teacher, I know that educational success is even MORE linked to parental choice than professional success.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

I think I can field Southern Democrat’s Quesque c’est: I too, thought education and training would help me, so I focused on woodworking shop in high school. I continually got my a**e kicked because I lost so many fingers, the bloods thought I was a crip.

So had to make my first million by cornering the market on Case Quarters and then boycotting bubble gum machines.

Does that answer you questionnaire, sire?

By Amelia

July 12, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

By Rednecks - America’s Al Qaeda

July 12, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

The biggest reason automobile and high tech manufacturers leave Georgia is not due to high wages but to an ignorant LAZY workforce

This post causes me to remember the political ad by a guy running for labor commissioner. In the ad he states that 44% of young people entering the workforce in Georgia do so without a high school diploma. Is that true. If so, it is apalling. Maybe that could be just ONE of the reasons that immigrant labor is so in demand. Not because of the education of the immigrants, but the lack thereof in natives, and the immigrants stronger work ethic.

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat raises the best issues of the day. If this country has a permanent and hopeless “underclass”, or if there is no mobility among the various income tiers, we arguably have a case for government intervention into the free market. I think Southern Democrat uttered the most intelligent words on the blog, “raising the minimum wage is not the best way to ensure that workers are able to provide for their families…” (I think it is not even on the top 1000 ways.)

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

“sell” should be “sale,” my apologies for intellectual vapor lock

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

I was wondering how long it would take Doctor Jbmlaw to get around to the Peter Principle.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

the lack of education in GA is down to incompetent lefty teachers who care only about their tenure and ramming leftist drivel and moronic self esteem conditioning down the troats of kiddies who are no longer stretched or challenged because of the fear of failure and law suits. Liberals have systematically dumbed down the state education system to the point its becoming almost meaningless to have a high school certificate. So called exit exams are several years behind the actual age/grade they are actually taken at.

Clearly closet redneck was a serial victim of liberal imposed social promotion!!

There’s no discipline in schools and no real teacher sanctions. Self absorbed parents are also to blame for the new generation of spoiled “gimme a car so I kill my friends” stupid brats. This is nothing that the introduction of cattle prods for disruptive airhead teens wouldn’t eventually handle though!

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

VOTE FOR RALPH REED

HE HAD ME AT ‘HALO’

By Th

July 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

A time for truth: don’t talk about Georgia school teachers like that or those nice ladies singing in the choir on Sunday and teaching school during the week will come down out of the choir loft and take a ruler to your back side.

JBM: Singapore and Hong Kong are strange examples to use as both economies are dependant on workers who live over the border and commute to work. A better place to look would be Ireland which has a minimum wage equivalent to $8 and is growing rapidly. I would not put minimum wage very high on economic growth policies either. The opposition party has instituting a minimum wage as one of its main selling points in Singapore.

For the smug among us, ask yourself how your life would be different if your IQ was 20 points lower. Your IQ is a pure accident of birth or a gift from God depending on your beliefs, but, either way, you did not earn it.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

@ liberal foreskin

This witless, continual reposting of this asinine Ralph Reed slogan presumably in what passes for your mind masquerades as sardonic political commentary. Any chance of at least a six month hiatus?

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

@ TH

as your IQ doesn’t exceed your shoe size - US sizes, your petulant outburst is hardly surprising. My astute, albiet brief commentary on GA education stands, unchallenged.

I am still awaiting any serious, unequivocal evidence of the existence of God, although as the alBOre and Kerry both lost to Bush so there may be some thing to it.

As for IQ being an accident of birth, my last IQ test was 183, up five points from when I used to be a bit more liberal!!

As I dont give a flying toss about smug fat wimmin in some smug church choir take your liberal half witticisms elsewhere.

By Toad

July 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Funny how Wooten and others claim paying minimum wage workers will increase prices but don’t mention how paying millions to CEO’s will affect prices.

By Jim Wooten

July 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat does pose a good question. The solution does involve schooling. But first it involves marriage so that children are not brought into the world without a mother and father in their daily lives.

Then we train those parents to be involved in the child’s education, but providing them information and giving them options to act on the information when they determine the neighborhood school is not meeting their child’s needs.

And finally, recognizing that the world has changed over the last 50 years, we allow new school models to take root by waiving most all the rules, except for performance outcomes.

By Curious Observer

July 12, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

I feel so fortunate to be able to leave this state soon. Apparently, Georgia is filled with bigoted ingrates who yearn to wander the earth with clubs in hand, devoid of all civilized influence and human empathy. Wooten, Time for Ignorance, and others on this blog are the beneficiaries of hard-won advances in labor law, social improvements, and education won by their parents and grandparents. But to read their screeds, one would think they achieved their eminent positions without the aid of another soul. Wooten, in particular, is a misbegotten, contemptible hypocrite, one who benefited from the very practices he seeks to destroy. I wish he would ask his older relatives where they would have been without the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and other government-imposed benefits that kept people alive in those dark days of pure laissez-faire.

By lynn

July 12, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Increase the minimum wage and decrease the government benifits for those laborers (higher wages/less benifits). Therefore, the person who works for minimum wage will in turn pay more in taxes due to increased income while reducing the tax paid government aide.

By seeing through the smoke

July 12, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

What do we do with the children who are uneducated during the rooting process for our new school system? that’s the question that worries me… we fail some students now (an alarming number) but how many more would fail to be educated during the process of growing new school models? those things don’t happen overnight.

By Toad

July 12, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

The continual harping on having a mother and father involved in a child’s life is misleading. The poverty of many children being raised by single and divorced mothers is due to the economic class of the mother. Not all children being raised by one parent are disadvantaged. For example, a lawyer I know was widowed when her child was two years old. He will be going to college due to her fine influence. Yes, it is advantageous for a child to have two parents, but having one parent is not a guarantee that the child won’t succeed. Many unmarried parents don’t want to be unmarried but they are choosey about who they marry.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

@ Curious Observer

THAT WAS THE HISSY FIT OF THE DAY … WELL DONE INDEED MISTER WANKER!!

Thank you so much for empowering this humble English Tory so effectively!

I’m sure Senor Wooten wears his
“misbegotten, contemptible hypocrite” badge with great honour.

However I must protest at your seeming discrimination in not affording me a more robust, visceral vilification. Perhaps your next wanky post will atone for this egeregious oversight!!

By Jim Wooten

July 12, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

STTS, we don’t of course flip the switch from one to the other, any more than we abandon the current system of health care financing as we grow health savings accounts. It took us 40-75 years to get here and it will probably take at least half that long to move to some other model.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

P.S pinko observer

My eminent position as a trainee Walmart people greeter is indeed down to simpering leftist twwaaaats like yourself coming across with the requisiste dollars for my much needed remedial education. A thousand thanks for your selfless tax contributions which facilitated my chosen corporate America career path.

We are indeed all in this together. WE shall overcome, Kumbaya and all that feel good bollocks - eh?

By Logistics please

July 12, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Mister Wooten,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have a comment and a question.

You mention “…that children are not brought into the world without a mother and father in their daily lives” A family in which a parent earns a low hourly wage usually requires the income of both parents, and for those earning below $10 an hour, many parents work two or three jobs to log the 70-80 hours a week necessary to pay for the minimum necessities. It’s a logical assumption that these children have a bit of time without parental supervision, guidance, and personal attention. This often leads to children who don’t achieve as well as they could academically, and also often, who quit high school before graduating, in order to earn their own meager paychecks for necessities.

You also said, “Then we train those parents to be involved in the child’s education, but providing them information and giving them options to act on the information when they determine the neighborhood school is not meeting their child’s needs.” Questions: (1) Who’s “we” and who pays for “we” to train these parents, and how does that work in a free-market economy, and (2) When can you work that into the schedule of a low-wage-earning parent who has one hour to grab an artery-clogging burger before his next shift 20 miles away?

By seeing through the smoke

July 12, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Jim —

I’d say the current education system is so broken that doing almost anything different would be an improvement. Getting the “education” industry to change is another topic and I imaine we will have to drag them kicking and screaming into whatever changes we make.

Maybe teachers should all start at that minimum wage and earn salary increases based on how well their students perform….

By Uncle Remus

July 12, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer, is there anything I can do to expedite your departure from Georgia? The sooner you are gone, the happier all of us will be.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer (2:36pm) Quote, “I feel so fortunate to be able to leave this state soon”…Let me add that we’re deelighted that you will soon be gone. If you need some gas money, we’ll be glad to take up a collection!
Seeing thru the smoke: What the hell makes you think that children are being educated NOW??? Are you kidding me? The leftist education unions and politicians have totally ruined many of this nation’s schools.

By Franks

July 12, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Well cry babies…..go to college, get a real job, and then you will not have to worry about an hourly job.

By seeing through the smoke

July 12, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Ugotta — I specifically said we fail some children… my concern is that we minimize the damage done when (not if) we change the system. There will be a certain number of children who will learn no matter what kind of education system we have in place, even the broken system we have now. I’d like for us to think about the long term effects of change and how we can minimize the negatitve impact that change (by it’s nature) will have.

I have no idea if education unions are leftist — but I’m pretty dang sure we will shortchange more children if we don’t plan when we make the needed changes in the system. Half the problem we have now is change for change’s sake, without regard to how it will impact the children because the “new” program justifies all those PhDs in elementary education, and the money school districts spend on “consultants”.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

STTS: Sorry ‘bout that! I stand corrected. You did say “some children”. I also agree with your 3:06pm post. BUT you can believe that the NEA is as leftist as it gets…

By jbmlaw

July 12, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Seems to me that the mere fact that this blog morphed so logically from “minimum wage” to “problems in the education system” says something positive about the arguments today.

Going to give blood, cannot stay to play, see you all tomorrow.

By seeing through the smoke

July 12, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Ugotta — no problem… I get really angry about this issue, too. I know that I believe the education “industry” — whether it’s the unions or the educrats or whomever — is corrupt to it’s core and ignoring the needs of our kids. I’m not sure they qualify as leftist, but I do think they are completely self-serving… perhaps in that they are akin to the corrupt regime of the failed former Soviet Union….

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

It’s pretty obvious that a lot of kids in school are not college material and many will be lucky to even get their high school diploma. WHY isn’t there more vocational training in the schools so that these students can learn a trade? Most of these will also never make it to a Technical college for this training. The same goes for the many economic, marriage, and family training that many don’t get at home. Ain’t too much demand in the workplace for diagramming sentences, etc.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

It just seems that this would be advantagious to many businesses to get the skilled labor that they need as well as keeping many kids in school with something they’re interested in, instead of things that bore them to death.

By Jim Wooten

July 12, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Logistics please, in a different school model those children could be at school, or in an afterschool program, until the parents come home. Produce enough like-needs kids, and an income stream, and the free market will fill the need.

When I say “we train…” I mean we require school systems and the state to provide them information on performance and, armed with that information and caring for their children’s future, they act on it. Right now it does little good for a low-income parent to have that information if they don’t have the resources and the options to act on it.

But I am afraid that I’m contributing here to taking the blog off topic. The point I’m trying to make, in response to Southern Democrat, is that education is the solution, just not the education system he remembers/describes.

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Actually, I’m siding with Curious Obsever on this one. It’s one thing to talk about smaller government, stronger national security, and advocating personal responsibility (old school GOP doctrine which is hardly ever discussed these days), but, honestly,

How the heck did some of you people get so hard-hearted? I mean, technical school is fine for those who want it (and there are many), but every child (we are talking about children here) should have a right to a quality education that prepares them for life up to and including college.

The truth is that the minimum wage roughly equals $10,000 a year. That’s not a livable wage in any part of this country. Families can barely make it on twice that. Why are some of you so enthusiastic about CEOs getting paid like olden-day robber barons, and savagely attack any notion of a livable wage? Why is it you do so almost immediately after saying increasing educational standards/funding/efforts is futile? Why can’t you see the relationship between a better educated populace resulting in a more marketable workforce?

What is the matter with you?

By Harold

July 12, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

“simpering leftist twwaaaats like yourself ” simpering simpering simpering there it is! Thank you Mr Timely Truthiness

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

The educational system’s not broken - we are.

There are plenty of examples of well-funded school districts where the parents play active roles and the teachers are valued and supported producing superior graduates. “Educrats” are people trying to figure out how to get a similar result with the kids unfortunate to live in neighborhoods not known for their “good school districts” (a.k.a the wrong side of the tracks.)

You want to see an improvement in education? Amend the laws to make education a fundamental right, then equitably distribute resources to all children in all schools.

A child’s education should be sacrosanct, and not subject to political or ideological debate. But the not-so dirty little secret is that everybody in here and the real world knows that education opens the doors to opportunity.

Those who serve as educational obstructionists, who decry the notion of “throwing away money” into certain schools, are, IMHO, the direct ideological descendants of race and gender segregationists.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

rarringt: This is what I expect from good liberals like you. Liberals think that MONEY will cure everything wrong with the educational system. If you’ll just throw enough money at the problem, it’ll go away. It’s not the lack of money rarringt…it’s the way the school systems are being run. Many of the students now RUN the school systems. In many schools such as some of those you mention, teachers and principals are scared of the students…and with good reason. We don’t need more money for the already bloated educational system —WE NEED SOME GOOD COMMON SENSE—and a good swift kick in the a$$ for some of these students!!!

By Logistics please

July 12, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with rarringt. ALL the schools should be well-equipped and motivated for the success of the children, not just those that sit in wealthy neighborhoods. Anyone who says the kids of the working poor parents have the “same opportunities” as those in the rich neighborhoods need to come to some of my kid’s basketball games next year, and take a good look at these schools and neighborhoods week after week. Huge disparities. Huge. See for yourself.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Logistics please: Until those that “supposed to be in authority” regain control of many of these schools AND when the parents in ANY neighborhood take a more active role in THEIR children’s education…you’re just peeing in the wind by throwing more money at these problems. It might make you “feel good” but it won’t solve the problem.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

And until these things are changed, these students will go on to make minimum wages.

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

First, I’m not a “good liberal.” Believe it or not, those who disagree with you (and they are legion), are not by default “tree-hugging liberals.”

Second, I’ve noticed that you, more than just about anyone else, blow past the argument and just engage in character assassination. No matter what Sean Hannity tells you, that’s just intellectual cowardice.

But on to your point, which is the traditional “money won’t solve it” argument. The systems are being run in a way that an extraordinary task is being asked of them, but they are not given the necessary resources to meet the goals. You can’t give someone a few nails and pieces of sheetrock, go tell them to build the Empire State Building, then get mad when they don’t accomplish your goal. That analogy is a perfect summary of the “No Child Left Behind” initiative, where lofty goals were given, standards were imposed, and the necessary funds were never provided.

Common sense is always in great demand, and in increasingly short supply. That said, do you honestly believe the “children run amok” you’re referring to aren’t fully aware they’re getting screwed by the system? Kids talk, they compare notes, they see how other schools are, and they conclude that we couldn’t care less about their education.

Much of that is incumbent on parents and teachers to resolve. But even if more money wasn’t “thrown in,” the schools would improve dramatically if the money and other resources were equitably distributed.

Finally, we both know that if the budget for a “good” school was transferred to a “bad” school and vice versa, the parents would literally be up in arms, because they know that, just as more pay generally leads to greater performance, more funding generally leads to greater educational results.

Even if you aren’t willing to admit that simple truth to yourself, trust me, your kids are well aware of it. Don’t “kid” yourself.

By Logistics please

July 12, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Good point, Ugotta. Parental involvement IS key. Hence the tie to low-hourly-wage earners. If Mom and dad work a combined 100 hours a week just to pay for necessities, they don’t have much time for involvement. Probably not the way they want it, but when the price of everything rises faster than your wages, then you have no choice. Hence, the old cliche “CYCLE of poverty.” The kids’ education suffers, they drop out, rinse, repeat. And low-wage workers continue to be a BENEFIT to wealthy business owners who keep spouting, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” while sending their own kids off to private colleges lest they go off and fight in a war or something. But I digress. My point is that the term “equal opportunity” is just a term. Period.

BTW, is my logic lost when I’m thinking the idea of performance-based merit raises for teachers is a DIS-incentive for good teachers to go into poor-neighborhood schools where bringing scores up is more of a challenge? I mean, there’s no reward for TRYING, so why should they? Just a thought, but I can see why conservatives would be all for it. “You had the worst teachers in the county? Too bad. It’s your fault for being born to hourly-wage parents.”

By Th

July 12, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

I’m with rarringt on this one. My children are having a great school experience. Both in high school now and taking far more advanced classes with better teachers than I had available 30 years ago. The schools are less the problem than the victim of societal problems far greater than their ability to correct. But are schools really that bad? Are drop-out rates that much higher than before? Is adult literacy declining?

By Becky

July 12, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

As a business owner I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I paid my employees minimum wage. I would first be concerned with the kind of service my customers would get from a minimum wage worker. A full-time minimum wage job earns less than $11K a year. I spend $9K a year in child care for one child. This sends a message to minimum wage workers that they don’t deserve children or a family. Well, of course they don’t deserve to have a family. They should have made better decisions like we did and get advanced degrees and become business owners.

Oh, bright idea…instead of paying “undocumented workers” $2 an hour as Harold suggested, let’s just enslave those who can’t “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”. Yeah, that’s it, make them work for us for free. It worked before for hundreds of years. The rich will get richer. The poor…well they will just remain slaves. That’s all they deserve anyway, right?

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

rarringt: Why do you folks get so upset when you’re called liberals? I don’t get upset if you call me a conservative. And since when is questioning your logic being character assassination? Because I don’t agree with your worn-out argument of “spend more money on it”? We spend more money on education, per student and overall, than ANY country in the world. Money not only can’t buy happiness…it apparently can’t buy a good education in this country.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

The lefties cannot explain though why it is that traditional schools with proper discipline (not beating kids of course) in the Caribbean and parts of Afrika with much impoverished parents and limited resources do a much better job teaching kids than Atlanta skools which have a far bigger budget. Its down to traditional teaching methods and kids that actually want to learn and invest time and effort in their futures. None of this moronic, I’m not “acting white” and actually going to learn properly idiocy. This liberal obsession with self esteem bollocks and lefty schools that refuse to let kids play competitive sports because the losers will feel bad - THAT’S NOT A JOKE - are absolutely part of the problem.

Georgia education is about the worst in the US now, the kids change every year in most classrooms, so it has to be the bloody teachers!! and the liberal imposed curriculum. Even the ‘hidden curriculum’ is poorly addressed in GA. JUst look at the walking proof around you!

Comprehensive education in the UK - where kids at secondary level are all taught as if they are ALL either of the same or similar ability is yet another liberal disaster.

Do the best for ALL kids, whatever their race/ability, and ensure that the non academic types have something to look forward to in life with some vocational training.

Fire the crappy, incompetent teachers, remove their tenure and motivate the kiddies to learn sommat!!

We should sterilise ALL liberals for at least twenty years and see if that makes a difference, now that is experimental genetic engineering, but after their cynical trashing of the culture/schools etc anything is worth a try!!

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Th,

Less than 1/2 of all children in GA are expected to graduate.

The GA Dept. of Corrections estimates the number of prisoners they will need to house by determining how many 3rd graders are functionally illiterate.

Sad, but true (and easily verifiable for the “kidders” out there”.)

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Logistics please: I agree more with your last post than you may realize. But how’s throwing more money at that problem going to solve it? IT’S NOT GOING TO!!! It’s all about the people being involved, not the money.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

rarringt: Yep, and until the schools are changed for the better so that ALL children receive a QUALITY EDUCATION that’s the sad truth…

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Wow, brought out some interesting responses…

First, I don’t take offense at being called liberal, just as you should think that being called conservative is a complimentary term. They describe ideological views on a given subject, is all. What I objected to is your use of the term as a weapon to stereotype (and thus negate) legitimate points of view. That’s what I mean by intellectual cowardice.

Next, the costs you are citing in other countries must be compared to and adjusted to reflect a percentage of actual spending. You can’t compare the costs of education in a country where a person may make a dollar a day to an area where incomes and expenses are exponentially higher. That’s not logical.

Next, kids do better in those other countries because the citizens decided schools and education are important enough both for altruistic and long term economic reasons so as to warrant treatment as de facto fundamental rights. That means the schools, with few exceptions, receive financial and staffing resource support in substantial proportion to the number of students. (Check the figures at the Dept. of State site for Nigeria, China, India, and the Dominican Republic to get a sense of how the funding equates).

Next, the parents understand the value of education. So do the teachers. And the principals. And the kids. They all take it seriously. That is in part why your neighbor’s job just got outsourced.

Next in response to TFTT’s post about “acting white” and “sterilisation,” well gosh, having been intellectually outmaneuvered like that by such a clever feller, I’m downright speechless….

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Th: Your kids might be having a “wonderful school experience” but are they really & truly learning as much as you think they are? I’ve employed HONOR GRADUATES that couldn’t half-a*s spell. And don’t ask them to count change without a calculator. I sincerely hope that your kids ARE getting a good education. My only wish is that ALL children could get an equally good education.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

rarringt: Break out the smelling salts, I agree with what you said in the first sentence of paragraph 3 and ALL of paragraph 4. When you come to…take it easy on my buddy Time for the truth.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

rarringt: With those 2 paragraphs I think you just proved MY point!

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

So you deny what even Bill Cosby and many others say about black kids acting white … and sadly many white kids, clearly not just in GA, have an anti-education attitude these days too - its not ‘cool’ to be smart.

Thus you cleverly side step the awkward points about liberal teaching methods, and traditional teaching - who do you think dominates education theory/practice?? HINT: it sure as hell aint conservative academics!!

the sterilisation quip was just a bit of wit, partly aimed at eliciting another hissy fit from my new chum this afternoon.

By Prootwadl

July 12, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Serious question.

I moved down here from the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area which is known for having fairly high-quality public schools, and the Atlanta metro in general seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. 50% graduation rates are simply astounding to me.

Why does this (apparent) huge difference in the ability for the community to provide an effective education to its children exist?

Is it a difference in funding? Parent focus? Student focus? Too much warm weather?

Some of the statistics I’ve seen down here about the public schools (graduation rates, SAT/ACT scores, etc.) just blow my mind.

Are you folks proud of this?

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Prootwadl: Serious answer! Apparently you have fewer “apologists” in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

MY GERMAN SHEPHERD/LABRADOR/ROTTWEILER IS SMARTER THAN YOUR HONOUR STUDENT!!

Enough said!!

By Prootwadl

July 12, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

It ain’t about smarts, TFTT. It’s all about motivation.

If kids don’t give a darn about learning, or about getting that high school diploma, they won’t take school seriously unless you stick a ring in their nose and drag them through it (something I’m sure a few parents would take an exception to).

Unfortunately, some kids need that type of inducement. Maybe mandatory military service at 18 isn’t such a bad idea…

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

I said that earlier, if you look above.

Its not just inducement, or motivation, but a vision of how and why education really matters and what a lack of one does for/to you. This needs hammering home but really isn’t, other than the usual lip service cliches. KIddies see all the goodies and toys etc available in the shops, and maybe nowadays have much of it at home, but dont seem to make the fundamental connection that purchasing power for the major purchases is directly related to certain AFTER SCHOOL 18+ abilities. And that is poor parenting as much as bad teaching.

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

“sterilisation” and “chum.” You wouldn’t perchance happen to be a Torry bloke from ‘cross the pond?

If you are, that’s cool. My sister’s studying over there, and I’ve had a few chances to visit Merry Olde Englande. Great people, not so great weather….

Back to the hallowed liberal and conservative tradition of talking past each other, and then wondering why nothing gets accomplished. When I was in high school and college, there was no real such thing as liberal or conservative academia in the natural sciences. 1+1 invariably equalled 2 regardless of who you voted for.

I think you’re getting at the so-called liberalization of the social sciences. Human and experience is inherently subjective and contextual. Academics try and take facts and put them into context. Some are very good at it, and present comprehensive surveys or studies on the subject. Others, on both sides of the ideological spectrum are not. As you know, most academics are so narrowly focused on their area of specialty and forced to publish that they don’t have time to become good teachers.

But that’s a problem for kids who actually make it to college.

As far as your Cosby comment, his PhD is honorary, so he’s just speaking as a layperson with the knowledge and authority of…an entertainer. I do agree that it is a tragedy that acting “white” or “smart” or whatever isn’t cool in many of our communities. Especially because that sort of thinking handicaps our children and can potentially deny them from reaching their true potential.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Welcome to Georgia Prootwadl! And don’t forget “motivated parents that are concerned about their children’s education”. A truly concerned parent will find a way, if only by phone, to get involved in their child’s education.

By Political Foreskin

July 12, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

VOTE FOR RALPH REED

HE HAD ME AT ‘HALO’

By Curious Observer

July 12, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

In the course of exalting education, we have debased it. A college degree is no assurance of competence, as so many suppose. But because we hold the false notion that a college degree equals automatic employment opportunities, students who have no business in high school, much less in college, clog up the system. High schools now offer “vocational tracks,” for students who have no interest in going to college. But guess what? Graduates of those tracks head straight to college, without the necessary college skills. And our colleges, funded on the basis of enrollment, admit them, then pressure the professors to educate them somehow. The same story holds for so-called vocational schools; their graduates head straight to Georgia’s colleges and universities. In many ways, the Hope Scholarship program has been the worst thing ever to happen to higher education in Georgia. You have employees who can’t write, can’t make simple change? Don’t look to the teachers as targets. Go look in the mirror, for your support of this system has helped perpetuate the fraud. I’ve seen it first-hand as a college teacher. And in private business, as a manager, I’ve screened Georgia college graduates who can’t write well enough to draft a simple letter. The conclusion: don’t dump all our social problems on the educational system for solutions.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 12, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer: I think your conclusion just hit the nail on the head…”don’t dump all our social problems on the educational system for solutions”. I couldn’t agree more!!!

By time for the truth

July 12, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Yes I am a Tory chap, now a US citizen too from over there.

Academically there is a huge difference bewteen the UK and US. In the UK we specialise in subject studies here you shove all kinds of liberal drivel at college students. It dilutes the subject studies but from a conservative perspective hardly broadens the mind. Ward CHurchill et al hardly bring anythinh worthwhile to the table excpet hatred of the system that feeds them. Free speech is one thing, poisonous dogma is something else.

also everyhting here is boiled down to numbers and tests.

To do a masters in England all you need is a 2:1 honours degree (like a ‘B’ grade) - no tests at all.

I wasn;t focused on Cosby’s PhD, just his astute ‘cultural’ observations.

At least you seem to be a liberal that one doesn’t have to upbraid with sledgehammer wit :)

By Markus

July 12, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

@Nick

“The only fact that should matter is that there is still a significant amount of people trying to get by while pulling in a minimum wage paycheck. Frankly, that isn’t a fate I would wish on many people.”

And minimum wage mandate frankly isn’t the job of the government. Again as typical of socialist liberals, punish the businesses for the benefit of small minority that are having to get by on a minimum wage job. My 94-year old grandfather laughs his old hide off every time he hears you pansies on the left scream about Americans having it tough today.

“The problem with putting everyone into percentiles and categories is that it completely glosses over the real problems these people face. If anything, turning this problem into a numbers game is more akin to socialism than raising the minimum wage is. You start assuming everyone is the same instead of focusing on the individual.”

That’s a nice reverse spin. You liberals are the FIRST to categorize people into groups (the rich, poor, wealthy, gays, minorities, etc.). Your hero Hillary wrote a book called “It Takes A Village” if memory serves me correctly. You liberals are about as supportive of the individual as Karl Marx, especially in taxation representation, but that’s another topic.

But I suppose pointing out that only 18% of Americans do not have healthcare programs, and therefore that means the OTHER 82% that DO must sacrifice for socialist/universal healthcare. I can see the line now for cut fingers and ingrown toenails because healthcare now would be “Free.” BAH!

“Lastly, if there is such an “insignifcant” number of people actually trying to live on a minimum wage, then am I safe to assume the overall harm in raising it would be … insignifcant? Hmmm.”

Tell that to the store owners who will be raising prices and not hiring as many people. What, do you think they are just going to ABSORB that cost or something? Are you socialist liberals THAT ignorant?

By rarringt

July 12, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Btw, Curious, sorry to see you’re leaving town. Whatever one’s ideology may be, it’s always unfortunate to lose another intelligent and thoughtful person.

By Larry

July 13, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Off the subject (been away from computer a couple days) - to “Redneck” in your recently referring to Air Force and Navy as military wannabes - I will temporary suspend my policy against name-calling you uninformed pencil-neck geek! And you’re lucky I can’t find you! My deceased father (retired as Air Force Senior Master Sergeant) was as fine a soldier as ever walked. Please respond and prove how ignorant you are!

By Larry

July 13, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Instead of taking it out of the “jillions of dollars in “excess profits”” (JW’s words) - take it out of the jillions of dollars in contributions to the republican (or the other) cartel. Agreed that $$$ should be based on performance (with zero as minimum) however there needs to be safeguards against employers running completely roughshod over workers like in Georgia where employees have very little protection because of the so-called “right to work” law - typical example of giving a nice name to something reprehensible.