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