Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2007, 03:13 PM   #1
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Thumbs up The first 100 hours of a Democrat-controlled House

On the agenda for the Dems in the first 100 hours is...

Detailed Summary of the "100 Hours" Legislation

Good Government - To ensure this Congress upholds the highest ethical standards, the opening day ethics package begins to sever the connection between lobbyists and legislation, by banning gifts and travel from lobbyists, and ending the abuses connected to privately-funded congressional travel (including corporate jets). The rules package would restore democracy in the House - committing to a fair and open process for amendments and an end to 2-day work weeks; curbing abuses of voting, guaranteeing time to read legislation, and opening up Conference Committees so that the minority is able to participate.

Fiscal Responsibility - This package would require pay-as-you-go budget discipline with no new deficit spending, and require full transparency as well as end the abuse of special interest earmarks. The House rules package will not allow consideration of any bill, amendment or conference report where the mandatory spending (such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and farm bill) or revenue provisions would increase the deficit over the five-year and ten-year windows. Democrats also plan to pursue pay-as-you-go legislation in order to protect our grandchildren from mountains of debt and spur economic growth.

National Security - This bill would provide for the implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations remaining after the enactment of the Intelligence Reform bill in 2004. The bill's provisions ******* requiring major improvements in aviation security, border security, and infrastructure security; providing first responders the equipment and training they need; beefing up efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; and significantly expanding diplomatic, economic, educational, and other strategies designed to counter Islamic terrorism.

Fighting Poverty - This bill would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. This would help up to 15 million Americans and their families.

Health Research - The DeGette-Castle stem cell research bill would increase the number of lines of stem cells that would be eligible to be used in federally-funded research. The bill would authorize HHS to support research involving embryonic stem cells meeting certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from an embryo. Current policy allows federal funds to be used for research only on those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. The bill only authorizes the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The bill *******s stronger ethical guidelines than the President's current policy.

Affordable Health Care - This bill would repeal the current provision that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for those enrolled in Medicare prescription drug plans and instead requires the Secretary to conduct such negotiations. The bill also would require the HHS Secretary to submit to the relevant congressional committees a report on the negotiations conducted by the Secretary, not later than June 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter. Under the bill, the Secretary has discretion on how to best implement the negotiating authority and achieve the greatest discounts.

Education Access - This bill would make college more accessible and affordable by cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans in half - from the current 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. This will significantly cut the student debt burden of about 5 million students.

Clean Energy - This bill would invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency by repealing billions in subsidies given to big oil companies that are raking in record profits. Specifically, the measure would ensure oil companies that were awarded the 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling paid their fair share in royalties. It would also close loopholes and end giveaways in the tax code for Big Oil. Finally, the bill would create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving energy conservation.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...rst_100_hours/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/wa...7OjHXzpb7+aMHQ

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:17 PM   #2
Mayfuck
Banned
 
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,823
Default

Cool. But I'll get back to you in about 100 hours.

 
Mayfuck is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:19 PM   #3
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

Most of it should pass the House with little difficulty, but very little will get through the Senate and past Bush's desk. I do have high hopes for raising the federal minimum wage, though. Bush indicated previously that he would not veto it.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:24 PM   #4
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

obviously, because that's one of the lesser important things that the dems got going here.

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:31 PM   #5
rocksteady
Banned
 
rocksteady's Avatar
 
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
Default

holy crap. 7.25/hr.

thats really high!

 
rocksteady is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:50 PM   #6
Effloresce
Banned
 
Posts: 5,018
Default

Yeah, I don't expect much beyond minimum wage thanks to Bush.

Hopefully this will piss off Americans even more and help a Democrat get into the White House in '08.

 
Effloresce is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 04:32 PM   #7
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar
Most of it should pass the House with little difficulty, but very little will get through the Senate and past Bush's desk. I do have high hopes for raising the federal minimum wage, though.
why? please explain to me why you wish to hurt the poor by raising the minimum wage?

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 04:34 PM   #8
JokeyLoki
has great self of steam.
 
JokeyLoki's Avatar
 
Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS
Posts: 24,317
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
why? please explain to me why you wish to hurt the poor by raising the minimum wage?
Damn it, you're such an idiot about some things.

 
JokeyLoki is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 04:50 PM   #9
Karl Connor
ADMlNISTRATOR
 
Karl Connor's Avatar
 
Posts: 18,936
Default

president numbnuts is gonna veto all that shit

 
Karl Connor is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 04:53 PM   #10
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JokeyLoki
Damn it, you're such an idiot about some things.
Please explain to me how raising the minimum wage helps anyone. I would love to see a non-emotional and rational, economical, response.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:16 PM   #11
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Yeah, that President Bush is veto crazy. There was that one time he vetoed that stem cell bill. Then there was that other time he vetoed....um... Well, he did veto something one time anyway.

But he sure does love to veto things though.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:19 PM   #12
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
Yeah, that President Bush is veto crazy. There was that one time he vetoed that stem cell bill. Then there was that other time he vetoed....um... Well, he did veto something one time anyway.

But he sure does love to veto things though.

of course he didn't veto much during his first 1.5 terms - during that period the white house had more control of congress than any other time in recent history.

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:22 PM   #13
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
Please explain to me how raising the minimum wage helps anyone. I would love to see a non-emotional and rational, economical, response.
well, from what i understand, higher wages means more money. which, if you're poor, that's good. and if you translate dollars from now and dollars in the past, minimum wage workers in the past were making more.

the argument that employers having to pay their workers more would cause them to downsize isn't that strong in that many already pay above minimum wage because right now it's so low it's almost immoral (yes, a subjective opinion inserted there). also, history shows that raising the minimum wage hasn't caused many employers to downsize.

also, inflation isn't really that big of a concern. more money equals more money to spend. the rate of inflation has way surpassed the minimum wage right now - raising it to the proposed amount is just catching up with where inflation has already gone.

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:24 PM   #14
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
I would love to see a non-emotional and rational, economical, response.
You mean the opposite of what you first replied with?

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:30 PM   #15
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeroplane

the argument that employers having to pay their workers more would cause them to downsize isn't that strong in that many already pay above minimum wage because right now it's so low it's almost immoral (yes, a subjective opinion inserted there). also, history shows that raising the minimum wage hasn't caused many employers to downsize.
from what i understand that is not the case. big picture-wise the jury is still out on this one. the studies i've seen that show minimum wage increases don't lead to more unemployment at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder end up with a bunch of holes shot through them when other economists go back to confirm the results. there seems to be a greater amount of more solid information correlating minimum wage increases with decreases in employment for the young/poor/unskilled.

of course, correlations =/= causation and the reality of the issue is certainly much more complex than a simple linear relationship. aeroplane, thank you for actually bringing up relevant aspects of the issue and not pulling a sleeper and tossing around insults, etc. this board needs more of posts like yours.

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:35 PM   #16
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,980
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
Yeah, that President Bush is veto crazy. There was that one time he vetoed that stem cell bill. Then there was that other time he vetoed....um... Well, he did veto something one time anyway.

But he sure does love to veto things though.
Dont be an idiot.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:39 PM   #17
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariner
from what i understand that is not the case. big picture-wise the jury is still out on this one. the studies i've seen that show minimum wage increases don't lead to more unemployment at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder end up with a bunch of holes shot through them when other economists go back to confirm the results. there seems to be a greater amount of more solid information correlating minimum wage increases with decreases in employment for the young/poor/unskilled.

of course, correlations =/= causation and the reality of the issue is certainly much more complex than a simple linear relationship. aeroplane, thank you for actually bringing up relevant aspects of the issue and not pulling a sleeper and tossing around insults, etc. this board needs more of posts like yours.
aw, shucks, thanks.

i have seen those follow up studies about the decreases in employment, but from what i understood, (and i could have misunderstood) it evens out from those who were working for less and those who were working for a little more than the new minimum wage. aka - leveling the playing field. which gives more opportunity to the poor.

but it is a much more complex issue than people give it credit for. raising the minimum wage isn't going to be a blessing for everyone, but hopefully it will help more people than hurt.

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:44 PM   #18
The Omega Concern
Banned
 
Location: stay, far, away
Posts: 8,997
Default

the inflation point is interesting. real inflation is up about 12 percent since March.

perhaps Pelosi could change the rule about not including energy prices in the inflation index...but im not holding my breath.

the minimum wage is supposed to be just that, a minimum in which you earn before you move on. but Bush's whole thing about immigrants "doing the jobs americans don't want" have shifted the paradigm and playing field of those types of jobs. the wage increase debate is more pandering b.s.

best thing I see is that Health Care provision.

overall though Politicians these days are a zombied looking bunch completely detached...they might as well be playing a fiddle whilst looking at a fire in a village on the horizen.

 
The Omega Concern is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:49 PM   #19
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeroplane
well, from what i understand, higher wages means more money. which, if you're poor, that's good. and if you translate dollars from now and dollars in the past, minimum wage workers in the past were making more.

the argument that employers having to pay their workers more would cause them to downsize isn't that strong in that many already pay above minimum wage because right now it's so low it's almost immoral (yes, a subjective opinion inserted there). also, history shows that raising the minimum wage hasn't caused many employers to downsize.

also, inflation isn't really that big of a concern. more money equals more money to spend. the rate of inflation has way surpassed the minimum wage right now - raising it to the proposed amount is just catching up with where inflation has already gone.
Minimum wage means more money for people who JUST entered a minimum wage position. Those who have been there for years and worked up from 5.15 to 7.25? well hell, fuck you asshole for your efforts, you now make as much as the 16 year old punk next to you. you get no increase, your company is forced to hold back on certain things to meet the demand of increased payroll, and chances are they will raise their prices, and i've seen a number of studies that show that minimum wage workers shop more often than others at places who hire minimum wage workers.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:49 PM   #20
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba499/
The Minimum Wage Is Bad Policy
Brief Analysis
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
No. 499
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Friday, February 4, 2005
Download this page in PDF format

http://www.ncpa.org/new/images/smacroico.gif Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
by Bruce Bartlett


http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif

The concept of a minimum wage seems straightforward: If we believe the wages of some workers are too low, we should pass a law requiring those wages to be higher. What could be simpler? The problem is that increasing the minimum wage may make some people better off, but others will be harmed. Experience proves that the minimum wage hurts more people than it helps.

A bill to raise minimum hourly pay is introduced in every Congress. The current proposal would immediately raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85, then to $6.45 one year later and to $7.00 after two years.

Who Are Minimum Wage Workers? Age and education are the two most basic determinants of the wage a worker can command in the employment market. Young people generally have less experience and maturity, and are usually not productive enough to demand a very high wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the bulk of minimum wage workers are under 25, with limited education:

  • In 2002, half of all workers earning the minimum wage were under age 25 and one-fourth were between the ages of 16 and 19.
  • One-third of all minimum wage workers had less than a high school diploma.
  • Three-fifths of minimum wage employees worked only part-time, and many were students or others living in homes with high family incomes.
Workers earning little more than the minimum wage are a relatively small subset of the total workforce. Assuming that business owners are not otherwise affected by increased labor costs and maintain the same number of workers and number of hours worked, the Employment Policy Foundation predicts that:

  • Increasing the minimum wage to $5.90 would cover 1.7 million hourly workers, 37.2 percent of whom are 16-to-19-year-old teenagers.
  • Increasing it to $6.65 would raise wage rates for another 4.1 million workers, for a total of 5.8 million.
  • Altogether, from 53.6 to 57.4 percent of workers covered by increases from $5.15 up to $6.65 would be under age 25.
It is important to remember these numbers do not account for job losses that may occur due to minimum wage increases.

Why Are Minimum Wage Jobs Important? Minimum wage jobs are not insignificant. They are the first rung on the employment ladder for most workers. The experience workers gain in such simple skills as showing up on time, learning to follow instructions and how to interact with customers are critical to success in life.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba499/images/fig1.gif That is why — absent government mandated hikes — salaries grow rapidly for newly hired minimum wage workers who stick with their jobs:

  • About 90 percent of workers hired at minimum wage earn more than the minimum after one year, according to the BLS.
  • Average annual wage growth for minimum wage workers is six times greater than for workers earning more, according to a new study from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI). [See the figure.]
However, the Small Business Administration reports that small business employers tend to raise the pay of low-wage workers more slowly following minimum wage increases.

Who Are Minimum Wage Employers? Minimum wage advocates imply that mostly large, successful firms employ low-wage workers. Therefore, the only effect of a higher minimum wage will be to reduce business profits. However, the SBA recently examined the types of businesses employing low-wage workers. Not surprisingly, the bulk of them are small businesses, not big corporations. Among all minimum wage workers, 54 percent work in businesses with fewer than 100 employees and two-thirds work in businesses with fewer than 500 employees.

Working in a small business can be precarious because many are perpetually underfinanced and just a short step away from bankruptcy. According to the SBA, in 1998, 590,000 new businesses were established in the United States. Of these, 565,000 employed fewer than 20 workers. But there were also 541,000 firms that went out of business that year and 512,000 of them had 20 workers or less.

Small businesses are a critical stepping-stone into the labor force for most workers. Workers who are young, poor, undereducated or minorities are most likely to find jobs in small companies. According to the BLS, someone with less than a high school diploma is almost twice as likely to work in a small business than a large one.

Small businesses create 75 percent of new jobs annually but they are also responsible for most job losses. That is why we must be especially careful when contemplating new financial burdens on small businesses. With so many of them so close to the edge to begin with, it often doesn’t take much to push them over, destroying many jobs in the process.

How Do Minimum Wage Increases Affect Minority Groups? From 1948 to 1955, unemployment of black and white teenage males was essentially the same, 11.3 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively. However, after the minimum wage was raised from 75 cents to $1 in 1956, unemployment rose significantly for both black and white teenage males, with blacks bearing more of the burden. By 1969, the unemployment rate was 22.7 percent for black teenage males and 14.6 percent for white teenage males.

Economists Donald Deere, Kevin Murphy and Finis Welch found that minimum wage increases totaling 27 percent in 1990 and 1991 reduced employment for all teenagers by 7.3 percent and for black teenagers by 10 percent. A study of the 1996 and 1997 increases by economists Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch and David Wittenburg also found a 2 to 6 percent decline in employment for each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.

In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Couch translated these conclusions into raw numbers:

  • At the low end, he estimated at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 in 1997.
  • At the high end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997.
Couch estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage today would further reduce teenage employment by at least 145,000 and possibly as many as 436,000 jobs. According to the SBA, even among large firms the probability of a low-wage worker losing his job doubles after a minimum wage hike.

Conclusion. Advocates of a minimum wage hike ignore the evidence that it increases unemployment among the least productive workers: unskilled teenagers whose employment opportunities are limited. This is unfortunate, because low wage jobs are the first rung on the economic ladder of success for workers entering the labor force. When we cut off the bottom rung by increasing the minimum wage, we keep youngsters from making the transition to work.


 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:50 PM   #21
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=arLH2cHXlAQY

Why a Higher Minimum Wage Is Bad Economic Policy: Kevin Hassett
By Kevin Hassett

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If you want to know why the Democrats keep treading water in spite of an unpopular president and the feckless pork-barrel leadership of congressional Republicans, look no further than the minimum wage.

In a recent move that was about as surprising as a low- scoring soccer game, Democrats made it clear they will make the minimum wage a central part of their election strategy next fall.

They certainly took to the pulpits in recent weeks. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, opined to a church group that ``it is a moral principle to raise the minimum wage. It is nothing but economist mumbo jumbo to say raising it will hurt jobs.'' Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy issued a report under the title: ``When Work Doesn't Pay: Minimum Wage Families in America.''

The minimum wage began in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which enacted a 25-cent hourly wage. Over time, the rate has increased, and the act has been repeatedly amended, resulting in today's $5.15 per-hour wage. The rate hasn't been increased since 1997.

A higher minimum wage is terrible economic policy and Americans know it. State-level Democrats have been pushing the issue this year and have been on the losing side of the debate. While eight states have enacted legislation to increase the minimum wage this year, 18 have seen such legislation defeated, according to the National Restaurant Association. Several states have minimum wage legislation pending, including California, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but so far the record on the minimum wage stands at a resounding 18-8 against.

Bad Politics

Politically, you couldn't hope for a better opponent than one who thinks that something that has lost more often than not should be the centerpiece of an election strategy.

As an economist, I would like to believe that the minimum wage doesn't work politically because voters, unlike Howard Dean, understand the economics. There is an abundance of research on the minimum wage, and literature reviews regularly report that raising it induces firms to hire fewer workers, and to cut back on hours.

The effects are not huge, but they are significant. It is hardly rocket science. If you raise the price of apples, people buy fewer apples. If you raise the price of labor, firms buy less of it. And if you look at what happens to those whose lives are disrupted by higher minimum wages, the policy seems less and less just.

Negative Effects

In a recent study, economists David Neumark and Olena Nizalova documented the long-run negative consequences of following the Democrats' favorite policy. They began with the insight that minimum wages are particularly tough on young adult workers; the literature shows that lengthy unemployment can have a ``scarring effect'' on them, the economists noted. That is, young adults unemployed for a long period have significantly more negative labor-market experiences well into adulthood.

This effect has often resulted in an increased propensity to engage in criminal activity, among other things. Neumark and Nizalova reasoned that the negative employment effects of high minimum wages may increase this ``scarring'' and therefore continue to harm the victims as they grow older.

To evaluate this hypothesis, they compared outcomes for older workers who grew up in a state that had relatively high minimum wages with outcomes for those who faced low minimum wages when young. They found strong evidence that the negative effects of high minimum wages last into adulthood. A 29-year-old worker who grew up in a state with higher minimum wages has a significantly lower wage on average than a similar individual from a state with a lower minimum wage. This effect was especially strong for black workers.

Superior Options

It is true that those folks who are on the minimum wage and don't lose their job have higher earnings. But the trade-off is morally ambiguous at best. Should we enact a policy that gives 10 people an extra $40 a week, but whacks the 11th guy? Shouldn't the terrible disruption to the lives of those who are fired be more of a concern to us than the extra money for those who are not? Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?

It's especially wrong when there are superior options. The earned income tax credit gets money to working poor folks without creating the disincentives that go with higher minimum wages. Columbia University economist Ned Phelps has also suggested a tax subsidy for firms that hire low-wage workers. That, too, would be preferable.

Republicans trying to hold on to their political power are probably rejoicing that Democrats are resorting to their same old bag of tricks. Poor workers of America better hope the Democrats don't win.

(Kevin Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org .

Last Updated: July 10, 2006 00:01 EDT

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:51 PM   #22
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=1456




Columns: The Minimum WageGood Intentions, Bad Results

By Roger Koopman

Roger Koopman operates a private employment service in Bozeman, Montana,

Ideas have consequences, Richard Weaver once wrote. They pace the course of human history—both good ideas and bad. And while intentions may be honorable, the passing of time has proven that, in the long term, you can’t get good results from bad ideas.

The minimum wage is a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea. The idea behind minimum wage legislation is that government, by simple decree, can increase the earning power of all marginal workers. Implicit in this idea is the notion that employment is an exploitive relationship and that business owners will never voluntarily raise the wages of their workers. Businesses, we are told, must be coerced into paying workers what they deserve, and only politicians know what this is.

Not only does this line of thinking run contrary to the most basic economic principles of a free society, but it is also patently illogical. If government could raise the real wages of millions of Americans by merely passing a law announcing that fact, then why stop at $3.35 per hour, or $4.65, or even $107 Isn’t $500 per hour more compassionate than $50? Absurd, you say, and I would agree. But the “logic” is perfectly consistent with the idea of a minimum wage, once you have accepted the premise that political decrees can raise wages.

What does make wages rise? It is most certainly not government edicts that simply rearrange and redistribute existing wealth. Wages rise in response to the creation of new wealth through greater productivity. The more that a society produces per capita, the more there is to distribute through the marketplace in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and lower prices.

The “bigger economic pie” concept is not complicated in the least, and yet it is a principle that seems to elude us time and again in matters of public policy. We know instinctively that government cannot create or produce anything. It regulates, confiscates, and consumes, all at the expense of the private economy. And yet we still believe that government can wave its magic wand with laws like the minimum wage, and we all will be better off.

Politicians engage in this deception to buy political favor from special interest groups. We keep falling for these political deceptions because our focus is on short-term personal gains rather than on the long-term consequences to the entire nation. We see the apparent benefit of having our own wages increased. But we don’t consider the nameless victims of the minimum wage hike who will lose their jobs because the government has priced them out of the labor market. (It is precisely because minimum wage laws eliminate low-skilled workers from competing in the job market that organized labor lobbies Congress for massive minimum wage hikes.)

Commenting on the minimum wage, economist Henry Hazlitt put it succinctly:

You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.[1]
The net loss to society that results from this sweeping act of “wrongful discharge” is staggering. Those losses *******: (1) The loss of employment to the individual himself, (2) the shrinking of the economic pie by the loss of his productive contribution, (3) the financial loss to society in supporting him in his idleness (unemployment compensation, welfare, etc.), (4) the financial loss in funding useless job training programs and other government efforts to get him re-employed, and (5) the net loss to society in having consumer prices driven up to cover the higher labor costs, and the loss of market share to foreign competition that may occur.

The cruel irony of the minimum wage is that it harms most the very segments of our society that it is intended to help—the unskilled poor and the inexperienced young. The evidence to support this is overwhelming, and it is the black community that is the hardest hit. in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment was roughly that of white teens. Following years of steady increases in both the level and coverage of the Federal minimum wage, over 40 per cent of the nation’s black teenagers are now unemployed.

Just look at all the jobs that have been abolished by the minimum wage—good and worthwhile jobs for those who are taking their first step on the economic ladder. Movie ushers, gas station attendants, caddies, fruit pickers, dishwashers, fast food help, and a wide variety of other entry-level job opportunities have been either cut back or eliminated because the minimum wage has rendered them unaffordable. How tragic this is, when you consider the true value of these low-level jobs to young and unskilled workers.

Reflecting on his early years in a Philadelphia slum, black economist Walter Williams observed:
None of these jobs paid much, but then I wasn’t worth much. But the real value of early work experiences is much more important than the little change a kid can earn. You learn how to keep a job. You learn how to be prompt, respect and obey superiors, and develop good work habits and attitudes that can pay off in the future. Additionally, there is the self-respect and pride that comes from being financially semi-independent.[2]
If a young person is willing to wash cars for $2.50 an hour to gain work experience and self-esteem, is it the right of Congress to tell him he can’t do it? Is it, in fact, the right of any politician to make these kinds of economic choices for a free people?

Commenting again on the minimum wage, Williams makes this critical observation:
It is important to note that most people acquire work skills by working at “subnormal wages” which amounts to the same thing as paying to learn. For example, inexperienced doctors (interns), during their training, work at wages which are a tiny fraction of that of trained doctors. College students forego considerable amounts of money in the form of tuition and foregone income so that they may develop marketable skills. It is ironic, if not tragic, that low skilled youths from poor families are denied an opportunity to get a start in life. This is exactly what happens when a high minimum wage forbids low skilled workers to pay for job training in the form of a lower beginning wage.[3]
In a free society, people must have the right to offer their services in the marketplace for whatever price they choose, whether they are workers serving employers or businesses serving consumers. It is by this process that productivity, wage rates, and prosperity are maximized. Government has no more business objecting to a low wage rate for a menial job than it has objecting to a business that offers its services or products for a low price. Government intervention in these matters distorts economic decision-making, misallocates scarce resources, and destroys personal liberty.

If we are to remain a free people, we need to start trusting freedom, and jealously guard our right to make our own choices about our own lives. Repealing the minimum wage law would be an excellent place to start. []

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 05:58 PM   #23
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariner
of course he didn't veto much during his first 1.5 terms - during that period the white house had more control of congress than any other time in recent history.
I just don't see how he's all the sudden going to start vetoing bad ideas when he's been signing them into law routinely for 6 years. I don't think anyting the Democrats can get to his desk are going to be too much worse than the crap the Republicans have been offering up.

Besides, Bush only cares about the cool Presidential powers. The ones that people want to think he doesn't have. That whole being a check on the legislative branch thing? Anybody can do that.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:01 PM   #24
Nate the Grate
Minion of Satan
 
Nate the Grate's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,216
Default

I don't know enough about economics to get into this debate, but that last article doesn't really prove anything.

 
Nate the Grate is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:18 PM   #25
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
I just don't see how he's all the sudden going to start vetoing bad ideas when he's been signing them into law routinely for 6 years. I don't think anyting the Democrats can get to his desk are going to be too much worse than the crap the Republicans have been offering up.
yeah, maybe not. they'll just be different kinds of bad ideas.

Quote:
Besides, Bush only cares about the cool Presidential powers. The ones that people want to think he doesn't have. That whole being a check on the legislative branch thing? Anybody can do that.
i'm going to start writing little love notes to bush on everything i send through snail mail.

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:24 PM   #26
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the Grate
I don't know enough about economics to get into this debate, but that last article doesn't really prove anything.

of course not, it was mostly an opinion piece. the question is not whether the article proved anything, but whether the article contains sound logic and whether you agree with it.

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:24 PM   #27
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,980
Default

Other than the first, the other 2 are plain laughable. As far as the first:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../b1648601.html

Good for Business

By John Alexander Burton, Amy Hanauer

May 10, 2006

Small Business growth and state minimum wages

Read the full report (PDF)

The minimum wage has worked for all Americans since its introduction 68 years ago, yet the federal government has allowed the minimum wage level to deteriorate in real value to its lowest point in 50 years. In response, 20 states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wages above the federal level, up from three in 1996.

A new study by the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio illustrates that these state initiatives have proven to be good government policy. The study compares the performance of small businesses with under 500 employees in the 39 states that accepted the federal minimum wage before 2003 to the 12 states (including the District of Columbia) that had minimums above the federal level in January 2003. The study found that between 1997 (when more states began having higher minimums) and 2003:

* Employment in small businesses grew more (9.4%) in states with higher minimum wages than federal minimum wage states (6.6%) or Ohio.
* Inflation-adjusted small business payroll growth was stronger in high minimum wage states (19.0%) than in federal minimum wage states (13.6%) or Ohio.

More data became available in 1998, allowing further analysis. Between 1998 and 2003:

* The number of small business establishments grew more in higher minimum wage states (5.5%) than in federal minimum wage states (4.2%) or Ohio.
* Small business retail employment grew more in higher minimum wage states (9.2%) than in low minimum wage states (3.0%) or Ohio.
* Retail payroll grew more in higher minimum wage states (12.3%) than in low minimum wage states (6.4%) or Ohio.
* States with high and low minimum wages had similar growth in number of restaurants, restaurant payrolls, and restaurant employment.

Contrary to the claims of critics, states with higher minimum wages have generally performed as well or better economically than states with lower minimums since 1997. This is in keeping with most recent empirical research on the minimum wage. A higher minimum wage will help 719,000 Ohio workers better support themselves and their families, and is unlikely to lead to aggregate employment loss, payroll loss or establishment closure among small business. A high minimum wage is consistent with a thriving economy that works better for all Ohioans.


----
Which really just shows that you can find data to back up most anything.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:32 PM   #28
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Dude, you went to a far left website. The sources I chose were non-partisan. I found much more damning evidence on what would be considered partisan websites.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:33 PM   #29
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

I still say the unions are behind the min wage increase plan. Higher minimum wages = more union dues. Higher minimum wages for non-union workers = union workers can strike to get "their fair increase."

I'm solely convinced the Democrats are buddying up with their old pals in the AFL-CIO.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 06:38 PM   #30
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,980
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
Dude, you went to a far left website. The sources I chose were non-partisan.
Yeah, they scream of impartiality:
He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.

 
Future Boy is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 PM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2019