06/12/2006 01:18:51 PM EST

Keep Talking to Republicans - Eventually, they may catch on!

posted by TeeB

     Haveing a best friend who is a republican can really try one's patience.  However, this weekend I think my republican friend (let's call my friend M - soon to be an usher at my wedding) had a bit of a break through!

    &nb sp;    

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
     M is a lawyer and loves Rush!  Over the years we have often discussed, debated, and disagreed on politics.  This weekend we began diving into yet another furious debate on the state of the nation and something amazing happened.  M said, "I hate these guys!" 

     Was M talking about the liberal Media, the Democrats, or even some far leftwing fringe organization - nope!  Much to my disbelief he was talking about the current batch of Republicans who have taken controll of our country.

     This was a most unexpected turn of events, since M has always been a die hard republican who still listens to Rush daily.  Much to my dismay, he followed this statement with, "I am more of a 1994 republican...I really hope Newt is elected President."  I guess you can not always teach an old dog new tricks! 

     At least, this is a sign that the armor is falling off the Republican War Machine.  However, we still have to keep working.  

    &nb sp;Do to this interaction, I felt compelled to write this little entry.  On the one hand, it seemed like a bit of a feel good story - we are finally getting through to even the staunchest of conservatives.  On the otherhand, I felt compelled to say do not turn away from debate with conservatives.  Even though they may try your patience, call you a Godless Liberal, or just plain tell you that you do not know what you are talking about - it is possible to break the hard shell by chipping away. 

     It is like dripping water on stone.  Initially, the stone repels the water; as time passes, the water begins to wear at the stone; eventually, the water will wear a path in to the stone. 

     In closing, if you have a Rockheaded Republican for a friend - let the Liberal Tap of Truth wear a path to their heart!  No matter how long it takes - the effort is rewarding!

TeeB
< John McCain Graduation Speech | Karl Rove off scott free >

Poll

What do you do with your Republican Friends
Avoid talking politics 0%
Stop Being friends 0%
Keep debating until they get it 0%
Hope that your not seen with them in public 0%
Let them be who they are - i.e. do not try to change their opinion 0%
Ask them to be in your wedding 0%

Votes: 0
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Keep Talking to Republicans - Eventually, they may catch on! | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden)
Interesting (none / 0)
I have some similar sentiments.  However the bigger issue is the alternative.  Democrats present nothing to think that they have the better direction.  All they can do is keeping talking about fraudulent elections, intelligence missteps, and Bushisms.

Now this is where DA comes in and says something lame like, "What do you expect!  Repubs have both houses, the presidency, and the Supreme Court!"

I never did buy that and I still don't. 

by Jimmydunk on 06/12/2006 01:46:25 PM EST

SC (none / 0)
We don't have the supreme court as long as we only have 4 justices.  Only two of our four have proven themselves- Alito and Thomas. Hopefully Stevens will be gone this summer so we can get the elusive fifth vote.

Most republicans are disgusted with Bush but the alternative is activist judges, a philosophy of defeat in the war, and a policy of rewarding illegal aliens for law breaking and open borders.

Now I remember why I proudly cast a vote for the chimp n chief two times!

by acroso on 06/12/2006 02:10:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Activist Judges (none / 0)
Why is it that when Judges go against Republican beliefs they are activists, yet when they select a president [in direct conflict with Constitutional Law (the states have the right to pick their electors in any way they see fit)] it is simply the right decision?

by TeeB on 06/12/2006 07:13:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You haven't been keeping up... (none / 0)
You're using stale talking points left over from last year. You need to do a refresh on them (hint: don't take spathis's - or acrosa - or whatever personna he inhabits - advice on talking points...)

Dem agenda

 http://www.democrats.org/ag enda.html to read more about their plans.

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 03:47:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
6 point plan (none / 0)
It's notable that the plan didn't mention Iraq.

These two things the democrats will do for sure.

1) Appoint activist judges and\or filibuster Bush judges
2) Have a policy of rewarding illegal aliens who overstay their VISAS and\or sneak across the border. They are 100% intend on passsing the "amnest and open border bill" the senate has scooped together.

These aren't talking points. The democrats are a front group for the interests groups it represents- big labor, La Raza, MecHa, NAACP, NARAL etc. They are not a party of the people.



by acroso on 06/12/2006 04:03:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bush to purpose ACTIVIST JUDGES? (none / 0)
So let me get this straight, if the Democratic Party gets controll of the Senate Bush is going to start nominating activist judges.  Man he really is a "Flip Flopper!" :)

by TeeB on 06/12/2006 07:27:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You prove my point (none / 0)
That isn't a plan.

That is a campaign brochure.  That could just as easily be a cheerleading brochure for the republicans.  Flowery talk about ensuring dignity for older americans isn't a plan.  I went to the link and it's no better there.

To be sure this point isn't stale.  It is the reason why Democrats continue to be inept.  They keep getting confused between a plan and flowery bs talk that no one can get their arms around.  I am reminded of the commercial showing a behind closed doors meeting of a manager telling his salespeople to sell an inferior product by saying, "Let's put some lipstick on this pig".  It is still a pig and the Dems still don't have a plan.

Case in point...They didn't like Bush's plan for SS reform.  Fine.  What is their plan?  Is it stale to say they still don't have one?  Unfortunately, no it isn't.

by Jimmydunk on 06/12/2006 04:33:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's as good a "plan" as any Repubs have (none / 0)
"It is the reason why Democrats continue to be inept."

Okay, maybe so.

But what is the reason Republicans are so inept? They've had it all their own way for years. What have they accomplished? Twice the size of government, doubled National Debt, preventing ANY Democratic issues to come to the floor so people can say "The Dems have no PLANS," giving themselves raises while freezing minimum wage, no oversight of the Executive Branch, etc., etc., etc.....

Seems to me, No Plan would be preferable to what has been done.

Sometimes you have to drive the car around the block yourself a few times to know exactly what and in which order things need fixing. And when you're getting a Used Bushmobile, you want to kick the tires extra hard. Definitely no warranties available.

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 05:10:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
unemployment (none / 0)
MedfordTim-

Republicans have not doubled government size. They have done a better job but still yet a not as bad as freespedning democrats

We've not even come close to doubling the national debt. We may have sadly added another trillion to it though.

Mimimum wage is pointless. There is a supply and demand for employees. It's liek gas prices- you can out an artificial floor on gas prices- say 1 dollar. However, they will simply stop selling it or if they do sell it you'll have giant gas lines like in the 70s. I'm fine with republicans raising it right before the election since it might help them politically, but in terms of actually helping anyone all it will do is cause unemployment.

by acroso on 06/12/2006 05:19:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why am I bothering? (none / 0)
Sep 7, 2000: $5,676,989,904,887 CNN

That was the day that the National Debt clock stopped and started going down.

Today's National Debt: $8,380,383,527,092.92 Debt Clock

...and is growing at the rate of 1.75 Billion Per DAY. That will raise Bush's Legacy up to around $10,000,000,000,000.

That's close enough to "doubled" for me. Pick all the nits you want.

There are a few hundred thousand more Federal Civilian employees now and MANY more state employees to cover programs that the Feds turned back to states. I will grant an exaggeration on "doubling" the size of governement - but they sure haven't shrunk ANYTHING, and there haven't been ANY departments eliminated. There are MORE agencies now than there were in 2000.


Minimum wage raises have NEVER caused unemployment. Nor do businesses fail because of a raise in Minimum Wage. Utter nonsense, as are most of your "points."

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 06:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry Tim (none / 0)
But I must respectfully disagree with you. 

"Minimum wage raises have NEVER caused unemployment. Nor do businesses fail because of a raise in Minimum Wage. Utter nonsense, as are most of your "points.""

It is not even a matter of proof, it is a matter of simple math.  The largest employer in the country is the small business.  The average small business owner works very hard and runs on relatively thin margins.  A significant minimum wage increase would cause unemployment.  You know this is true.  Now if you want to argue degrees...ok.  The bigger the increase the more unemployment.  Perhaps a $1/hr increase would have no affect and then it scales form there.  My point is that it is an unarguable mathematical fact.

A point not mentioned here is the reality that it is effectively a defacto tax increase.  For those employers that have pricing power, that cost is then borne by the consumer.  Wage pressures are a primary cause of inflation so it can be anti-growth to raise the minimum wage.

I am not saying there cannot be an increase.  I am saying it is not as simple as it seems and that there are good reasons that it has not been raised.

by Jimmydunk on 06/13/2006 11:19:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply to Jimmydunk's "Sorry Tim" (none / 0)
I missed this when it was fresh. My apologies.

As others in this thread, you make the same mistaken assumption - although you came closer to a true understanding of the situation with "Now if you want to argue degrees...ok." because the size of Minimum Wage increases have never and will never be raised to the point of overall fiscal irresponsibility.

I won't argue the point of "defacto tax."  I understand that line of reasoning. To me, the $25 charge to gain entry to Yellowstone is a "defacto tax" and one that I feel I already paid through my OTHER taxes.

You did make clear to me that the argument that keeps returning to all the replies to me in this thread center around what you label as "significant." acrosa, Twba, and you all seem to want to believe that a raise means some terribly restrictive amount. I'm not sure why, as I haven't put forth any dollar values, but please believe that I would not suggest a ridiculous amount. The Kennedy plan seemed reasonable as hell - a three step increase over two years.

As far as the "good reason" it hasn't been increased? Because Politicians know that the number of minimum wage workers (at 1.6 million) are not a significant political force and their votes don't matter much.

(I'm surprised no one jumped me about the "single working mother" line I used. Are you all finally catching on to my more subtle humor jabs? SWM's only account for 8% of minimum wage workers. Completely ignorable from a political motivation standpoint)

Let's all be clear here:

Tim understands Supply and Demand, Price Floors, etc. He does not think they apply in Minimum Wage discussions because that plateau will never be approached. He believes that there are minor fluctuations in employment figures which balance themselves out within a few months (given no other economic strains such as a recession at the same time - although the odds of M.W. even being considered at such a time is laughable). He believes there should be two tiers of M.W. - one for teenagers taking their first foray into the Job World and one for adults. His stance is that M.W. is the American way of forcing the Scrooges of our country to at least make an effort to pay their employees an existence wage, and that France's economic policies have absolutely no bearing in the matter.

Now, do we continue, or have we all reached an understanding of views?

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2006 04:08:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bullet Points do not constitue a plan (none / 0)
I am a left.  Generally speaking, I vote for democrats.  Posting bullet points with no real plans is not grounds for taking back the country.  How exactly do we pland to lead, clean the environment, or do whatever feel good thing is on this list. 

I think it may be better to go point by point and prove in every case why the Republicans are not thinking about the people. 

Example - saying that giving billions of dollars in tax cuts to people who really do not need the extra income to survive is the best thing for the majority of people.  Do not misunderstand me some tax breaks to buisinesses that will use the money to create jobs with-in our borders is great.  But do the oil companies really need the extra profit?  I would bet if surveyed people in the middle class and below immediately put their refund back into our economy.  On the otherhand, the top 1% I would be willing to bet put it in the bank.  As such, which would stimulate the economy more - a thousand dollars to every middle class american or $100,000 to Paris Hilton?

by TeeB on 06/12/2006 07:23:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is Thirty-one still considered young? (none / 0)
KenTX,

As long as the dialouge stays open, and you old conservatives are also willing to learn new tricks.  I am more then happy to discuss the future of this great society that we are blessed to live in.

As for the $300 back - I actually got that money eventhough I had a taxable income of $0 in 2000/01, due to the fact I was still in school, and living off of my minimal savings. 

Do you really think I should have recieved that money? 

It is this type of wastefull bribery used to calm the masses that continues to make me wonder - how you can in any way associate yourself with the current leaders of state?  The masses may have loved the $300 they got back.  Since, I had not paid taxes in two years it seemed rather idiotic to me.  It is no wonder KBR and the like get away with spending our money like drunken sailors at a whore house!

by TeeB on 06/13/2006 04:00:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Out of context? (none / 0)
KenTX,

If you actually read you would have noticed that I also said that I did not earn any money in 2000 or 2001.  So since you are so much wiser then I please explain why I got money back from the government.  My point was that this was wasteful spending to gain votes for 2002. 

I agree that the $600 that the average person in the middle-class who paid taxes helped the economy.  In fact, my little chunk even helped the economy.  However, giving money to people who did not pay anything into the system is (If you are a conservative you will agree) ignorant.  Furthermore, giving extra money back to Paris Hilton and the remaining top two percent of our society was just as ignorant.

Once again, if you would like to stimulate the economy give the money to the middle-class they are the true majority of our country.  Giving tax refunds or tax breaks to people who either never paid into the system, or already have enough to live an upperclass life style for one, two, three, or more lifetimes is immoral, unless everyone is already living better the the richest person in the second world.

Before you parse words again KenTX.  This does not give us reason to eliminate safety nets.  If we are to be a shinning city on the hill, our lowerclass should be superior to the upperclass of any 2nd world society.  As such, we who are well off need to give the crumbs off of our table, so that the needy, sick, tired, weak, old, metally.physically challenged, or what the heck even lazy people can be better off in America then anywhere else in the world. 

In my opinion our one true goal as Americans should be:  To make this country without a shadow of a doubt the greatest country for anyone to live in, regardless of what class one belongs to.

by TeeB on 06/15/2006 12:46:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
BS Alert! (none / 0)
"The harder you work, the richer you’ll become."
BS

Countless millions have worked themselves to death and never achieved financial wealth. There have to be a few other factors in the mix.

"If you are poor in this country, and you want to rise to the middle class, or you want to rise even higher, there is nothing holding you back but yourself. "

More BS2...and Ken knows it, way down deep.

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 03:17:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gosh! (none / 0)
What a brilliant reply.

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2006 01:11:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well....YEAH! (none / 0)
Yes, you can rest assured that just about any reply I make to the suggestion that if I don't like my country the way it is, I should leave it to those who are fucking it up will be sarcastic in nature.

Just one of my many eccentricities...

"...but this twba guy is brilliant..."

Hmmm...

You usually reserve this sort of gushing for your own alter-egos. Are you spilling a bean or two?

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2006 07:44:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll tell ya... (none / 0)
The day I catch you referring to me as brilliant, I'll begin to wonder myself!

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2006 09:44:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A gardner with a 6 figure income? (none / 0)

Is that fuzzy math, or are the people that live around just unamerican fools? 

 For crying out loud pay some american that money. 

 Additionally, KenTX has now proven that he does not care about the imigration problem, or the rule of law! 

 If you are for border security KenTX, why not pick up the phone and call INS?

 You do realize that your lack of action is aiding a known criminal? 

Come on KenTX - Take a Bite out of crime!  Or are you too worried that your property value will decrease because your lazy ass nieghbor  is too good to work on her/his own yard.

by TeeB on 06/23/2006 06:14:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really - are you really trying? (none / 0)
KenTX,

You mean to tell me that you actually attempted to turn in your nieghbor, as well as the illeagal gardener only to be rebuffed with laughter?

I am guessing that you never even tried.  The same apathy you dispise in the so called lazy welfare recipient, yet you display it so well.  KenTX - the squeaky wheel gits the grease - pull up them boot straps and cal INS.  If they laugh get their names, and the call their boss.  If the boss laughs get their names, and call your Representative.  I could keep going, but I am guessing that you do not really care that much about an illeagal mowing your nieghbor's lawn. 

I am amazed that a good conservative like yourself would not be outraged by your nieghbors willingness to help a criminal.

The more I think about this - the more I am starting to doubt the conviction behind your wisdom.


As for la imigra:

How about instead of your wall - we open the borders to anyone who wishes to work here.  However, they must have a biometric id (using retinal scanning - perhaps in the future DNA), so that we can document all of the illeagals.  Additionally, illeagals must make minimum wage, and recieve any benefits offered to an american worker.  This would allow us to have a true database, so that we could actually monitor the guest worker population. 

Furthermore, we would impliment the Jail Policy for Owners/CEOs down to the head of human resources if applicable, as well as a 20% fine of final net profits per violation (so the company would not be closed by fines - at the worst they would be forced to operate non-profit).

As for the border, we would use video recognition technology, a few drones, pressure sensors, laser trip wires, and regular old border patrol agents.  Lock down the chances of criminals/evil doers from entering the country.

That is what a conservative and a liberal came up with together.  What do you think?

by TeeB on 06/29/2006 03:52:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why hate Paris? (none / 0)
Furthermore, giving extra money back to Paris Hilton and the remaining top two percent of our society was just as ignorant.

She buys a bottle of Dom and leaves a big tip. Rich people contribute to the economy more than poor people. The rich spend far more than the rest of us. What they don't spend goes in the bank. The bank lends it to a small business. The small business purchases capital equipment and places an advertisement in the paper to find an employee to operate the new equipment. The new employee gets a paycheck. It's all good.

by Twba on 06/16/2006 07:01:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really (none / 0)

Let's see how to rich people get rich.  They sell goods or services with a small mark up to cover expenses.  These are called profits.  The biggest companies Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Mcdonald's, Big Oil, etc. do not target the wealthy as their major market.  In fact, they target the middle class or below.  Due to this simple fact:

Let us say the top two percent of our country can be considered truly rich, i.e.  barring tragedy or corruption they can live the rich life till their deaths.  That means about  five million people are truly rich.  That leaves us with about 245 million people.  In order for the wealthy to contribute more to the economy they would have to spend $49 to every dollar that the rest of the country spends. 

Now let's say that 245 million only made $10,000 a year.  Since that is around the poverty line odds are this entire sum of money would be out back into the economy (i.e. nothing left to save).  That means the wealthy would need to spend about $1,342 per day to equal what a nation of poor people would put back into the economy.  Of course, $10,000 is well below the average yearly income in the United States.  My fiance and I are not wealthy, yet our household spends more then that on rent and our car payment alone. 

 Do you still think the Rich contribute more to the economy.  Heck, we would not have rich people without the working class to build the goods, or the white collar workers to sell the services.  In fact, the rich owe the poor a huge debt of gratitude, for without the poor, who would do the manual labor?

Keep in mind we had extremely wealthy people in the fifties when the wealthy were paying 90% of their income in taxes.  Guess what, they were still living better then everyone else.  By the way, during the fifties our middle class had the greatest purchasing power of any majority class in history.

 Do you still think the rich are the lynch pin of our economy?
 

by TeeB on 06/17/2006 05:21:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for rich people (none / 0)
Do you still think the Rich contribute more to the economy.

Yes, I do. There is more to contributing to the economy than spending your whole paycheck at Wal-Mart. There is the source of the paycheck. There is the money to start the company that cut your paycheck. Rich people have the money to invest in new businesses. How did Sam Walton raise the money to expand Wal-Mart? The proceeds from a public stock offering financed the expansion. Evil rich people invested in an IPO and became even richer when Wal-Mart succeeded. The poor owe a debt of gratitude to the rich investors who risked their money to start successful businesses.

by Twba on 06/17/2006 07:08:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are forgetting about out sourcing and repatriation (none / 0)
Look small buisiness contributed the most to our economy.  The vast majority of small buisiness owners do not fall into the category of super rich.  Most small buisiness to not grow into a Microsoft, or a Wal-Mart, or an Enron.  As such, the owners take great finacial risk everyday just to stay in buisiness.  During the period after 9-11 many returant owners had to take tremendous losses to stay open, so that thier employees would have a job, and the hope the people would return.  Owner operator truck drivers, lose income everytime the price of diesel rises.  the tech geek who figures out the better mouse trap and starts a new company.  These are great americans my friend.  The salt of the earth. 

On the otherhand, the mega rich put politicans into thier pockets.  Get repatriation laws thrown out -reap the rewards of no-bid government contracts - send the money overseas - so that they can bring the profits back at a fraction of the taxation. 

You are right - there is far more to it then what people spend.  I never figured in the BILIIONS of lost tax revenue.  Corporate greed is what the Republicans have led us back to.  Not since Hoover has our country's ideals been so out of whack. 

You do remember Hoover right?

by TeeB on 06/19/2006 05:46:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Remembering Hoover (none / 0)
You do remember Hoover right?

President Bush is the worst since Hoover.

by Twba on 06/19/2006 10:04:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe so, but don't forget... (none / 0)
"The poor owe a debt of gratitude to the rich investors who risked their money to start successful businesses."

"Cold, hard, cruel, honest, real-world truth."

It seems to me you guys have it ass-backwards. The Rich owe a HUGE debt - and more than just gratitude - to the poor, who worked their asses off to STAY poor while the rich pricks are out buying yachts.

Where would any of the Robber Barons be without the working stiffs making their dreams come true?

See, you guys just come at it from the wrong perspective, is all...:-)

by MedfordTim on 06/20/2006 04:03:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX all voices will be heard (none / 0)
All voices shall be heard! 


Some shall be mocked! 


Others shall be reasoned with!


Others will ignore!


Some (like you KenTX) will come to the light (we can hope)!


None shall be silenced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

by TeeB on 06/20/2006 05:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good! Keep it up! (none / 0)

KenTX,

 

I am so thrilled that you will be cntinue to give us your wisdom from the land where the hurricanes blow.

How about giving us a little of that compassionte conservatism I keep hearing about.  Lately, ou only seem to be talking about killing more people.

Keep talking - I know I will! 

 

by TeeB on 06/23/2006 06:26:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I take it you are not a Christian Republican (none / 0)

Just a guess.

 

  Your lack of desire to help the less fortunate implies that you are one of the unholy conservatives.  Or are you a christian by name only. 

 In the event that you are not a Christian - your ideals work wonderfully.

 In the event that you are - might I suggest rereading your Bible and asking for forgivness.

 By the way,

so·cial·ism n.

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 I am not for this system of government control.  I am a firm believer in regulating buisinesses, so that they do not think only of the bottom line.As I am sure you know a Corporation is boud to profit not to ethics.   As such , we the people (the government)  need to impose these ethics upon corporations.

 I too believe in our common goal, "To make this country without a shadow of a doubt the greatest country for anyone to live in, regardless of what class one belongs to.”

As such, we need to help those that are not achieving this goal.  Since, we the people are the government it is then the responsibilty of the government to reach out and help all of our brothers & sisters. 

It looks like you might be starting to come over the the Democratic Party.   

 I guess under that conservative shell you really are a prime candidat for the Democratic party.  Welcome!!

 

by TeeB on 06/17/2006 04:46:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Keep Talking - and even the thickest will get it. (none / 0)
The Democratic Party has already proven that they can run the govetnment better given the opportunity.  Additionally, the real problem is that the Republicans hold power in all of the branches.  Our government is designed to work slowly, so that things like the Patriot Act v.I & v.II do not get passed at the drop of a hat.  Furthermore there should be checks and balances.  I purpose if the Republicans are better at managing finances you Drunken Sailors can have the House.  The Democratic Party can Take the Senate and the Executive.  Time will tell on the Judicial Branch. 

Sound fair?

by TeeB on 06/12/2006 07:09:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
messin with the markets. (none / 0)
"
Minimum wage raises have NEVER caused unemployment. Nor do businesses fail because of a raise in Minimum Wage. Utter nonsense, as are most of your "points.""

....sure it hasn't. keep believing your own spin. Any intro econ class will cover price controls and discuss the minimum wage even when it is taught by the most liberal of professors. This is especially true when a nation raises its minimum wage above the market dictated price for low value\skill employees. There is a reason most jobs are willing to pay slightly more than what the USA sets its mimimum wage at- because if it set higher than that number it would cause substantial unemployment. If you think employers will jsut pay more, it's ownly because you're close minded on the subject.

Set the minimum wage something extreme like 15 dollars and hour and we'll see if it doesn't cause massive unemployment. This is as dumb as saying well let's set a minimum value of apples at 15 dollars an apple. You think consumers would buy a lot of them-no. A price floor on apples is no different than a price floor on employees.

by acroso on 06/12/2006 08:28:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Back it up. (none / 0)
"....sure it hasn't. keep believing your own spin. "

Prove it. Back up your assertions.

Stop making asinine hypotheticals and prove me wrong.

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 08:57:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let it be known-The world is round! (none / 0)
 

 

MedfordTim

Says “asinine hypotheticals”
 

You’ve been listening to too much Air America I suppose?
 

Here goes my attempt to explain the world is round!

 

Wilkepedia has a section on price floors and it uses the minimum wage as an example of on in its last paragraph.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Price_floor

 

Blue line- think of as demand for employees. (Employees want more workers if they can pay less)

Red line - think of as supply of employees (more workers want to work if they are paid more)

 

The dashed green line would be the minimum wage in the U.S. in most cases- below the market value. Both democrats and republicans in most cases set the minimum wage at a value low enough so it has little impact because it is lower than the going wage of a low value\skill worker.

 

The solid green line would be a minimum wage set too high that causes unemployment, and is an example of a price floor. Where the solid green line intersects the blue and red lines are where the new equilibrium is set on the second graph after the high minimum wage is set. You’ll notice the quantity of workers is lower on the X axis- aka unemployment.  The intersection of the blue line (the employers demand for to purchase employees) and green line (the floor) will determine the quantity of employees hired.

 

Understanding a price floor graphically is more important than some figure on a website correlating minimum wage with unemployment. But what I explained graphically is also supported in wilkepedia article itself. If you feel like reading more there is a link to the minimum wage- I didn’t click it but I’m sure it says the same thing…

 

In summaryà a high minimum wage above market value WILL cause unemployment.

by acroso on 06/12/2006 09:37:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
MedfordTim (none / 0)
MedfordTim

Even if you don't believe me we'll just let progressives do their thing and conservatives do theirs.

Bush has 4.7% unemployment; a figure of around 4% would be representative of full employment. This is because of static unemployment- people taking a few months of in transition between jobs. No matter how well you run your State, static unemployment is nearly impossible to get rid of.

I thoroughly believe that the longer your party maintains power, the harder and harder it becomes to win reelection. U.S. politics and World politics alike to always swing one way and the other because people get cranky and want change. Most presidential vote models of prediction subtract points based on how many years your party has had power when predicting presidential elections.

Eventually a dem will get power and if he\she is smart they will propose nothing more than a minor raise in minimum wage that leaves it well below the going wage for unskilled laborers. If the lib is dumb enough to do something drastic- don't worry we'll be there to criticize. I'm sure we'll get our chance soon!

by acroso on 06/12/2006 09:54:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Didn't think so... (none / 0)
Charts and theories aren't proof. All that is is  blah blah blah

Come back with empirical evidence that minimum wage laws have caused unemployment.

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 10:46:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I give up (none / 0)
Did you bother to read it? You can't prove anything when someone isn't willing to open their mind. It's like saying prove that trig function. Ok the person does a butch of derivations and shows you. Then you say- prove it!

It would be different if you said no...you are wrong because you assume such and such, and really it's like this. Or that reasoning is flawed because of this.

How about taking France and Germany as an example? Both of them have double digit unemployment figures due to an inflexible labor market that is at least similiar to what a very high min wage would do.

But I guess I give up. Since I am incapable of explaining it to you, you are incapable of understanding, or you are too close minded to consider it all, I can suggest is take a college level macro and micro class at a reputable school. If a person has made up his mind to believe a certain thing, they're going to think a certain thing. If a person doesn't believe in evolution, you can site a million things and it's not that they won't debate it but they will not even consider it.

by acroso on 06/12/2006 10:52:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cite (none / 0)
cite

by acroso on 06/12/2006 10:54:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't need your explanations. (none / 0)
I already KNOW the theories.

You give up because I ask you for PROOF??

The law was enacted in 1938. It has 70 years of history. And you cannot show that any increase in the minimum wage has led to higher unemployment.


Don't take France or Germany as examples - they have different economic set-ups. Apples and Oranges. Use American History to prove your statement, "... but in terms of actually helping anyone all it will do is cause unemployment."

Get off that high condecsending horse of yours, and do what you've been trying to wiggle out of for the past few posts. Admit you are talking out of your ass and don't have ANY basis for your assertion, or...prove it.


I notice you had no patronizing comment when I showed you the proof of the National Debt (almost) doubling as opposed to your "maybe $1 trillion added." See, I didn't bother trying to explain the theory of why you might be wrong if this happens or that happens, I presented facts to PROVE you wrong. Facts that show YOU have a closed mind to reality.
 
I also noticed that you lasered in on the Minimum Wage aspect instead of Congress giving themselves a raise. So, you're not opposed to wealthy bastards giving themselves a few extra thousand a year, but deny a working single mother a living wage? How utterly Republican of you...

by MedfordTim on 06/12/2006 11:20:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
policos (none / 0)
MedFordTim-

My main rational for believing price floors don't work was from college econ taught to me by liberal professors. If you don't buy into my reasoning or have already made up your mind then I can't help you.

As for the debt- I just guessed at a trillion perhaps two trillion off the top of my head. You said it had already doubled, which I thought false, but then you changed it to being set to double by 2008. I'm not sure on that but I find it entirely possible plus or minus a trillion or two.

Living wage- is raising the minimum wage the only way to achieve a living wage? Like I said I don't oppose minor increases in the minimum wage- its more for political purposes than actually achieving anything. I do oppose setting the minimum wage above market values too, however, because I oppose massive unemployment. Since you don't buy into this I can see why you would want to raise it.

Raises for politicains- I could care less. What's a reasonable salary for them- 80K? I imagine making a descent salary helps the senators that aren't super rich already.....

by acroso on 06/12/2006 11:48:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See how you are? (none / 0)
"I do oppose setting the minimum wage above market values"

The only people who ever talk about raising the minimum wage to a place above "market value" (nebulous term, that, eh?) are Right Wingers who are opposed to ANY increase. "Why not make it $25? $50?" says Rush and his head bobbers, as though that would be what would happen - leading to overstatements such as yours that Minimum Wage Increases Cause Unemployment. A fabrication based on blah blah blah. Garbage In Garbage Out. The only way your scenario works is to overinflate the minimum, giving falsely intensified results.

"...is raising the minimum wage the only way to achieve a living wage?"

 Why, NO, come to think of it. We can close our eyes, click our heels together three times and make a big wish for Employers to start paying people more. That oughtta work. Especially among those Restaurant bastards who only pay their help $2.13 an hour. (That should be a frickin' crime.) You know, all these employers who NEVER pay more than minimum wage and the only way an employee GETS a raise is if minimum wage goes up. I'm sure they'll be happy to change their ways after reading your argument.

"...more for political purposes than actually achieving anything..."

It would achieve a better standard of living for at least 1.1 Million people - and unlike the billions given to the ultra-rich, this is money that will immediately be used to stimulate a couple of personal economies.

"What's a reasonable salary for them- 80K?" 

The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year. Since the Minimum Wage was set at $5.15 an hour ($10,712 annually), congress has given themselves raises totaling $28,500 per year. More than the combined yearly wages of two Minimum Wage workers.

"You said it had already doubled, which I thought false, but then you changed it to being set to double by 2008."

Okay, In this case, we're both wrong & right. I was thinking in terms of the Bush Administration Years as a whole, not in two year chunks, and as of now, the debt hasn't yet doubled. It's only gone up about $3 Trillion (only!), a little more than your original guess. (btw, the CBO has projected that with current borrowing rates - all okayed by Republicans - the National Debt will be $12.828 Trillion by 2016. I'm so glad you prefer "borrow and spend" to "tax and spend" - it's worlds better than actually paying the bill, isn't it? And our grandchildren will be just ever so thrilled at the bill we present them.

Maybe you read this in March:
With no fanfare, President Bush signed a bill Monday pushing the ceiling on the national debt to nearly $9 trillion.
The measure allows the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on Treasury notes. It also lets the government pay for the war in Iraq without raising taxes or cutting popular domestic programs.

The debt limit increase was the fourth of Bush's presidency, totaling $3 trillion. With the budget deficit near record levels, an additional increase in the debt limit almost certainly will be required next year.

The measure allows the debt limit to rise from $8.184 trillion to $8.965 trillion.


The reason I thought you might have read it is 'cause it's from Newsmax...

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2006 02:23:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My high condescending horse is faster than yours (none / 0)
The law was enacted in 1938. It has 70 years of history. And you cannot show that any increase in the minimum wage has led to higher unemployment.

For many years it has been a matter of conventional wisdom among economists that the minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would be the case without it. This is simply a matter of price theory, taught in every economics textbook, requiring no elaborate analysis to justify. Were this not the case, there would be no logical reason why the minimum wage could not be set at $10, $100, or $1 million per hour. [Link]

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent. [Link]

The minimum wage reduces employment among unskilled workers, especially black teenagers.

Don't take France or Germany as examples - they have different economic set-ups. Apples and Oranges.

Oranges should recognize what the apple has done wrong and not make the same mistake.

by Twba on 06/13/2006 11:21:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Welcome, latecomer! (none / 0)
Thank you for making my point, Twba. I knew I could count on you.

Your first quote is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that gets repeated by Rushophiles. Idiocy at it's finest, because it means absolutely nothing. (see: See how you are?  earlier in this thread) No surprise it comes from Republican Congressmen.

"The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected." Substitute the the more correct "lowest paid workers" for the incredibly perjorative "marginal" and "fiscally responsible" for the negative intention behind "shrewd" and you have exactly what Minimum Wage is intended to accomplish! And, the writer backs me up that "price floors" are irrelevant because no one ever has or ever will suggest a minimum wage that would statistically affect the "price floor" barrier. It is a non-issue in Minimum Wage discussions.


The link you provided on balck teenagers* was a great source of laughter. I hope this guy wasn't your professor. In looking at only minimum wage for his conclusions regarding black teenage unemployment, he shows an incredible lack of scope regarding the whole problem. Does he take into account changes in Workplace Safety laws that eliminated whole classes of employment opportunities for teenagers due to "safety" concers - jobs that were entry level, minimum wage laws? Does he examine the effect of Insurance Costs to businesses and how they have grown into a much larger factor in determining hiring practices overall? Many, many more factors unexplored - his conclusions are based on incomplete data. Bush would love him, just his kind of advisor.


Or, let's pretend for a moment that everything he claims is prima facie factual. Are you trying to argue against my overall point that Minimum Wage raises do not cause unemployment to rise by slicing off a small portion of people who are affected negatively and apply it to the population as a whole? Do you really want to travel down that path? Careful! Lots of potholes to fall into.

(If you'd like to make a case for LOWER minimum wages for under 18ers, I could probably help you out in your case. I'm all for it.)

Regarding your "Oranges" link. I found the most telling and least examined sentence in the entire article to be: "Prior to the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand" So were ALL wages, right? And people started noticing that there were unscrupulous characters out there working people to death for slave wages. Coal miners who "owed their soul to the company store." Sweatshop workers making pennies a day.

And even though, yes, the original 1931 laws were white-centered racist in nature, minimum wage laws were and ARE recognized as the ONLY stopgap for the moral and philosophical descendents of those unscrupulous characters.

Whew! That was fun!



____________
* Did you put the link on each word on purpose? If you didn't know, you can highlight the whole phrase and make it one big link. Or did you underline each word to signify it's "linkiness" (Take THAT, Stephen Colbert!) No big deal, just wondering.

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2006 03:28:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Different links, Tim (none / 0)
* Did you put the link on each word on purpose? If you didn't know, you can highlight the whole phrase and make it one big link. Or did you underline each word to signify it's "linkiness" (Take THAT, Stephen Colbert!) No big deal, just wondering.

I underlined each seperate link. I didn't just dredge up one link. You can have all the fun want. It isn't only one economic professor who recognizes that the minimum wage outlaws employment contracts below a price floor and that the result is more unemployment of marginal workers.

by Twba on 06/13/2006 10:11:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oooh! (none / 0)
Cool. thanks for pointing that out, I assumed they all went to the same link. I'll have fun reading.

Of course, you know it won't help.

I'm stubborn that way...

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2006 11:13:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wilkepedia - is not credible (none / 0)
Heads-up

Wilkepedia has information that is put in by anyone at any time.  Do your reasearch give us three to four credible sources to back up your arguement and we can talk.

Otherwise, I am hard pressed to believe anything written in a blog.  Even if I wrote it.

by TeeB on 06/13/2006 04:11:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Viva la Reagan Revolución (none / 0)
Sometimes the truth just seems like a lie for a liberal. I think we can agree to disagree on this minimum a wage issue.
When a dems gets power, and they will get power soon, maybe we’ll get to see the continuation of your theories? One of the problems is that the democrats in the USA are much smarter than their wide eyed crazed liberals of South America for example. When of those real leftists seize power they thoroughly make a mess. It's hard to go after Clinton or the next lefty when they raise the minimum wage in moderation like a republican would think appropriate, and it has little or negligible effects on jobs. I hope the next dem has your judgment instead tho!
As for the Bush debt- We have a smoken economy but it’s on credit for the most part in my opinion. Bush has done fairly well on the tax cutting side but very poor on the spending restraint side. I miss Reagan in that sense. However Reagan appointed to bad justices- O’Connor and Kennedy. Bush is 2 for 2 and about to get a third this summer. Conservatives may be able to overlook such things. Had Kerry been elected there would now be 7 liberals and an aging Scalia and Thomas left by themselves. He would have destroyed the conservative movement. I really could care less what Bush had to do to get reelected. Raise the min raise. Prescription drugs massive entitlement, whatever just get elected and start appointed judges.

by acroso on 06/13/2006 09:13:09 AM EST

A smokin economy (none / 0)
75,000 new jobs last month - Smokin'

Americans are spending more then they are saving - Smokin'

Foriegn countries own greater than 40% of our debt - Smokin'

At current rates Bush & the so called "Conservative Republicans" will have doubled the national debt in  just 8 short years - Smokin'

Inflation continues to climb at an increasing rate - Smokin'

46,000,000 Americans with-out health insurance - Smokin'

By Smokin' do you mean the Economy is doing wonderful?

By Smokin' do you mean the Economy is high on dope? 

By Smokin' do you mean the Economy is a forrest fire that will soon engulf itself?

By Smokin' do you mean the Economy is doing better then it did in the 90's?

By Smokin' do you mean the Economy is on the virge of collapse?

Sorry, I am just checking on your meaning of the word Smokin'?

by TeeB on 06/13/2006 04:22:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
inflation (none / 0)
"Inflation continues to climb at an increasing rate - Smokin'"

inflation has been very low throughout the Bush administration. There's some speculation that it might be ticking up right now, but Bernake has made it clear he will raise interests rates (and indirectly slow economic growth) in order to fight inflation. I imagine inflation will stay very low.

As for the deficit\debt- yes it's bad news.

by acroso on 06/13/2006 05:00:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba, continuing here! (none / 0)
Well, I thought I was in for some fun reading, but I didn't make it past the first link. You could not have provided me with a better example. Thank you.

The article portions are italicized. This article is from WSJ OpinionJournal Let's go through it a step at a time. I will point out the parts I find objectionable. Kick back, light one, pop a top, pour a cup, whatever. This is gonna take awhile (I'm in a verbose mood. You have been warned.)

These are my opinions. I believe them to be true through my many years of experience at being at the bottom of the rung (not complaining - cest la vie) Strapped in? Here we go!

John Kerry says he wants to raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour from $5.15, and his proposal has us thinking: Why stop there? Why not $10 an hour, or $20, or for that matter whatever a U.S. Senator makes?

See? It starts immediately with building the Straw Man.

why not simply elevate everyone at least into the middle class?

And so the last straw is inserted, and The Man becomes fully formed. Why not? Because, as I am certain that the author and all you readers out there know, Minimum Wage was never intended to elevate anyone to the "middle class" - it is intended to keep people - workers, mind you! - out of the "abject poverty" class. But that doesn't stop this same asinine, inane question from popping up somewhere in every discussion on the issue. It is a sleight-of-hand trick; argue about irrational hypotheticals so we can avoid the heart of the issue.

Businesses hire and pay workers what they think their skills are worth relative to other ways they can spend their capital.

Ah! Were that only true at the Minimum Wage level. The reality is that businesses who depend on minimum wage workers think mainly of how to pay them even less. They are notorious for offering no benefits, and they usually keep people at less than full time for tax reasons. They can almost always find a way to squeeze free time out of their employees. Meanwhile, most completely reputable businesses start people at wages higher than the current minimum wage.

...but even they ("Kerry economists") don't deny that some people may lose their jobs--which is why they don't want to raise the minimum too high (Author's emphasis). The debate is over how many poor people Mr. Kerry would throw out of work.

This supposes that anyone has ever had the fiscal irresponsibility of even suggesting an unreasonable amount as a sustaining wage. As I have noted elsewhere, there may be a slight dip that self corrects in a few months. There has never been a case of massive unemployment or a rash of business failures due to a minimum wage increase. It's like that story a friend of a friend told about a guy he knew. Everybody's heard the story, but no one ever met the original guy. We have heard the same boogeyman stories every time a Minimum Wage debate comes up, and the "Massive Job Loss and Business Closure Monster" appears as often as The Great Pumpkin.

******Last Minute Update *********
To answer this question, you first have to look at who earns the minimum wage. The Labor Department believes that 1.5% of the work force, or 2.1 million people, earn $5.15 an hour or less.

I won't argue his numbers other than to say the Labor Department numbers I read said 1.1 million workers at the Federal $5.15 or lower, 5 million at various higher rates due to differences in state minimums.

********* see bottom note about this section ********

More than half of them are under the age of 25...

...which, of course, means that the other half is over 25... 

meaning they are likely working a temporary or entry-level job.

And so the logical conclusion is that it's perfectly acceptable if you are under 25 and working an entry level job to try and live on $893 a month (before taxes)

Lest we forget, there are also all those over 25er's who are probably NOT working an entry or temp job. It is their livlihood.

Three-fifths are in the leisure and hospitality industry, which means in jobs that often come with tips in addition to wages.

But THOSE wages in most of America can be as low as $2.13 an hour. Raise your hand if you think it is equitable for the boss to NOT HAVE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR WORK. Want to talk about a free ride? Get this...$5.15 an hour minus $2.13 and hour leaves $3.02 an hour that the owner is paying himself to "let" the employee work there. These people come to a job and put in their time like anyone else - Why The FUCK should they be screwed over this badly? The Government will tax them an automatic 8% of their gross salary because some economist thought that was a good "average" for tips. Guess what? If the average is 8%, that means half make above that in tips (good for them!), but it also means that half don't. And those who don't make 8% average on tips have to keep diaries of tip amounts to prove to the IRS that they DIDN'T make that much.

Every customer becomes a new "boss" that the worker has to depend on for wages. There is a provision that if the worker's tips don't come up to minimum wage, the employer makes up the difference. This leads to things like "All tips go into a communal jar and divied up at the end of the night." The boss is in charge of distribution, and will know to the penny how much in tips the employee needs so the boss won't have to dig into his own pocket to cover their wages. 

There are many other rackets out there. Ask a few waitresses about horror stories - they've all got 'em!

Studies have also shown that most people earning the minimum wage are not poor--more than one-third live with a parent or relative. Only 15% are the sole breadwinner in a family with children.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? But then a question arises...how many of that "more than one-third live with a parent or relative" do so because they only make $893 a month and can't afford to move out??
"Only" 15% in a family with children. Oh, good, only 15%. Whew! I can sleep better at night knowing there are "only" 15% of minimum wage families of two or more. That's only a few hundred thousand children, right? Gosh, there for a minute my bleeding heart thought it detected a problem, but if it's only a few hundred thousand kids, what the hell.

Right?

These low-paying jobs are important because they are a gateway into the world of work for people who lack experience and skills.

True, Some are. But some are the kind that when it comes WAY past time to get a raise above the minimum, they get fired. Or, stay at minimum and keep their job.

One study showed that, of a sample of workers earning minimum wage, fully 63% were already making more a year later.

"One study," huh? Fine. We'll take that at face value. What that also means is that 36% were stuck at the same low wage. Using his previous numbers, that means only 693,000 people were at the lowest possible amount allowable by law all year long. Odds are, they are the same 36% from previous years...and will represent the same 36% in the coming years.

The truly unfortunate are those who cannot find work at all. These tend to be the least skilled Americans, which means the young, or the poorly educated.

Why are these two sentences included? How is it intended to be an argument against raising the M.W.? And why does the author think it's relevant to the next two sentences, which followed in the paragraph?

It's no accident that under current minimum wage levels the unemployment rate for teenagers is 17.2%, three times the national average. For black teenagers it is a scandalously high 32.5%.

Right, I agree. It's no "accident." Juat one example of a "non-accident" are Child Labor Laws which prevent teenagers (under 18) from getting jobs in restaurants or practically any job that uses a mechanical device - because that is what an employer needs. It's not a wage issue, it's a liability issue. Another thing: People need employees. One of that 50% (or so) of over 25er's comes in at the same time as a teenager. They both need jobs and are willing to work for M.W. Who do YOU think has the advantage in landing that job?

Please, Dear Reader, tell me you see the fallacy of laying a 32% unemployment rate among Black youth completely at the doorstep of Minimum Wage. Do we really need a background in Urban Flight, Neighborhood Blight, and Lack of Investment in the areas where the highest concentrations of Black youth unemployment exist to understand how wrong-headed a conclusion that is? Minimum Wage should be way, WAY down on the list of problems to overcome in that area (but it wouldn't hurt the 68% of Black youth who ARE employed at minimum wage to get a raise...)

Bill Clinton's Small Business Administration followed a group of workers after the last increase in the minimum wage, in 1997, and found it slowed wage growth at small businesses and more than doubled the likelihood that low-wage workers at large firms would be unemployed.

Do NOT give that man a cigar! Close only counts in horse shoe, hand grenades, and atom bombs. It doesn't count in opinion pieces by the WSJ. We will examine the report he is referring to. We shall bold those passages for easier differentiation.

"it slowed wage growth at small businesses" is a slight variation of :
In small firms, there was less wage growth among low-wage workers precisely when the new higher wage rates went into effect. This means that although small firms were somewhat more likely than larger firms to keep their lower paid employees, the growth in their wages was negatively affected.

Not all rosy, granted, but can we stop with "Minimum Wage causes small businesses to fail!" now? Thank you.

more than doubled the likelihood that low-wage workers at large firms would be unemployed.

Eh, (chomp chomp chomp) not so fast, Bub. I saw you slip that card up your sleeve. The author is clearly trying to make it seem as though that the "doubling" would be through layoffs or firing - but the report gives me a slightly different conclusion:

Among low-wage workers in large firms, the probability of not being employed more than doubled during the period when the minimum wage was increased.

This means that in some cases low-wage individuals were less likely to obtain employment in large companies when minimum wage ceilings were raised. (March 1996 to March 1997, a period when the minimum wage rate rose from $4.25 to $4.75 per hour.)


Notice the qualifyer - "obtain" not "lose their current position." See, they're saying that they wouldn't BE employed in the first place, thereby negating the "low-wage workers at large firms would be unemployed" claim because they are NOT workers at large firms, they are APPLICANTS at large firms. As such, they are likely already unemployed...

That's it. The rest of the article doesn't strike me as having anything worthwhile to add here, but all readers are encouraged to go to the originals and read them yourself.


Last minute odd aside - and I really don't know what to make of it. Very bothersome. The numbers I showed at the top and the ones from the WSJ article are both from the Bureau of Labor, and not really that far apart from each other...but this SBA report claims In 1997, there were 16.6 million workers (about 15 percent of all workers) earning the minimum hourly wage of $5.15 or below. And that does NOT jibe. Other numbers are way off also. It's a 2000 report, and if there had been that incredibly drastic a lowering of workers making M.W.-16.6 to 1.6 Mil - you can be sure that the Bush Administration would be trumpeting it loud and often - and I would finally have something indisputably positive to say about them. I think I need to spend more time on this report...

As it is, I only used what the author referenced, so the points remain valid even if the actual numbers are slightly off, as they will be off by the same degree in both of our analysis..es...analasees... opinions.

**********
Okay, I figured it out. The author was using this info while my reference was in a footnote (#1) here (That's what I get for not double checking Heritage Foundation numbers - I should know better, I should!)

The REAL numbers (oddly, from the source the author used, but got slightly wrong in a way that bolstered his contention) are:
Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers

The author said "The Labor Department believes that 1.5% of the work force, or 2.1 million people, earn $5.15 an hour or less."

Now, is "1.5% of the workforce" the same as "2.7% of all hourly paid workers"? I don't know, and it's fairly inconsequential since the actual numbers are close enough. What I find a bit more shocking is that 3 times more people are making LESS than Minimum Wage than are actually being paid the M.W. How can THAT be, you should wonder? Has the definition of "minimum" changed?

The Heritage numbers were WAY off. What a shock...

Okay, that's it. If you'd like to see a fairly interesting M.W. breakdown by Characteristics, click here

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 02:54:00 AM EST

Keeping score (none / 0)
See? It starts immediately with building the Straw Man.

Is it really a straw man argument to point out that raising the minimum wage to 30 bucks per hour would cause economic harm to many people?

Meanwhile, most completely reputable businesses start people at wages higher than the current minimum wage.

You get what you pay for with supply and demand, even in the labor market, and make no mistake, it is a market like any other.

Every customer becomes a new "boss" that the worker has to depend on for wages.

Oh, the horror of having to satisfy the customer. I bet it really sucks to have to fix cars right the first time in order to keep people coming back to your auto repair shop and paying fifty bucks an hour for labor on top of the price of parts.

Whew! I can sleep better at night knowing there are "only" 15% of minimum wage families of two or more.

They qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing and other stuff that should make you sleep better.

Tim understands Supply and Demand, Price Floors, etc... He believes there should be two tiers of M.W. - one for teenagers taking their first foray into the Job World and one for adults.

So, you admit that a minimum wage law is detrimental to teenagers entering the labor market. For those keeping score at home, Acroso 1 MedfordTim nil.

by Twba on 06/14/2006 07:17:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ha! (none / 0)
Is it really a straw man argument to point out that raising the minimum wage to 30 bucks per hour would cause economic harm to many people?

Well...YES! When a discussion STARTS with a nonsense premise, that is pretty much the definition of a Straw Man. Something intended to distract from the real issue - which is not "Well, why not 30 bucks an hour?"

You get what you pay for with supply and demand, even in the labor market, and make no mistake, it is a market like any other.

And do you understand that as a "perfect model" S&D is wonderful, but it depends on everyone "playing fair." And as soon as it gets off the drawing board and starts being practiced by Human Beings, the "perfect model" becomes the "perverted model," because some Human Beings don't play fair.

Oh, the horror of having to satisfy the customer.

You do realize that that is their job, right? That they have to do it whether the customer leaves a tip or not? But, let me make sure I understand your point of view...using your analogy, but completing it to match the situation of a boss not paying the wage.


You go to that auto repair shop, get your car fixed, pay the parts and labor to the shop, and then the repairman who worked on your car comes to you to get paid. "I already paid," you say, and drive merrily down the road. Behind you, waving gently, is the employee who will be pais an incredibly low amount and the government will charge him 8% on the tip you DIDN'T leave him.


I just deleted a couple of paragraphs, because I realized that if you can't understand the basic inequity of an employer not paying an employee even the MINIMUM and puts it on the cistomer to MAYBE make up the difference, it ain't worth hittin' the keys.

They qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing and other stuff that should make you sleep better.

Yeah, that subsidized housing...Hey, Wait A Minute! I'm on that list, aren't I? I put my name on the list in February of 2003. As of last August, the list was down to July of 2002 - Oops! But then Katrina came along and ALL Housing lists were frozen, so until AT LEAST the end of June, the list will stay at July of 2002. With any luck, I might get that subsidized housing before I die! One program's list was closed to new applicants because they had a list 20 years out.

Food stamps do help. I know I appreciate the $40 bucks a month (That is NOT sarcasm. I really do appreciate it), and I know I enjoy my four-times-a-year filling out the forms again, to make sure I am not making "too much" to qualify (There WAS some sarcasm in that part) Still, It's those first-Wednesday-of-the-mont h I look forward to, so I can visit the Food Share people. You know, some months there's even a few week old donuts!

And I would even qualify for Health Care - if only the damn government didn't pay me $50 a month too much - see, that puts me at $50 a month over the poverty level, which is where I need to be to qualify. Good thing I'm a Vet!

 one for teenagers taking their first foray into the Job World and one for adults.

So, you admit that a minimum wage law is detrimental to teenagers entering the labor market. For those keeping score at home, Acroso 1 MedfordTim nil.

I'm glad you're not the OFFICIAL scorekeeper. Since that was not my point at all, I expect you will remove it immediately. And there would STILL BE a minimum, but I have no problem with the notion that an employer is offering valuable workspace experience to the youngster and the employee is GAINING valuable experience. Quid pro quo. Again (hammer, hammer, hammer) there are many more obstacles that make employers choose "over 18ers" than just minimum wage.

So, no. I do NOT think a minimum wage is "detrimental" to teenagers.

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 09:24:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Acroso 1 MedfordTim 0 (none / 0)
Again (hammer, hammer, hammer) there are many more obstacles that make employers choose "over 18ers" than just minimum wage.

You are correct that it is not the only one, but minimum wage is an obstacle.

I'm glad you're not the OFFICIAL scorekeeper.

You conceded the debate when you acknowledged that raising the minimum wage to 25 or 50 bucks an hour would cause economic harm. If you're fighting for a raise in the minimum wage, you have to show that the upside outweighs the downside. The downside is the lack of jobs for the unskilled. The reason you don't recognize unemployment related to raising the minimum wage is that you make the mistake of assuming that the unemployment is in the form of pink slips; it is in the form of factories built in China instead of Mississippi.

by Twba on 06/14/2006 10:33:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How the fuck do you figure that? (none / 0)
You conceded the debate when you acknowledged that raising the minimum wage to 25 or 50 bucks an hour would cause economic harm

That was NEVER THE FUCKING "DEBATE"!

The "debate" was that Minimum Wage RAISES cause economic "harm" and he (and YOU) immediately jump in with lunacy with a stupid argument that has NO FUCKING BASIS IN REALITY.

Raising the price of cars by a million dollars would cause "economic harm" too, but raising the price $50 WON'T.

Stop being such a dipshit.

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 10:59:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tihspid (none / 0)
Raising the price of cars by a million dollars would cause "economic harm" too, but raising the price $50 WON'T.

So, lowering the price of a car by fifty bucks is no help?

by Twba on 06/14/2006 11:20:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did I miss it? (none / 0)
Has someone suggested LOWERING the Minimum Wage?

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 01:47:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fifty ain't what it used to be? (none / 0)
One minute you're telling me that you're poor, the next that fifty buck price increases make no difference.

by Twba on 06/14/2006 03:24:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again with the bad analogy... (none / 0)
You two want to play around with "What if it was $30?", which might be a fun discussion - as long as you realize that it is FANTASY.

Are you both really playing around the notion of doing away with the Minimum Wage altogether but not coming right out and saying it?

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 07:14:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Trust in the market, Luke. (none / 0)
Are you both really playing around the notion of doing away with the Minimum Wage altogether but not coming right out and saying it?

No. I'm coming out and saying it. There should be no minimum wage.

by Twba on 06/14/2006 07:33:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Refreshing (none / 0)
I will simply repeat my mantra...

"Pure Capitalism is as toxic to a Society as Pure Socialism."

Hmmm....isn't there supposed to be a "balance" in The Force?

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 08:36:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Minimum toxicity (none / 0)
"Pure Capitalism is as toxic to a Society as Pure Socialism."

You seem so sure that removing governmental permission to pay a waitress two bucks an hour will turn out so badly. I know this is going to shock you, but she can quit her job. We are not in the middle of the Dust Bowl; there are positions available all over this nation. Watered-down capitalism has already proven that greedy bastards have to compete with other greedy bastards in the employment market. A greedy bastard can't get rich without employees. The worker has tremendous power in a capitalistic system.  We're past owing our souls to the company store.

Getting rid of the minimum wage law is hardly anarcho-capitalism, Tim. There would still be laws preventing violence and police to enforce those laws. That's not toxic.

by Twba on 06/15/2006 02:08:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A day without a Mexican (none / 0)
I have no way of knowing how much her greedy bastard would have to offer her to show up for work. If she was hanging drywall and every illegal immigrant disappeared tomorrow, twenty bucks an hour might be low. I support border security and knowing exactly who enters the country. I also support the act of entering this country to work a job. Immigration for employment should be legal.

They have to pay hamburger flippers ridiculously high wages because of the severe labor shortage.

The greedy bastard who runs the Wendy's close to my house is offering eight and a half bucks an hour and the competing greedy bastard at McDonald's is offering eight bucks plus medical insurance and matching 401k.

...if every illegal alien disappeared tommorrow.

We would be in a pinch, wouldn't we? Those workers are a vital part of our dynamic economy.

by Twba on 06/15/2006 03:02:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ahem... (none / 0)
"We're past owing our souls to the company store."

Um...and why do you think that might be?

(It's a rhetorical question, meant as a statement of irony. Please don't feel the need to respond. Just think about it for awhile...)

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 03:23:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Explanations R Us (none / 0)
I want Tim from South Medford to agree that illegal aliens are driving down wages that employers are currently paying to low-wage employees. Then, I want Tim to explain to us why the Democrat Party is doing NOTHING about border security.

Get your damn facts straight! I live in the DOWNTOWN section of Medford (Technically, although "Downtown" is really about 6 blocks East)! So THERE!! (South Medford is about 6 blocks...uh...south..., West Medford, ya gotta go past Columbus Ave, about 4 blocks thataway)

I'm not sure how far "illegal aliens" are driving the minimum wage down...are you referring to that old "Supply and Demand" thing, where if workers come along who will work cheaper, employers are likely to hire them? I have no problem agreeing that. I thought you were in favor of that. Did I miss the point? (on purpose?)

To all who might read this, Ken knows that I am an "open borders" advocate and don't really see a problem with "border security" as it is now - except maybe too stingent with the silly new passport law. He's just poking fun at me. He also knows I am an Independent who doesn't understand why Democrats do or don't do a LOT of things they do.

BTW - have you read the WorldNet article:
 "Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?
Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"

Here's a taste:

 Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration has launched extensive working-group activity to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada.

The membership of the working groups has not been published, nor has their work product been disclosed, despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The groups, working under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, are to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005


...I love it when Bush stabs you guys in the back like this. Whaddya think? Will this drive his poll numbers up in the Border states? Think the Minutemen (who were named by their wives and girlfriends, btw...) will be holding a fundraiser and invite him to speak? Hoo-hoo! No wonder he's been so adamant about his plan - he's already made deals that you don't know about. Sooooo unlike him, eh?

laughing

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 04:29:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 0)
I think you just sold me my own vaccuum...
That I understand Supply & Demand was never in question, was it?

I would love to see a time when a MW law was irrelevant. Until that time comes, keep it current.

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 09:41:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If the employers are the problem why the wall (none / 0)

So go after the employers. 

 If there is a shortage of labor, why not pay people on welfare in other parts of the country to go work down their. 

As for the Mexicans building houses.  that is thanks to you conservatives and your willingness to give no-bid contracts to companies that hire illeagals.  Thanks for helping US citzens.

 As for the Democratic Party.  What are they doing?  Seriously, get a clue Dems start standing up the the workers and you will get elected.  Let's face it when it comes down to votes it is all about body count (unless of course you fix the election).   Stop worrying about raising money, and start worrying about improving the state of the nation.

by TeeB on 06/17/2006 05:37:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Dazzler (none / 0)
Something intended to distract from the real issue - which is not "Well, why not 30 bucks an hour?"

This is the real issue. If 30 is high enough to cause serious harm and 0 is too low, where is the happy medium? How high can it go without causing harm? What is the tipping point? Prove it. Back up your assertions. Charts and theories aren't proof. All that is blah blah blah. Dazzle us with your brilliance, MedfordTim.

by Twba on 06/14/2006 04:57:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
minimum wage (none / 0)
What MedfordTim doesn't understand is that your salary has nothing to do with what the minimum wage is as I tried to explain above.

by acroso on 06/14/2006 06:16:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From Econ 101 to American History.. (none / 0)
Something intended to distract from the real issue - which is not "Well, why not 30 bucks an hour?"

This is the real issue. If 30 is high enough to cause serious harm and 0 is too low, where is the happy medium?


At the percentage it was in 1997, with annual COLAs.

As proof, I offer History. Has any implementation of a higher minimum wage caused an economic meltdown in the U.S.? No. Have hundreds of small businesses gone under whenever it was raised? No. Is there more money circulating through the economy when they are raised? Yes.


Thanks for such an easy question.

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 06:51:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Different question (none / 0)
Have hundreds of small businesses gone under whenever it was raised?

Have hundreds of small businesses never been started when it was raised? Have thousands of factories opened in China instead of here after the minimum wage was increased?

by Twba on 06/14/2006 07:01:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
min wage (none / 0)
"1. Do we have 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S., and more pouring in every day to take low wage jobs? Yes"

Ken

That's an excellent point. The senate bill gives amnesty to 20 million and opens the flood gates to 100 million more uneducated immigrants who will be doing cheap labor and driving the market value for unskilled workers WAY down.

by acroso on 06/14/2006 07:17:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whew! (none / 0)
Uh, Ken?

Patrick Kennedy can recommend a good drying out facility...


Sheesh!

by MedfordTim on 06/14/2006 07:19:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Keep Talking to Republicans - Eventually, they may catch on! | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: