[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

The inflationary offsets of MW, combined with fewer jobs at the bottom rung, make the poor more poor. In effect, it is aid to those that make about 10-16/hr off the backs of those at the lowest rung: reverse robin hood. Take from the poor and give to those not quite so poor.

Those are the talking points, but I have to disagree...

October 25, 2006 | EPI Briefing Paper #178

Minimum wage trends
Understanding past and contemporary research

by Liana Fox

There is a growing view among economists that the minimum wage offers substantial benefits to low-wage workers without negative effect. Although there are still dissenters, the best recent research has shown that the job loss reported in earlier analyses does not, in fact, occur when the minimum wage is increased. There is little question that the overall impact of a minimum wage is positive, as the following facts make clear:

If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:
o 14.9 million workers would receive a raise,
o 80% of those affected are adults age 20 or over, and
o 7.3 million children would see their parents income rise.
Families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half of their earnings.
46% of all families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers.
Some minimum wage workers remain in low-wage jobs for substantial periods.
The best recent research on the economic impact of the minimum wage shows positive effects without job loss.
Even the research that suggests a negative labor market effect shows only a minimal impact that is more than offset by the higher wage levels.
The states that have adopted higher-than-federal minimum wages have seen low-wage workers’ incomes rise with no negative side-effects.
Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed” (EPI 2006).
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp178

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

If you want to REALLY help the poorest of the poor, a better proposition would be to close the border and access to millions of workers that undercut the lowest rung of the work ladder.

I certainly can't disagree with that.

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

There is NO job Americans won't do: there are just jobs they won't do for 3 bucks/hr.

And this brings up back to the minimum wage. If you think farm workers were paid fairly back in the good old days when they were all poor Americans, think again.

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I'm not a fan of the corporate relationship to gov't, at all. That's not free market. It's neo-mercantilism. Google it, there is a distinct difference. Yes, cut the whole monster of gov't down, including those monster corps that feed off of it. The king is a tyrant, and so are his courtisans.

LOL. I'm obviously not a fan, either, but I do believe it is the job of the government to provide a social safety net for its most vulnerable citizens in addition to building and maintaining our infrastructure, ensuring all citizens have access to healthcare, maintaining a safe food and water supply and providing for our security at home. I can't say that, right now, they are getting very high marks on any of these areas. Oh well, we'll keep working on it.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I think the above data is a rather stunning commentary on the failures of conservative economic policy. I have not seen a convincing alternative hypothesis to explain these failures of policy. The data on economic mobility from Europe is rather compelling about the results of a social democracy in producing shared economic growth. I invite you to read the article in total and not just the bullet points to see the details of the proposals.

See:

The increased inequality from 2001 to 2005—during a recovery no less—caused the bottom 90% of households to lose income (-$2,071) while the best-off 1% of households gained $183,902 on average.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20070801

I think the stunning prosperity of the world is a remarkable validation of the free markets.

The vast majority of the Western World live far better than even the previous generation. Poverty in America is defined as living in a single family dwelling, eating 3 meals a day, owning a car, a microwave, a cell phone.

What a great time to be alive and what a great place to be alive.

Simply put, if an able-bodied American is not making significantly more than MW, they are either a high school student working part time, or, they are lazy. That's the bottom line.

If you can't make it in this economy, in this society, with the support nets ALREADY IN PLACE, then you aren't trying hard enough.

What your graphs conveniently fail to mention is that, over the same time period, mobility out of the lowest 20%, becoming upwardly mobile, is the rule, not the exception. There will always be a 'lowest 20%', because that is a fixed statistic. However, that group is composed of those entering the market, and those that choose, CHOOSE to subsist on gov't asst alone.

Those that try, soon rise above.

What a great nation. What a great economy.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

"Those are the talking points, but I have to disagree..."

Of course they aren't talking points. They are inconvenient facts. MW creates inflation and decreases the number of MW jobs. Or, do you really believe that evil businesses are just going to eat the cost instead of passing it along. Hint: passing along the costs of taxations (and gov't mandate is taxation) creates inflation.

You cannot answer this, so you will ignore it: if 2 dollars more an hour is beneficial, then why not 200/hr more? You can't answer it because you can readily understand what making the MW 200/hr would do to inflation and the economy. How can you NOT understand what 2 dollars will do? It will create inflation that will eat away any gains at the lowest level.

Those above the lowest levels will make more gains, as a percentage of their incomes, with MW rescaling. So, they make out modestly better. They do so, however, off the backs of the poor.

MW is an anti-poor reform. It's a feel good philosophy that hurts precisely the population it purports to aid. It's uncompassionate.

It's the job of the gov't to provide a level playing field for opportunity. Gov't can largely accomplish this by getting out of the way. The safety net you refer to was considered by our founders to be theft. THAT is why they told the gov't no:

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity." - Congressman Davy Crockett, 1830

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

OK, maybe THIS guy was a tad hypocritical to this statement, later on: "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other portant features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

It's the job of the gov't to provide a level playing field for opportunity. The safety net you refer to was considered by our founders to be theft. THAT is why they told the gov't no.

~faith,
Timothy.

I vehemently disagree that it is the job of the government to supply a safety net - that is not what our founding fathers envisioned. The government "steals" the money for that safety net from US citizens. It is OUR money, not the government's money. And if you look at the vast amount of money wasted on "pork" and then you see Uncle Sam with his hand out wanting more . . it can put a kink in your day to say the least.

steph

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity." - Congressman Davy Crockett, 1830

[Spidey's mom]

Tim - you keep adding those great quotes! I can't keep up . . .

steph

[pickledpepperRN]

How about we hire people to repair the steam vents, bridges, levees, roads, and such?

Maybe hire people to improve our own communities and nearby areas instead of building bridges to nowhere?

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

How about we hire people to repair the steam vents, bridges, levees, roads, and such?

Maybe hire people to improve our own communities and nearby areas instead of building bridges to nowhere?

Even better idea: how about we take the Federal gov't out of the equation and let the States actually have some room to collect taxes for these purposes. As it is now, the all consuming Federal monster crowds out most other gov't spending.

In THAT way, the States can direct the money to where THEY know it is needed most without the strings that come from the Federal gov't.

The Federal gov't is a monster, and a tyrant. It is a tyrant to individual Americans, and it is a tyrant to the States. THAT is why bridges are built to nowhere.

The more power we take out of Washington and place more local, the better off we all will be.

~faith,
Timothy.

[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Even better idea: how about we take the Federal gov't out of the equation and let the States actually have some room to collect taxes for these purposes. As it is now, the all consuming Federal monster crowds out most other gov't spending.

In THAT way, the States can direct the money to where THEY know it is needed most without the strings that come from the Federal gov't.

The Federal gov't is a monster, and a tyrant. It is a tyrant to individual Americans, and it is a tyrant to the States. THAT is why bridges are built to nowhere.

The more power we take out of Washington and place more local, the better off we all will be.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

"Those are the talking points, but I have to disagree..."

Of course they aren't talking points. They are inconvenient facts. MW creates inflation and decreases the number of MW jobs. Or, do you really believe that evil businesses are just going to eat the cost instead of passing it along. Hint: passing along the costs of taxations (and gov't mandate is taxation) creates inflation.

You cannot answer this, so you will ignore it: if 2 dollars more an hour is beneficial, then why not 200/hr more? You can't answer it because you can readily understand what making the MW 200/hr would do to inflation and the economy. How can you NOT understand what 2 dollars will do? It will create inflation that will eat away any gains at the lowest level.

Those above the lowest levels will make more gains, as a percentage of their incomes, with MW rescaling. So, they make out modestly better. They do so, however, off the backs of the poor.

MW is an anti-poor reform. It's a feel good philosophy that hurts precisely the population it purports to aid. It's uncompassionate.

It's the job of the gov't to provide a level playing field for opportunity. Gov't can largely accomplish this by getting out of the way. The safety net you refer to was considered by our founders to be theft. THAT is why they told the gov't no:

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity." - Congressman Davy Crockett, 1830

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

OK, maybe THIS guy was a tad hypocritical to this statement, later on: "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other portant features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

~faith,
Timothy.

Yes. Talking points. You start to notice them when they're "repeated over and over in order to propel the propaganda."

I noticed your "if $2 an hour is good, why not $200 an hour?" assertion in another post in this thread. I won't ignore it. It is a ridiculous and unrealistic argument and has nothing to do with ensuring the people who work hard for their money earn a living wage. The growing gap between the income of the most wealthy persons in our nation and the lowest earners is proof the CEOs are taking a slice right off the top of their employees wages. (It's certainly not the lowest wage earners making money off the backs of each other. That makes absolutely no sense.) There is no savings here to be passed on to the consumer by keeping the low wages low. The only benefit is to the CEOs who are raking in record salaries, floating around on golden parachutes and in some cases their stock holders might even be making a buck, or two. Nothing wrong with that. I'd argue even the stock holders could make a lot more money, if these robber barons weren't sucking up so much profit for their own selfish, self-centered gains. Costco is a great example of a company that makes money AND pays its employees very well. What a concept. On the other end of the spectrum, I asked a friend I know who runs a construction company how much the price of a home would go up, if he didn't have illegal labor to build the house. He said, "Ha! We charge the same amount for the house no matter what. If I can get cheaper labor, I just get to pocket more profit."

You keep talking about MW being anti-poor, but I and HM2Viking have both posted links to information leading to a different conclusion. What exactly do you have against the poor having a better chance at becoming less poor? Do you feel they will take all the money from the rich? Surely you are not so wealthy yourself as to be comfortably above the dangers of the social Darwinism you so steadfastly promote.

Not all people who work minimum wage are teenagers, or lazy. In many towns around this country, the only jobs available are minimum wage jobs. I could give you a million examples of not lazy people who are stuck in minimum wage, but I will narrow it down to one.

Suzy married her high school sweetheart. She and her husband had three children. Her husband worked at the mine and she worked in the bowling alley to help make ends meet and to help save money for their kids' school clothes, maybe even a little for college. Suzy was a good mom, but she never really did well in school - not for lack of trying - she just had a hard time learning for some reason. Things were going fairly well for this family when Suzy's husband was hit by an uninsured driver on the way home from work. We could say he died and life was hard for Suzy, but let's make it harder. Suzy's husband lived. He's a parapalegic. He gets a small portion of his previous salary for disabiltiy, but it's barely enough to cover rent. Suzy took on extra hours at the bowling alley to get the money they need to cover their other living expenses, but if she makes too much, her husband will lose his Medicaid. She applied for a job at the mine herself - thinking should could get insurance there and a decent salary - but she couldn't pass the test. In a few years, their oldest son will be able to get a job at McDonald's to help out. He was planning on going to college, but now he must stay home and help mom out with dad's care. If they can just make it until then, everything will be alright.

These are some of the people living on minimum wage. I don't get why you don't want them to get any help from the government, (who is us, by the way) for their healthcare, the education of their children, for his disability AND you don't want her to be able to make a couple bucks more an hour at the only job she is qualified to get where she and her family live, because you might have to pay a few cents more for your bowling game?

In your world, I'm sure they deserve everything they've gotten and should, perhaps, dry up and blow away.

Everybody has different values, I guess. And, just why, in your opinion, can the Congress take our money and use it to blow up people in foreign lands, build them schools, office buildings and hospitals (mostly inoperable) and they supposedly can't help out a hungry man here at home? I don't get it, at all.

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Even better idea: how about we take the Federal gov't out of the equation and let the States actually have some room to collect taxes for these purposes. As it is now, the all consuming Federal monster crowds out most other gov't spending.

In THAT way, the States can direct the money to where THEY know it is needed most without the strings that come from the Federal gov't.

The Federal gov't is a monster, and a tyrant. It is a tyrant to individual Americans, and it is a tyrant to the States. THAT is why bridges are built to nowhere.

The more power we take out of Washington and place more local, the better off we all will be.

~faith,
Timothy.

Now, this I can agree with. Does that mean we don't have to pay for wars we don't want, or give welfare to countries who don't need it, and we can keep our National Guard to guard our own nation and if we decide to tax ourselves to cover things such as healthcare we can do that? Oh, but what about states that don't have any money? Do they just dry up and blow away? Maybe, we could sign them over to Mexico?