by Jack Lee
The GOP has engaged the Dems in a reasoned dialog about minimum wage for a long time and they’ve been losing. The republicans correctly cite how inflation almost immediately consumes any adjustment in that minimum wage. They’ve righly pointed out how minimum wage was only designed for entry level, unskilled jobs. They note how it was not intended for anyone to support a family on. And they often cite, if two $5 an hour workers are granted a $10 an hour minimum wage you wind up with one $10 an hour worker. These are all accurate statements, so why are they losing?
Now this is where it gets interesting…
The democrats don’t argue the economic facts because, one, they aren’t supportable and two, they don’t need too! Instead they take the debate into a category that resonates with the low information voters. They lambast the conservatives with sloganism: Republicans don’t want you to earn more money! Republicans are against the poor trying to better themselves! They don’t want to share the wealth, they want to hoard it! They’ve got theirs, but they don’t want you to get yours! And if they can work in racism too, they will.
These are all specious arguments. Liberals are simply playing to the emotions of the low information voter while completely sidestepping the conservative argument. The republicans find themselves once again being duped into thinking this is a genuine intellectual debate, dealing with economic facts, it isn’t, this is a setup for rhetoric.
(In the burger flipping business the profit margin is about 4% and that means there isn’t a lot of slack for raising wages without raising retail prices – see my opening line?)
This is why I say the liberal party line has the ring of truth, but it is completely fallacious. It’s only purpose is to provoke class warfare. It’s a clever tactic that republicans never seem to answer effectively. Instead, the GOP allows their opposition to get away with labeling them as mean spirited and stingy. And for all their efforts to explain honest answers about minimum wage, it’s totally lost on the low information voters who only tune in hate speech.
Anyone stupid enough to believe Obama dollars are providing for their free cell phones and free food are never going to understand the dynamics of supply and demand in a capitalist economy. And this is what democrats rely on and so did P.T. Barnum. Barnum said, “You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” We will can’t win this debate until the dems get their face shoved into failure and quite possibly drag the nation into bankruptcy. When that happens, lets just hope it will not be too late to repair the damage.
Just one question: the minimum wage has been falling for decades, and today it is lower than it was in 1968. Can anyone explain to me how that has been good for the economy? After all, if a high minimum wage is such a job killer, than the fact that it has been lowered in relation to inflation should be a good thing, right? So what have the positive effects been of the lowering of the minimum wage?
Chris, you and I both know that minimum wage is trailing behind inflation and I’m sure it hurts those who need every cent…I won’t argue that. It’s a bad situation. However, the economy has been tanking for many reasons that have nothing to do with minimum wage and sadly MW is simply caught up in a lot of bad things gone wrong. It’s my opinion there are many other pressing issues that ought to be addressed before substantially hiking minimum wage. A primary target is debt. We’ve got to control this runaway debt, it’s staggering and it will impede anything we do to get back on our feet. We keep applying band-aides when major surgery is called for, and we’re behaving like Japan. They’ve been living in recession for well over 15 years because they won’t do what is necessary to revitalize their economy. We should have learned from our mistakes and theirs, but for whatever reason we haven’t!
To fully answer your question would take many hours and even then I’m not sure I’m competent enough to do it justice. I honestly understand your concerns and I appreciate them, but we absolutely must improve our fiscal policies before doing anything that could damage this fragile economy. This is critical to offsetting a looming bubble and a return to recession which will be a huge job killer. We simply shouldn’t do anything at this point to exacerbate our dire situation and yes, I heard the employment numbers today. That’s nice, but its not nearly enough when weighed against all the negatives we’re facing. I hope you can appreciate what I’m saying?
Low informed voters need to realize the reason Obama is supporting the minimum wage increase is to distract them from remembering it was because of ObamaCare they had their hours cut to less than 30 hours in the first place.
Obama now needs businesses to pay for his gross mismanagement. If they don’t comply they’ll be painted as greedy. The republicans will be blamed because they wouldn’t give him everything he wanted when he wanted it. And of course, last but not least it’s still all Bush’s fault, because after five years of failing to lead an economy recovery that takes workers with bachelor and masters degrees and a family to support out of Burger King and opens the vacated position to the high school students who want some date money.
Oh wait, are low informed voters becoming informed?
Young Voters Say They Feel Abandoned:
“Meetings of the College Democrats that attracted 200 people in 2008 now pull in a dozen. New voter registration is way down, too, and free posters of President Obama — once “the Michael Jordan” of politics, as one freshman put it — are now refused by students.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/us/politics/01generationo.html?_r=2&src=twrhp&
Obama’s Never Run a Lemonade Stand:
By Mona Charen – December 6, 2013
If President Barack Obama has entertained an economic insight that wasn’t fashionable in 1933, I haven’t heard about it. It’s doubtless he’s for recycling glass and plastic, but he’s even more wedded to recycling ideas that were fresh and interesting during the New Deal era but have since been discredited.
All of this was clear when he became the Democratic Party’s pinup in 2008 (just by way of example, I wrote then that while Obama was “shiny, bright and new,” his ideas were “suffering from senility”). What’s dumbfounding now is Obama’s detachment from his own presidency. He continues to campaign (well, speak, but it always sounds like a stump speech) as if someone else were sitting in the Oval Office, as if someone else’s policies were responsible for the state of things and as if someone else should shoulder the blame.
This week, the president delivered a lengthy (his admirers would say “important”) speech about income inequality — the “defining challenge of our time,” he declared. The speech was a kite string of flapping factoids — many of them untrue, such as the hoary nonsense about women earning only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men — held aloft by an attitude of resentment. Obama excels at striking poses. The man has been president of the United States for five years. His policies were enacted by a Democratic congress in 2009 and 2010. Yet he continues to act as if getting the sensibility right is the key thing. Obama is all pose and no posse.
The gap between the rich and poor is nothing to celebrate, but it pales in comparison with the prolonged economic doldrums of the Obama years. Tellingly, the president doesn’t acknowledge that income inequality has actually increased on his watch. That’s right, it’s more pronounced than under George W. Bush. Too much can be made of these income inequality data (most come from Emmanuel Saez) — there’s so much they omit, like government transfers. But the problem of stagnating wages for middle class earners is real, and serious people have contemplated how to combat this through growth-generating government policies. Among the most promising are tax simplification, domestic energy development and regulatory relief. Obama doesn’t even consider those.
In a burst of Rooseveltian ingenuity, Obama’s solution for the problem of increasing inequality is extending unemployment benefits, increasing the minimum wage and “investing in education.” Rip van Obama seems to have dozed off for a few years. He and his party increased the minimum wage in 2009 and extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. It’s impossible to say for sure whether such extended benefits prolonged joblessness, but this much is indisputable — long-term unemployment (6 months or more of joblessness), combined with those who’ve given up searching at all, is at its highest rate since the Great Depression. When people remain unemployed for prolonged periods, they lose skills and their likelihood of ever finding a job declines.
Increases in the minimum wage are linked to joblessness, as well. Studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage causes increased unemployment among the young (the vast majority of minimum wage earners). Besides, if minimum wages were able to successfully combat poverty, why stop at $10.10 per hour? Why not $15 or $115?”
Continued: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/06/obamas_never_run_a_lemonade_stand_120867.html#ixzz2miCCzbSS
#1 Chris, the answer to your question is in my post.
Chris: “…the minimum wage has been falling for decades, and today it is lower than it was in 1968.”
I heard new information this morning regarding this statistic. While it is true that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation it is also true that the working poor receive 30% more in benefits from the government than they did in 1968 making their standard of living higher. These benefits are paid through taxes…money taken out of the private sector. Money that cannot be used to grow the economy and create jobs. This information comes out of a study conducted at Cornell.
Another tidbit of information accompanied this revelation in a min wage discussion on FOX Business. It was pointed out that minimum wage jobs in North Dakota were going for fifteen dollars an hour. The prosperity generated from the gas and oil business is trickling down to fast food and making it possible to pay higher wages. It’s a good thing too because there are fewer people looking for that kind of work since there are so many oil related jobs available. In order to keep their employees they pay them more and they can because of increased business.
As I keep saying this is so basic. It is logical.
And Jack you are so right. If people could set aside the emotional appeal and the demonizing of businessmen that the left engages in for political purposes, it just makes sense.
” … the demonizing of businessmen ….”
There is no “demonizing”, there is only accounting for historical fact. The “busniessmen” have a track record like the doggy’s dinner. The institution of the minimum wage is a consequence, and the businessmen will just have to live with it.
“They note how it was not intended for anyone to support a family on. … These are all accurate statements, so why are they losing?
How about … because people ARE supporting families on the minimum wage?
Libby: ” The “busniessmen” have a track record like the doggy’s dinner.”
Oh right. Like the left never met a Scrooge character it couldn’t exploit as “the norm”.
If business people were actually the evil jerks they are portrayed to be there never would have been a middle class much less the many people who have become wealthy by improving their skills and being generously rewarded for it and by making wise savings and investment decisions.
There is no magic in making a comfortable living and nest egg in this country. People do it all the time from every single economic class and every single race. I’m sure you’ve heard of billionaire Oprah Winfrey. Woopie Goldberg was once on welfare. Charles Paine of Fox Business was raised by a single mother in the projects. The Duck Dynasty clan probably started out dirt poor back in the day. Check out these entrepreneurs who started at the bottom, including Steve Jobs who was an orphan adopted by a poor family.
Those people made it big but there are plenty of others who manage to make it into the middle class and create a comfortable life for themselves from dirt poor beginnings. More would do the same if we were not so indoctrinated to think that they are needy to the point of near starvation and therefore dedicated to just throwing more (Of other peoples money) at the problem.
We are not living in the 1930’s. Opportunity is all around us. It is even more plentiful when government acts as a support for business with sensible guard rails and regulation but other than that gets out of the way…likewise with people! Do too much for them and they will not have the incentive, the urge, the need to make a better life for themselves. It’s just human nature.
“How about … because people ARE supporting families on the minimum wage?”
With massive help from government and/or as a supplemental income within the family.
Evidently you are retired, that was the old business model. The new one created in the 90;s is nowhere near what you described.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/fact2.php
http://seattletimes.com/html/jontalton/2015409520_biztaltoncol26.html
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/inequality-CEO-Pensions-401k/2013/11/17/id/537095
“With massive help from government and/or as a supplemental income within the family.”
Don’t tell me you didn’t see that article. Everybody saw that article. It was huge … wherein some statistic gatherers matched the $4B in profit made by the fast food industry last year with the $4B in health care and food stamps we provide to their employees.
Maybe if the profiteers could get by with a mere $1B in profit?
Fat freakin’ chance …
… which is how we come to ramp up to a $15 minimum wage. You weasels bring this on yerselves. I don’t know where you get the nerve to snivel.
Tina, Scrooge … he is ubiquitous.
Tina: “I heard new information this morning regarding this statistic. While it is true that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation it is also true that the working poor receive 30% more in benefits from the government than they did in 1968 making their standard of living higher.”
…And? Are you actually using this as a reason to *not* support raising the minimum wage? Because that literally doesn’t make any sense. The reliance of minimum wage workers on welfare is a good indicator that the current minimum wage is too low. They are getting 30% more in benefits because they’re getting paid 30% less in wages. Thanks for proving my point; our current low minimum wage directly creates the cycle of poverty and dependence you so frequently condemn. Raise the minimum wage back to 1968 levels, and you’ll see a reduction in welfare. You basically just did the math for me.
“These benefits are paid through taxes…money taken out of the private sector. Money that cannot be used to grow the economy and create jobs. This information comes out of a study conducted at Cornell.”
So I see you’ve reached the “studies are good” part of your day. 😉
You’re wrong that money transferred to welfare programs through taxes “can’t be used to grow the economy and create jobs;” increasing assistance to the poor was ranked as one of the most stimulative possible measures by the CBO (lowering taxes on corporations and lowering regulations were ranked the least stimulative). That’s because more money in the pockets of consumers increases demand, regardless of where they got that money.
Still, I actually agree with you that it would be more efficient and more rewarding for that money to stay completely within the private sector, without the government ever getting its hands on it. That’s why I support raising the minimum wage. Again, as you’ve (perhaps inadvertently) pointed out yourself, a higher minimum wage means that there is less of a need for welfare. It’s no coincidence that the chart you showed me a few days ago which wrongly identified 1968 as the year the Great Society started showed unusually low poverty rates that very same year; that was the year that the minimum wage was at its highest.
See, I agree with you, on an ideological level, that it is better for people to earn their money rather than rely on government handouts. Where we differ is that I realize that people aren’t actually making what they earn, and you don’t.
Raising the minimum wage would decrease dependency, reduce the need for welfare, reward hard work, stimulate demand, and keep money flowing in the private sector. It would actually succeed in creating the society you claim you want to have: one in which people find dignity in their work and do not feel the need to rely on government assistance. One in which people are more able to move up in the world. One in which the American dream becomes more achievable.
Dewey when you can explain to me why a worker running a machine or writing software is anywhere equivalent to a person with the responsibilities of corporate heads in this global economy I will consider your gripe.
The problem is that your opinion stems from envy more than evidence that less pay for corporate heads would result in higher wages for America’s workers.
Other evidence must be considered if we are truly going to evaluate the reasons that earnings for average Americans are stagnating. One of the biggest is the deplorable state of education in America. It’s hard to justify higher wages when so many American kids can’t do basic math or read.
America, once celebrated for engineering, now produces very few engineers:
Forbes:
This means that a lot fewer workers are in jobs that would pay higher wages…we get a lot of these from India now but it isn’t enough and certainly can’t compensate for the low wage jobs those Americans are taking because it is all they can do.
Government jobs have grown. Government jobs are a drain on the economy since more tax revenue is needed to pay their salaries and benefits and cannot be used for investment or production. Less investment means less innovation, growth, and higher paying jobs.
It doesn’t help that our centers of higher learning push social issues degrees and have all but abandoned degrees that are worth having in terms of salary and wealth production.
There are other reasons. In terms of wage averages the United States has had a huge influx of uneducated, low skilled workers. Add their pay to the mix and the picture is skewed to the downside making it seem like CEO pay is unearned and unnecessary (When in fact the bulk of their money is invested back into the economy and harms no one).
Currently, American tax policy is pushing that money into developing countries where the atmosphere is friendlier and workers are thrilled to have a job that pays them a good wage and offers a move to the upside). That’s a shame for the newest generation of workers; it means less jobs and lost earning power.
The number of doctors we have in this country is and has been falling. Government intrusion into healthcare has placed this once highly skilled profession lower in terms of earning power. It certainly hasn’t been commensurate with the level of education and responsibility that goes with the job. But the bureaucrats must be paid and the competition stifled so government can have control. The choices we have made have consequences.
Reforms to some of the programs that are acting like a drag on our economy would also help but big government types fight it tooth and nail! Obama has stupidly added another of these programs which takes more money out of the economy to pay for the huge bureaucratic monster required to oversee the darn thing.
I’m sure there are other factors as well. One thing is for certain. Simply coveting the pay of CEO’s and saying it is their fault that wages in America are suppressed is very short sighted.
Tina: “Government jobs have grown.”
Since when? Certainly not under Obama; since 2008, the number of government employees has consistently gone down. In contrast, the number of government employees went up under Reagan and both Bushes. You must know this.
Chris: “Since when? Certainly not under Obama; since 2008, the number of government employees has consistently gone down.”
AEI:
In addition while the rest of the nation suffers in this lousy Obama economy those working (most for the government) in DC have seen their wages “soar”:
Those of us that are old enough remember when you would pull into a gas station and a guy would come out in a uniform, pump your gas, check you engine oil and radiator coolant level, and your tire pressure. Many of these people were making minimum wage. When was the last time you saw a gas station attendant? I will admit the disappearance of gas station attendants had as much to do with lower profit margins on gasoline sales as a rising minimum wage (and increased gasoline taxes). But, one factor that has to be considered is the introduction of automated gasoline pumps. A full service station can’t compete on price with a self serve station. There are already self serve fast food ordering stations, and there are reports of automated hamburger cooking equipment. The people that are demonstrating to increase the fast food employee pay and minimum wage may only succeed in getting themselves replaced with machines. Machines don’t complain, they don’t show up late or not at all, they don’t spit in a burger when they don’t like the customer, they don’t require health insurance and worker’s compensation insurance, etc. And, if wages go up, they may be cheaper then employing people.
Tina, I linked to that same AEI piece the other day. It says that the number of federal jobs has gone up, which is true. But it is still inaccurate to say that “Government jobs have grown” based only on the increase in federal workers. That would be like saying the average household median in the U.S. has gone up based only on the median in Washington going up. You can’t use a subset of government workers to make a claim about government workers in general.
Furthermore, even the federal workforce has shrunk since the publication of that AEI piece over a year ago. In fact, it now sits at a 47-year-low:
In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Until now, the lowest figure for the current century had been 2,724,000 federal employees in October 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term in the White House.
Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent.
All these figures, by the way, are for civilian jobs. Members of the armed forces are not counted. If they were included, the contrast would be even sharper. In 1966 the Vietnam War was going on, and around 2.6 million people were on active duty. This year the figure is around 1.4 million.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_r=0
There has simply been no significant growth in the number of government employees, federal or otherwise, over the past few decades. The argument that our current economic problems are a result of growth in government employees does not have any basis in reality, and seems designed to use government employees as scapegoats.
#14 Tina, Good luck getting through to Chris about the increase in gov’t workers. I presented the same information in a previous article comments.
I wonder what the number will be when all of the ObamaCare IRS workers, navigators, etc, are added into the count.
#15 More Common Sense, AND he’d wash all of the windows.
Except in Oregon it’s illegal to pump your own gas. They passed a law up there to preserve the jobs. Riding up there on my Harley they’d hand me the nozzle, replace it and even swipe my credit card while I sat right there.
Took off last year on a tour of the US and pumped my own gas in every state except Oregon. Lots of lost jobs from years ago.
Also, notice all of those Red Box video machines around all over the place and the absence of video stores like Blockbuster that used to employ usually young people?
Peggy: “#14 Tina, Good luck getting through to Chris about the increase in gov’t workers. I presented the same information in a previous article comments.”
And apparently, neither you nor Tina can actually read the information that you post yourselves. Even AEI admits that the TOTAL government workforce has decreased. AEI tries to say that “It depends on whether you’re looking at the federal workforce or the total government workforce,” but obviously when one says “government workforce” it is only fair to assume they mean total government, not just the fed.
And as I already showed you, since that AEI article was published even the federal workforce has gone back down. So as of now, it isn’t accurate to say that either the federal workforce or the government workforce has increased.
You were wrong. Admit it.
Chris: “But it is still inaccurate to say that “Government jobs have grown” based only on the increase in federal workers.”
Most people who hear the words “government” assume the federal government in Washington DC.
Considering the number of working aged citizens who are no longer participating in the workforce (63%) because they can’t find jobs makes the federal employee numbers, and their compensation alarming.
USA Today:
Sorry Chris I stand by my assertion.
Tina: “Most people who hear the words “government” assume the federal government in Washington DC.”
If by “most people,” you mean “idiots.”
“Sorry Chris I stand by my assertion.”
Of course you do. Even though I just showed you that the number of federal employees has fallen since last year and is now at a near-50 year low. So even if I joined you in pretending that state and local government jobs somehow don’t count when counting government jobs, your statement would still be inaccurate no matter what.
But of course, you’d never admit that, no matter how much evidence I show you.
Chris: “but obviously when one says “government workforce” it is only fair to assume they mean total government…”
Obviously? Hardly!
It would happen only if someone was nitpicking an argument.
As I wrote before when we speak of government generally we are most often referring to the federal government. We distinguish only when we are speaking of a particular state, county, or city.
You bare nitpicking…admit it!
Tina: “Considering the number of working aged citizens who are no longer participating in the workforce (63%)”
Thanks for once again showing that you can’t even read your own links! 63% is not “the number of working aged citizens who are no longer participating in the workforce” according to that link. 63% is the number of working aged people who ARE participating in the workforce. How can you be so bad at this?
Chris, you are being snarky again to a very nice and very intelligent lady. Why do you do that? It’s not very gentlemanly of you. Trying being more tactful with people and you will go farther.
Chris: “How can you be so bad at this?”
Burn that question in your mind Chris…you will need it the next time you make such an error!
The terrible truth is the record still impacts my earlier point. Salaries and number of employees at the federal level are high considering 37% of working aged Americans can’t find work.
More bad news, an awful lot that have found work in your age group and education level have part time, low pay jobs.
The total picture is lousy…absolutely lousy…and you find it more important to criticize me than the one person and party that has bought this all upon us.
Now if we take this and put it all within the context of Jacks post, which is the evil way that Democrats undermine our arguments regarding minimum wage, your nitpicking becomes even more deplorable…you who like to hold everyone accountable as if you had been officially given the job.
Jack, I appreciate the support.
Jack: “Chris, you are being snarky again to a very nice and very intelligent lady. Why do you do that? It’s not very gentlemanly of you. Trying being more tactful with people and you will go farther.”
Yes, I’m being snarky. I think when someone consistently posts false claims and never takes responsibility for them, snark is justified. Also, you’ve never taken issue with the “not very gentlemanly” behavior of Pie Guevara, who last week called Libby an alcoholic and a harpy, so it’s hard to take your critique seriously.
Tina: “Burn that question in your mind Chris…you will need it the next time you make such an error!”
Sorry, but I would never make the error of mistaking the U.S. labor force participation rate for the number of people who aren’t working. It was an absurd error to make. Did you really think that the jobless rate was 63%? If so, that just shows how gullible you are, and it undermines the claims you make here about the economy under Obama and the Democrats, many of which are untrue. You believed that the joblessness rate could be as high as 63% because you subsist on a steady diet of apocalyptic propaganda.
“The terrible truth is the record still impacts my earlier point.”
Ah yes, the almighty “point” which is never wrong even if every individual, specific piece of support is.
“Salaries and number of employees at the federal level are high considering 37% of working aged Americans can’t find work.”
*sigh* No. It is not true that “37% of working aged Americans can’t find work.” Many in that 37% are retired or disabled, or people who choose not to work for whatever reason. True, many have left the labor force for economic reasons, such as lack of jobs or low wages. But certainly that doesn’t account for the entire 37%.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to say that we should cut jobs at the federal level because too many people are out of work, unless you don’t believe that government workers are people. Government workers are part of the labor force too, and firing them means that the labor force gets smaller.
Instead of complaining that federal workers make too much, why not argue that workers in the private sector make too little? Isn’t it you who is constantly lecturing people about “envy” toward those who make a lot of money?
“The total picture is lousy…absolutely lousy…and you find it more important to criticize me than the one person and party that has bought this all upon us.”
Because it’s ridiculous to claim that “one person and party” is responsible for our economic mess. This mess began under the Bush administration, but you don’t see me laying all the blame at his feet. I don’t even solely blame Republicans. Democrats have been complicit in rigging the system against the working man as well.
“Dewey when you can explain to me why a worker running a machine or writing software is anywhere equivalent to a person with the responsibilities of corporate heads in this global economy I will consider your gripe. ”
exactly what have you done for a living? WOW
Writing software? Are you serious this is all so absurd it is laughable but this little piece will be fun. WOW
Writing software….Let’s see that is a low wage job why?
Software ya mean like the software that controls a nuclear Plant? or a drone? or maybe guides our missiles…yes that dude ought to make eric cantors $2 or $3 an hour cause there is no skill or education required…did you really say that? LOL
I am still laughing!
No need to respond to all this programed crap after that one…LOL hahah LOL
Exactly what is your corporate experience? I have quite a bit so lets compare.
The companies make enough to pay their workers, have their corporate jet, and everybody is happy.
take walmart for instance how much does mike duke make? it’s all in link. They are not doing as well because we have a major boycott in place on walmart and I support it. Good to see it shows.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-22/wal-mart-ceo-compensation-rises-to-20-7-million-in-2013.html
Bottom line if ya want Chinese labor move to China
Chris…Snarky and arrogant!
Whatever the percentages of unemployed and underemployed they are too high. It is unseemly that those who work in government have their numbers increase for MOST of the last five years and have also had salary increases above $150K in this economy created by the guy at the top! It is disgusting also, to hear Obama go before the cameras to blame everything and everyone but himself for the mess he has made.
Minimum wage earners today have it better than they did in 1968 and that makes your argument for raising the minimum wage dishonest from the start. You failed to consider the actual standard of living these people now have. You attempted to make the case that they have been unfairly ground into the dust while others prospered unfairly (Rather than because of their own efforts and personal ambition). You further attempt to make the case that businesses should be forced to pay more than the work is actually worth to satisfy your ignorant sense of what is fair rather than what on is possible, what works, what is responsible, or even for what is fair for the small business.
This is important. Please, for your own future, drop the personal war against me, learn something new, and try to do some b road thinking!
And by the way this “mess” began when radical socialist invaded the Democrat Party and started a push to set aside the principles and ideals of our republic and move toward a central planning model. Republicans have (sometimes kicking and screaming and sometimes reluctantly) participated in this process but it is the radical Democrats that represent the socialist agenda and they taken every idea and pushed it to the extremes for over seventy years. Democrat polices help to prolong recessions and depressions and stifle overall economic vibrancy. Those who can help create good jobs are placed in chains by radical Democrats so they can play Santa to the less fortunate, all the while creating massive debt.
Chris if you want to stand in that puddle of socialist economic sewage and claim its strawberries and cream, go for it. But your support of polices that will not work will not lead to a better economy, better paying jobs, and a better life for you and others. It might lead to collapse and that means your future is S#%*!
Also there is a reason the new tea party text books say math is bad…because if you are good at math you see they hate real economics, write nothing but propaganda and refuse to show up and debate with a calculator…
The biggest joke in Politics is paul ryans Plan doesn’t even add up, it’s just cut the safty net and give tax cuts to the Billionaires
just say it we want a fascism and slaves already!
This article could not be farther from the truth
Just proves the Tea party is a scam
Dewey you didn’t respond to the challenge.
I challenged you to explain why a person who runs a machine or writes software should make as much as a person who is responsible for the success of a large corporation.
I want to know how you justify your positions.
You couldn’t or wouldn’t explain.
Instead you attacked me and made a lot of very stupid assumptions. My husband and I are the corporate heads of our small company (Thirty years this coming Fall) so I do know a little about what it takes to run a business.
My husband has written software and in fact was one of the first to write software and put it to practical use. He is also an engineer. He knows quite a bit about both software and hardware applications.
The two of us have also done things like laying concrete, building decks, and we’ve worked other types of jobs so we have gotten our hands dirty as do-it-yourselfers and employees.
I can imagine the level of responsibility to investors, to managers and employees, to the bottom line and to solvency of a company that a CEO of a large company has. I can imagine the work that went into climbing the ladder of success to reach that pinnacle. I am aware of the longer work hours and the travel that those jobs entail.
So don’t think you have more experience or more knowledge than I do on the subject and until you can give me the courtesy at least to respond to my request for information then please stop with the uninformed and degrading insults.
You are fond of slogans and repeating the same ones over and over. This is not discussion which we encourage here.
Tina: “Whatever the percentages of unemployed and underemployed they are too high.”
Of course they are too high. But there’s a big difference between a 63% labor participation rate, a 37% participation rate, and a 7% unemployment rate. Those differences are important. For you to actually have believed, even for a moment, that the unemployment rate was 63%, is comical and shows how uninformed you are. I’m sorry, but once you’ve said that you believe 63% of Americans “can’t find jobs,” then you’ve shown that you’re not informed enough for any of your opinions about our economy to have any merit whatsoever.
“It is unseemly that those who work in government have their numbers increase for MOST of the last five years”
But they haven’t. Again, “those who work in government” have had their numbers decrease for most of the last five years. The only exception is federal government workers, and the increase has been smaller than previous increases. Ronald Reagan increased the size of the federal workers by 10% during his administration. When he left office, there were about 3,067,000 federal employees–more than at any time in our country’s history before or since. The number went down under Bush. Sr. and Clinton, and grew under Bush and Obama before falling back down over the last year.
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
There’s no evidence that a larger federal workforce is damaging to the economy.
“and have also had salary increases above $150K in this economy created by the guy at the top!”
Again, a more constructive (and consistent) solution to this problem would be to raised wages for those who are struggling, rather than complain because some people make more than you. But you’re against raising wages for those who are struggling.
“Minimum wage earners today have it better than they did in 1968”
But you’ve literally argued that the only reason for this is because of an increase in government benefits. Again, you’re making my point for me. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, then we wouldn’t see so many people reliant on government assistance, and people would be able to maintain a decent standard of living on their own, without the government’s help. Why wouldn’t you be for that?
“You failed to consider the actual standard of living these people now have.”
I did consider that; you’re just not paying attention to the arguments, even your own. The only reason they have this standard of living is because of government benefits. The current min. wage itself is not enough, and forces working people to turn to the government for help.
“You attempted to make the case that they have been unfairly ground into the dust while others prospered unfairly (Rather than because of their own efforts and personal ambition).”
Not “rather than.” I haven’t argued that CEOs don’t work hard. But they do get certain breaks that simply make no sense. It is unbelievable that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. It makes no sense from either a conservative or liberal standpoint to tax work at a higher rate than investment. Why would a conservative want to de-incentivize hard work? Why would a conservative want to encourage offshore banking, thus moving money out of the American economy? Why would a conservative favor massive taxpayer subsidies and government land grants to corporations like Wal-Mart? None of that is conservative behavior, but it is the behavior adopted by the current radical leaders of the Republican party.
“You further attempt to make the case that businesses should be forced to pay more than the work is actually worth”
False. We disagree on what the work is actually worth.
Unless you believe that min. wage workers in 1968 were getting paid more than they were actually worth, your statement makes no sense.
“to satisfy your ignorant sense of what is fair rather than what on is possible, what works, what is responsible, or even for what is fair for the small business.”
Ridiculous. I have explained to you that my position is based on a lot more than just “fairness.” I have shown you evidence that a higher min. wage actually is possible and does work for the economy. You’ve flat-out said you’re not interested in looking at that evidence because it contradicts your narrative.
“Democrat polices help to prolong recessions and depressions and stifle overall economic vibrancy.”
Democrats support stimulus. Republicans support austerity. It is no longer an open question which of these approaches helps reduce the harms of a recession and which helps prolong them.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/who-is-defending-austerity-now/275200/
http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/18/why-austerity-is-a-dangerous-idea/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-age-of-austerity-is-over-why-it-doesnt-work-8586201.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/08/152247984/the-nation-austerity-doesnt-work-anywhere
“Those who can help create good jobs are placed in chains by radical Democrats so they can play Santa to the less fortunate, all the while creating massive debt.”
Ronald Reagan tripled the debt! I guess by your standards he is a socialist Democrat. Like I’ve said, there is no way Reagan could run as a Republican today. It is the Republicans who have become radicalized, not the Democrats.
Jack: “Chris, you and I both know that minimum wage is trailing behind inflation and I’m sure it hurts those who need every cent…I won’t argue that. It’s a bad situation. However, the economy has been tanking for many reasons that have nothing to do with minimum wage and sadly MW is simply caught up in a lot of bad things gone wrong. It’s my opinion there are many other pressing issues that ought to be addressed before substantially hiking minimum wage. A primary target is debt. We’ve got to control this runaway debt, it’s staggering and it will impede anything we do to get back on our feet.”
Jack, your priorities are all wrong. Reducing the debt won’t do anything to stimulate the economy. Putting more cash into the pockets of the average American will. The central problem we are facing right now is not debt, it’s lack of demand. Debt is an abstract problem; low wages are a concrete one, and that’s what we need to be looking at right now.
Actually Chris leading economists would say YOU are the one that is wrong, but to be perfectly honest….you are not entirely wrong. The fact is the budget cuts of the last 3 years did bolster the economy and the latest econ data proves it. I don’t know if you can get a pod cast of the Larry Kudlow show for today, it was on KSAC-FM 105.5, but if you can it will help you understand. However, I agree that we can’t keep cutting forever. What has been done has worked, but too much of a good thing could reverse the gains and so you are right. It’s a very delicate balancing act, just like cutting back on quantitative easing. I wish I had the time and the will to explain it, but if you can listen to that Kudlow podcast it will go a long way to enlightening you.
Chris, putting real money into the pockets of average citizens will help…no doubt about it. And the good news is, real wages are going up slighltly ahead of inflation and that’s great! However, putting cotton money into our pockets is like trying to borrow our way to prosperity. You can’t spin off paper money from the gov presses and call that getting rich. We need real profits from real businesses to support real jobs. So if you can step back from being partisan for a moment you will see.
Chris: “…a more constructive (and consistent) solution to this problem would be to raised wages for those who are struggling”
That’s your opinion. What will you say to those who lose their jobs and have less job opportunity because of this puny ineffective answer to a better economic situation? How do you justify choosing policy that makes life a little better for a small segment of the population and does nothing for the overall economy which would make things better for everyone?
How do you explain the lack of improvement from raising the minimum wage in 2009? The recession ended in 2009 and a raise in minimum wage signed into law by GWB went into effect in 2011. It has done nothing to make the economy better.
This idea is a lousy idea, especially right now when other pressures on business are putting downward pressure on job creation.
You have no credible argument to support your opinion. You ignore information you are given, choosing instead to pounce on me for a mistake. This tactic to make me seem stupid so that your argument seems more credible is a weak scurrilous move Chris. If you think you have come away from this exchange looking like the hero you are sadly wrong. The error does not wipe out my arguments or the evidence against raising the minimum wage.
What happened to the charming, engaging young man who first ventured onto this blog? If this is what college does to students I would highly recommend to all young people that they avoid the experience.
Social Security debt, Medicare debt, and egregious over spending and the resulting debt has happened because of both parties but it has been Democrats who pushed for all of the unsustainable programs and refused to make any reforms. If you can’t own that fact then you don’t have any business criticizing the one man in our recent history who successfully communicated to the world the value of freedom and government fiscal prudence and restraint. Few Democrats in recent history have ever done the same. In fact as a group they have become so extreme as to be better aligned with the likes of Hugo Chavez, whom they supported, Fidel Castro, whom they support…name your favorite socialist oppressor and Democrats have supported them over Reagan.
You are an idiot Chris and a tool for those who seek to oppress large segments of the American population. It appears you do it for your own selfish wants.
When you grow up get back to me.
One more point needs to be made.
Chris argued that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation “we wouldn’t see so many people reliant on government assistance, and people would be able to maintain a decent standard of living on their own, without the government’s help.”
On paper this sounds quite reasonable, and a few people might have this outcome but history bsuggest otherwise. The reason? It ignores real world realities.
A rise in minimum wage leads to a loss in the number of available jobs and therefore more dependence on government, not less.
Also, government spending on programs NEVER goes down. It didn’t go down any of the times when the minimum wage was raised. It always goes up. That’s because the government provides so much to make the needy comfortable that there is no real incentive to better ones lot in life. Dependency is compelling under these conditions. Protesting for more money instead of training and working for more money is considered moral and right.
US Government Spending:
An October 2012 article in IJ Review supports my assertion:
Do Democrats take steps to increase job growth or do they always take steps to increase the power of the state and dependency on government? What have Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid done?
IJ Review:
Chris’s adolescent and naive suggestion that raising the minimum wage would make (All? Enough?) working people less dependent on government and shrink government program spending because of it is laughable!
No Democrat in today’s group of central planning, redistribution socialist would want that or vote to make it happen. Nothing in the mechanism/manipulation called minimum wage law will stimulate job growth or significantly impact the economy to increase the number of jobs available.
Raising the minimum wage is a political argument Democrats have always used for votes…period!
Tina: “What will you say to those who lose their jobs and have less job opportunity because of this puny ineffective answer to a better economic situation?”
I don’t believe that raising the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs, and I have cited economic data in support of that opinion. You’ve chosen to ignore that data. You won’t explain why it’s incorrect, because you have no ability to do so.
“How do you explain the lack of improvement from raising the minimum wage in 2009?”
I already have. Pay attention. That minimum wage increase was very small, and did not bring the min. wage back to what it would have been if it had stayed consistent with inflation. However, it’s important to note that the unemployment rate has dropped consistently since 2009, and there is no evidence that raising the min. wage that year caused job losses.
“This idea is a lousy idea, especially right now when other pressures on business are putting downward pressure on job creation.”
THE biggest pressure on business right now is low demand, according to the majority of small business owners. Raising wages is necessary to increase demand. Cutting welfare won’t do it, eliminating the min. wage won’t do it, getting rid of regulations won’t do it, paying off the debt won’t do it.
http://csbj.com/2012/02/01/small-businesses-say-demand-is-biggest-issue/
“You have no credible argument to support your opinion.”
Untrue. I have cited numerous credible economists to support my position. You’ve ignored all of them. It’s one thing to make an argument against them. But you don’t even bother to. You just dismiss them out of hand.
“You ignore information you are given, choosing instead to pounce on me for a mistake.”
Untrue, and hypocritical. I have not ignored any of the information you’ve provided, I’ve responded and engaged with it substantially. I do point out when some of it is mistaken. You, on the other hand, simply ignore and dismiss information you don’t like without ever explaining what’s wrong with it.
“If you can’t own that fact then you don’t have any business criticizing the one man in our recent history who successfully communicated to the world the value of freedom and government fiscal prudence and restraint.”
Exhibit A. You won’t even acknowledge the facts that Reagan tripled the debt and expanded the federal workforce to a much greater degree than Obama. Instead you just keep repeating the same talking points like religious mantras. What Reagan actually did apparently isn’t as important as what he “communicated.” Are expanding the federal workforce and tripling the debt examples of “government fiscal prudence and restraint,” or aren’t they?
Conservatives like to claim that they support policies which “lift Americans out of poverty.” Well, the minimum wage used to be enough to do that. It isn’t anymore:
Amid protests across the country over retail and service jobs that pay little better than the minimum wage, it’s easy to forget that this income benchmark once meant something slightly different. In the past, a minimum-wage job was actually one that could keep a single parent out of poverty.
Since the 1980s, the federal minimum wage has kept pace with neither inflation, nor the rise of the average worker’s paycheck. That means that while a federal minimum wage in 1968 could have lifted a family of three above the poverty line, now it can’t even do that for a parent with one child, working full-time, 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year (yes, this calculation assumes that the parent takes no time off).
In a Wednesday speech, President Obama pushed for a bill that would increase the federal wage to $10.10 (a rate closer in line with the most progressive municipal minimum wages, including one Washington, D.C. looks close to adopting). Perhaps that hike sounds unrealistic by historic standards. But it would actually bring us back to the kind of income floor America ensured prior to the 1980s, before Congress stopped passing the regular adjustments necessary to keep the minimum wage a livable one. Congress has only increased it twice since 1997.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/12/minimum-wage-was-once-enough-keep-family-3-out-poverty/7773/
Minimum wage earners ARE NOT representative of the “average American” that putting more money into the pockets of would “help…no doubt about it”
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Democrats seem bent on making sure this group becomes the “average American”
There is more information at this site about this small segment of the working population:
This information, coupled with the fact that most people who earn minimum wage move on to a better paying job within six months, suggests that arguments for raising the minimum wage, especially in this economy, are based on misleading information and the slogan language about families not being able to exist on minimum wage. Most of these workers are not supporting families and when they are they are eligible to supplement their income through 83 separate government programs, including the EITC which gives them cash after filing their income taxes.
The largest refund you can get from the EITC for Tax Year 2012 is $475 (with no children), $3,169 (with one child), $5,236 (with two children) or $5,891 (with three or more children).
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) is a federal tax credit that helps low-income people who are working, especially those who are raising children. If you get it, you will either get a larger refund or pay less in federal taxes.
Source: IRS
The needy are doing fine in this economy. The middle class, average Americans, are being screwed in this economy. Job creators are having their hands tied behind their backs with excessive government regulation and intrusion.
Chris’s priorities are self serving and ignorant!
Jack I’m pretty sure you are already aware that I am responsible for everything I post hear, even the mistakes. I don’t mind owning my mistakes which is why I continue to post and support on one of the best free speech blogs around. I don’t mind correction; I welcome it. I have to admit, though, I prefer it be done without the personal attacks but I am even willing to be responsible for my experience of those unpleasant and frustrating side effects of our free speech blog.
I applaud your attempts to instruct Chris in gentlemanly behavior. I appreciate it not because your instruction singles out Chris but because it stands as an example to the young men of this generation and generations to come…something sorely needed, IMHO. Also because your occasional entreaties for civility remind all of us that civility and respect for others makes for a more pleasant experience in our discussions.
Just wanted you to know.
Thank you Tina. I’m old school that way, it’s how I was raised. So, I believe a man should open the doors for ladies, help seat the ladies, extend a hand when it can be helpful, and other little courtesies… and especially, always be respectful, even if you are being berated! lol
Minimum wage workers have been against raising the minimum wage
AOL
The same group also suggests that as business improves those in the industry who can are willing to raise wages on their own:
The free market works. Competition, more plentiful in a vibrant economy helps minimum wage workers as well as business owners. Owners are not scrooges…they have bills just like families do. If the min wage is raised by force then the next time we are in poor economic times there will be even fewer minimum wage jobs, more fast food stores opting for machines, or food costs will have to be adjusted by charging more to consumers or putting smaller patties on that burger.
Also, one of the things that government, economists, and academics can’t count is the number of jobs that don’t get created. Evidence that job creation won’t be impacted by raising the minimum wage can’t possibly factor in jobs that owners only dream about being able to create.
Asserting that the unemployment rate has dropped consistently since 2009 is misleading to say the least:
CNS News reported in September of this year that unemployment since Obama took office had only dropped 0.5%…not much improvement in that.
Moreover it has not been a “steady” decrease as the word “consistent” implies:
Reagan increased employment by a million jobs in one month.
Obama has nothing in his record to equal that and if he continues on the same failed path he won’t.
As for the creation of debt, more debt was created under Obama by September of 2010 than through all other previous presidents through REAGAN combined!
CNS News:
A 2012 article by Factcheck is also an eye opener on Obama’s record. It shows how he (And his fellow Democrats) often use “slight of hand” to make his record look better.