Redstate

In the current (outgoing) Congress, Republicans offered to increase the minimum wage in exchange for permanently doing away with the inheritance (death) tax, and Democrats refused.

In the new Congress, with Democrats holding a very slim majority in the Senate, Republicans should offer the same deal. Repeal the death tax (or at least allow an exoneration of some millions of dollars to allow family-owned small businesses to be operated by heirs without tax), and we'll vote for a minimum wage increase. Refuse to reduce the death tax, and we'll filibuster.

Then we'll see what the Democrats want--to make political hay, or to get something done, and help not only minimum-wage workers, but the businesses that hire them.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Democrats don't believe in work, they believe in handouts. They want you to be lazy and do as you are told.

As far as the minimum wage vs. EITC issue goes (and I realize that it wasn't the issue you were dealing with), this seems to be a consideration that supports the minimum wage side.

I am paying higher prices to covr a minimum wage increase in PA already. So I can already see the cost to those Not on the minimum wage (aka, 90% of the population). Fast Food prices went up 2 months ago and grocery store prices in central PA started going up last week in my area.

It Does affect the economy and hurts everyone who isn't on the minimum wage; including those who don't yet have jobs.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

How do you know that the minimum wage laws had any impact on prices? How many fast food jobs are paying minimum wage?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

which is what a minimum wage does to businesses in the low end of the pay scale, the managers of those businesses only have a few choices on how to deal with the increased cost:
1. Raise prices. This may or may not be possible depending on the market, but since other businesses in the segment are dealing with the same forced price increase, it's a likely response.
2. Cut expenses. This usually means cutting back on the item that was increaed (labor) which usually means lower employment. They may not actually fire anyone, but they'll definately cut hours.
3. Accept a reduced profit margin. This assumes that their profit margin is large enough to absorb the increase in costs. But in any case it's unlikely that a company will accept much of a cut.
4. Close the business. If the business can't continue to operate profitably after some combination of the previous 3 choices, it'll shut down. That removes employment from the market and removed choices from the consumers.

And those are just the immediate effects. If they choose to raise prices, they are likely to loose some business and will have to cut expenses by cutting hours. If they cut hours too much they will loose employees. If they loose too many employees their service will suffer and customers will go elsewhere causing another round of cuts. Eventually the weaker businesses will get to choice #4. Closed businesses mean less oportunities for employment which means fewer people are working which means there is less money available to spend which leads to less sales which leads to more cuts.... it's not a pretty circle. And all of it could be avoided by keeping the government out of the business of setting prices for labor.

As to how many fast food places pay minimum wage now; around my area, not many. They have to pay a little higher than the minimum to entice teens to work there rather than at some other minimum wage job. If the proposed minimum wage is enacted, they will mostly be paying at or below minimum and will have to raise their offered pay anyway to continue attracting employees. Then they will need to make choices on how to deal with the increased costs.

Now don't you think that we should find a way to help the poor that actually HELPS the poor instead of putting them out of work and raising the prices they have to pay?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

But we are talking about the real world here. Where is the evidence that supports the claim that the relatively minor increases in the minimum wage have cost jobs or increased costs to consumers?

What happens if the increased minimum wage also comes with an increase productivity? Or what if the increase is so minor that businesses generally don't need to adjust their expenses?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You'll find that all that evidence comes from places where the prevailing wage is around $8/hr or higher.

In places where the prevailing wage is closer to the minwage, the effects are much greater and Far more immediate.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

What I gave is an overview of how a manager of a business deals with a cost increase (not just wage costs, but any cost increase). That's real world reactions. It's how business is done.

Or what if the increase is so minor that businesses generally don't need to adjust their expenses?

There are NO increases in cost that are minor to a company. For example, my wife works for a company that makes Wonderbread. They sell it for about $.60 per loaf. If their costs increase a measly $.01 per loaf they lose money unless they pass that cost on to consumers or cut employee hours. They usually try to do both.

What happens if the increased minimum wage also comes with an increase productivity?

This is a forced increase in costs. There is no mandatory increase in productivity to go with it. It is unlikely that such and increase will occur across the board, but yes increasing productivity could offset a minimum wage increase. The way that's usually done in the low end segment is to increase automation which cuts the number of required employees.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

There are NO increases in cost that are minor to a company. For example, my wife works for a company that makes Wonderbread. They sell it for about $.60 per loaf. If their costs increase a measly $.01 per loaf they lose money unless they pass that cost on to consumers or cut employee hours. They usually try to do both.

Just because you can provide an example of a low margin business that must adjust their costs when they see a modest increase in costs, doesn't mean that the rule is anywhere close to absolute. If Microsoft sees a 2% increase labor costs does that mean they will raise their software prices by 2%?

This is a forced increase in costs. There is no mandatory increase in productivity to go with it. It is unlikely that such and increase will occur across the board, but yes increasing productivity could offset a minimum wage increase. The way that's usually done in the low end segment is to increase automation which cuts the number of required employees.

Or by enticing more capable people to perform a task.

You are arguing based on a preconceived notion that minimum wage laws will costs to go up or people to get fired. The evidence to date is murky at best, that this is a truism, at least with regards to the incremental increases in the MW that we have experienced.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You can't claim ANYTHING about low end jobs and use Microsoft as the example...

But to answer your responses:
If Microsoft sees a 2% increase labor costs does that mean they will raise their software prices by 2%?

If Microsoft raises their US wages, they will have to:
1. Increase productivity to counter. This is common at tech firms.
2. Raise prices. Yes it happens, but competition from RedHat will limit this.
3. Cut costs of production in other areas (like finding cheaper sources of material, putting manuals on CD instead of printing them or using cheaper packaging).
4. Send their tech support to India or Costa Rica. (Yes this is common in tech companies. I KNOW this because I'm directly involved in it.)
5. Cutting into their gross margins. Companies are SEVERELY punished for doing this.

Or by enticing more capable people to perform a task.

We're talking about minimum wage jobs here. More capable people go to work for higher wages. That's why minimum wage increases hurt entry level people the most.

No, I'm arguing based on textbook business reaction to increased costs. I'm looking at it based on how managers WILL react to it on a business by business basis. Those changes have a larger effect on the economy, but I haven't been placing emphasis on those effects.

Again, how about finding a way to help poor people that actually HELPS them?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I thought I put
You are arguing based on a preconceived notion that minimum wage laws will costs to go up or people to get fired.

Just before my comment about textbook business.... I really need to use the preview button and proofread better.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

would have a Helluva problem with the MW for its tech people and lower level programmers had they not gottem themselves some healthy exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you're going to work an employee a lot of hours on an FLSA OT exemption, you'd better be really, really sure that the USDOL and the federal courts agree that the employee really is OT ineligible. MS got in a lot of trouble over this in the Nineties, the federal courts going so far as to refer to their employees as "Microserfs." They trotted out a bunch of money and bought themselves some nice exemptions in the FLSA.

In Vino Veritas

I need to have good relations with the empoyers in my areas and as I see prices go up, I ask the managers why. Covering rising costs for wages is the universal answer.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

State employees get a raise, every price in Alaska goes up, notwithstanding the fact that State employees are not paid from taxes raised from the Alaska economy. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Maybe I'm just too divorced from the Lower 48 economy other than the Left Coast. Who's making minimum wage outside the hospitality industry and basic industries like food processing in The South?

The hospitality industry owns enough Democrat legislators and congresscritters to get tip credit in any federal MW if they went that way rather than just categorical opposition to MW increases. And as to the chicken plants and the like, we can pay a little more for Tyson's finest and if their sweatshop labor and illegals are cut off, they'll learn to automate.

In Vino Veritas

Where Tyson and company are concerned.

However, in backwoods towns in the Lower 48 like Altoona, PA or anywhere else in Central PA where the prevailing wage is close to the minwage, or even At minwage (starting pay at Walmart in Altoona is under $7/hr out here and kids brag about making $6.50), you can see the effects of increasing minwage.

The net effect is that those who receive the pay increase are mostly unaffected (other than the few that lose their jobs and the kids who drop out of HS thinking, "Hey! I can live off eight bucks an hour and I can get that at McDees!"). Those of us who Don't receive a pay increase get higher prices and no extra money to pay for them.
As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, this Especially hurts folks on "fixed incomes" like Social Security and Disability and the like who really don't have much disposable income as it is. And in places like PA where the vast majority of the population is either under 17 or over 40...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

And how much of those rising labor costs are due to increase minimum wages and how much are due to the onerous and skyrocketing health care costs that employers are burdened with?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Those costs are remaining stable in PA. No new laws affecting how much employers must provide. And Most of the places that pay MinWage only provide Part-Time employment. Fast Food. Gas Stations. WalMart. And So on and so forth...

Part-time in PA means no benefits unless your employer Wants to give them to you.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

How has the new minimum wage laws in PA affected businesses when they don't go into effect until Jan 2007?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

A little at a time so that they arn't hiking the cost of a hamburger by a whole dollar between 1 day and the next.

It goes back to the idea of "Toss a frog in a pot of boiling water and it'll hop out. Toss a frog in cool water and slowly heat it up and the frog will boil to death..."

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

The minimum wage debate has been a pointless one for 40 years. IT affects a relatively small transient part of the workforce. If you are making the minimum wage today you most likely will be considerably more than the minimum wage in 2 years. Someone else will enter the workforce and replace you at the bottom but their stay would be temporary as well.

The Republicans would be fools to fight this one. They should be working on minimizing the political impact of of a MW hike but voting against it would be dumb.

The fundamental truth is that the MW is too low to really make much impact on economy. Bump it to 12 dollars an hour and THEN you would be talking about a serious impact.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Other economists still argue that the traditional view is right.

``The law of demand says simply that the higher the price of anything, the lower the quantity that will be taken,'' says William Dunkelberg, chief economist of the Washington-based National Federation of Independent Business. ``This law has never been incorrect in predicting market behavior.''

Most evidence suggests ``that a minimum wage increase causes some job loss among low-skilled workers,'' says David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine. Neumark has written studies critical of research casting doubt on that view and has testified before Congress against minimum-wage increases.

...On the other hand---there is not even a suggestion in the comments here so far that there is a rigorous ongoing debate as to the validity of the claim that an increase in the minimum wage results in jobs being lost..

Empirically, the last time the US raised the minimum wage was in Sept 1997. The unemployment rate reported that month was 4.9%...

In the 46 months after Sept 1997---the unemployment rate was reported as being below the rate reported in Sept 1997.

.

Unemployment measures the unemployment level for all workers. If you raise the minimum wage, you need to look at the effect on just the 2% of the population that makes the minimum wage. In that group, there is ample evidence that unemployment increases.

The real debate is not about whether the Law of Demand applys to workers, but about the magnitude of its affect.

Say 5,000,000 people make the minimum wage today. Will only 10,000 lose their job or will 200,000? Those who find numbers in the low range say things like "it won't have a major impact" and those who find things in the high range think "this makes liberals feel good and hurts the poor." But no real economist thinks there is a 0 net job loss. Only former economnists turned NYT political columnists would assert such a thing.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I would bet you good money that the the businessmen who support an increase in the minimum wage live in areas of the country where the standard of living is such that next to no one actually makes the minimum wage. This is important because their support of the minimum wage is simply anti-competitive behavior.

If I live in New York where the market for low-skill workers is, say, $8/hr and I have a competitor in Alabama who is paying his employees $6/hr, of course I want an increase in the minimum wage! I have just raised my competitor's cost of production through the rent seeking policy of the minimum wage.

Professor Tom Rustici of George Mason University points out that the minimum wage is really a back-door end run around the constitutional prohabition against interstate tariffs. It is simply a tarrif imposed by regulation. When John Kennedy was in the Senate he talked of the need to increase the minimum wage so New England jobs wouldn't go south of Mason-Dixon.

Most places in Central PA pay under $7/hr starting. The already approved and coming minwage increase has already started them raising their prices. Those of us not on minwage are paying for it.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

But, you know, if we can't fight anything we can't argue on progressive grounds, we might as well close up shop.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Change 'political' to 'federal' in my subject if you want to know what I meant to say, heh.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Why should we promote it? All that'd to is lead to the EITC costing more money, causing us to raise taxes, and taking us back where we started almost.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I don't know how much it would cost if all the people eligible for the EITC were receiving it. But on a basic level, the government has X amount of money, and all of the various tax credits are just ways of shuffling that money around.

It might be possible to cover the cost by identifying ineffective government programs and eliminating them. Or doing some pork reform.

"You can help promote the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by using your communication network so that more eligible people receive it, bringing more dollars into your community."

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96456,00.html

on the paycheck and make them buy HI; that is your discretion. It hurts the employee on taxes, but nobody says you're entitled to pre-tax HI. The unionized construction industry went that way years ago for this very reason. They throw the whole employer cost on the wage and then check off.

In Vino Veritas

....the number of Americans who do not have regular health insurance continues to rise every year..

Apparently there are quite a few people who have no choice but to accept jobs that do not offer "reasonable" benefits..

.

the number of employers who are able to offer health insurance and other benefits to employees because their other costs will rise.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

.....then the employment level is not as "unbelievably high" as was being suggested....

The fact that 25,000 people applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart store near Chicago earlier this year also suggests that characterizing the employment level as being "unbelievably high" is rather generous....to say the least..
.

isn't the terrible place to work that the libs would have you believe. They pay a good wage, offer benefits, carreer advancement, etc.

Too bad the Chicago city council is too stupid to allow Walmart to operate within the city limits.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

....are not employed despite the reported unemployment rate and that these people do not have the bargaining leverage to obtain higher wages or benefits due to an assumed shortage in the labor market...

employed elsewhere? I suspect many of them were employed at jobs that they personally considered inferior to a job at Walmart.

What makes you think that "leveraging" (I assume you mean threatening a strike) would allow their lives to be better? Do you think that maybe they would price themselves out of a job? (See the current problems with Detroit auto firms for an example of what is meant by pricing yourself out of a job.)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

....or see as a step up the chance to work for a company that ranks #1 in 20 states as the corporation with the most employees who must rely on Medicaid for their health care or for the health care of their children..

And where less than half of the employees opt for even the least expensive health insurance offered to them because they cannot afford the monthly premium on the wages WalMart pays them..

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

.........were willing to leave other jobs for the chance to work at WalMart---I don't understand your point.

Your opinion was that many or some of these 25,000 people worked elsewhere and then applied at WalMart as a potentially superior opportunity.

Do you know for a fact what percentage of this 25,000 were willing to leave other gainful employment to apply at WalMart..?

people were unemployed. That's an assumption that I don't think you can back up. I think it's just as likely that people are trading up as that 25,000 people suddenly decided to enter the work force with a company that you characterize as a terrible place to work.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

They were willing to work there. Whether they were already gainfully employed or not is basically a non-sequitur, as apparently Wal-Mart is a step up from something (even if something turns out to be nothing at all: lots of jobs are like that, even ones that aren't at Wal-Mart).

Even supposing that these three-hundred-odd individuals, previously unemployed and now hired by Wal-Mart, are now (still?) dependent on Medicaid for health insurance, they're at least off the unemployment rolls.

....what evidence do you have to suggest that a significant number of that 325 hired were on the unemployment rolls in the first place.?

I think I also managed not to throw the whole train of thought in there. Ah, well. Too late now.

Supposing those 325 were all employed at the time, their previous jobs are now open. Eventually, that should open a fair handful of positions that *must* be filled, and, presumably, one will have run out of gainfully employed individuals willing to fill them. A large percentage of 325 people will find themselves employed where they previously were not when a new employer fills 325 new jobs.

Supposing any of the 325 were not employed, but had also been unemployed so long that they were no longer on the unemployment rolls, they've now gained an income, however small. After all, if they aren't on the unemployment rolls, they aren't drawing from unemployment checks (I know; I've been there a couple times). This is a matter to complain about? (It hardly invalidates the general thrust of the argument, which is that Wal-Mart, whatever their wages, is more beneficial than not: in addition to providing low-priced goods, they offer jobs to those with little training, past experience, or marketable skills. Nice dodge from it-only-matters-if-they-were-all-employed, though.)

Supposing they'd never been on the roll at all (the individual was previously supported but must now earn their own way for whatever reason: they may be a newly divorced ex-housewife, student looking for spending money, or whatever), they have, ta-da!, gained an income of some sort. They're better off than they were, even if they aren't swinging on a star.

There will always be jobs which pay relatively poorly, and providing health insurance is not a cost-free matter for the employer (nor is it requisite in many areas, especially for part-timers). They get some discounts with group purchasing, but the relatively high number of high-risk individuals (or buyers, actually, since families with children tend to incur greater health costs than equivalent individuals without) in most employers' pools mean that, at best, the cost of health insurance through an employer may not be that great a deal in the first place.

The unemployment rate in my metro area in August was 3.1% and 3.3% in September. That's about as low as it can get.

It's not a "suggestion" it is a fact.

....the labor force participation rate is lower today than it was 6 years ago. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was 6 years ago...the unemployment rate would be 20% to 40% higher than what is being reported today..

The civilian labor force in the United States has increased by 6.6% in the past 6 years. In that same time frame, the number of people who are listed as unemployed has increased by 21.3%..

The number of new jobs that this country needed to generate just in order to keep up with a growing population over the past 6 years would have been on the order of between 7 million and 9 million new jobs created. The actual number of jobs created as reported by the BLS is 3.4 million in the past 6 years.

You can go on believing that there is a labor shortage in this country--but the individual measures that go into making that determination do not support such a conclusion..

.

nt

Last I heard, something around a half million people under 50 years old die every year...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

that the minimum wage laws are this great scourge on our economy?

You would think that there would some data to support your various claims about the evils of the minimum wage laws.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

have no effect on our economy? They have demonstrably reduced employment in the low end of the market. They have demonstrably increased prices in industries that use low skilled labor.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to try something that actually HELPS poor people instead of putting them out of work and raising their cost of living?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

the same thing over and over but that doesn't make it true. Facts and/or figures to support this claim would be appreciated.

FTR, my very first post in this thread made note of my relative indifference minimum wage laws because they really don't have much of an effect on our economy or the poor.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

This paper is really aimed more at the supply side of the labor market when minimum wages are set, but one of their conclusions is:
"in particular this paper showed that a minimum wage law can result in an overall drop in wages."

Wikipedia has Reply To This — User Info — #65

The paper claims that if a minimum wage law is imposed that is below prevailing wages they can cause a drop in prevailing wages.

Since it is unlikely that we will ever eliminate minimum wage laws, that would suggest that we need to RAISE minimum wage laws to the prevailing wage.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

what a scam "prevailing wages" are? You may have been using the term as a generalzed concept, but the phrase has legal meaning in terms of the Davis-Bacon Act. Every state labor department in the unionized states has a whole unit devoted to doing "certified payroll" for prevailing wage calculations, the purpose for which is insuring that all publicly funded construction is the exclusive province of unions and unionized contractors. NOBODY makes the DBA prevailing wage except union employees on publicly funded projects.

In Vino Veritas

I was only using it in the context of the World Bank study, which uses the term as a benchmark.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

"... we need to RAISE minimum wage laws to the prevailing wage."

Who are 'we'?
How do 'we' decide?
Will 'we' cut the paychecks?
Will 'we' train and supervise these employees?
Will 'we' all suffer the negative economic consequences?

Why not let the economic forces work?

Brian H provided an article that allegedly supports his claim that minimum wage laws lower salaries. While ostensibly this is accurate it failed to mention that paper suggests that the reason why it did so was because the minimum wage laws were set TOO LOW.

I'm not advocating for a big increase in minimum wage laws. I was simply responding to his evidence.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

paper. They also claimed that removing the minimum wage increased average wages and that increasing minimum wage above There were many effects of various minimum wage levels regarding supply of workers and supply of jobs. Some of them were desirable, but most were not. I had linked to some other data as well, but messed up the html in my post and they didn't appear. If I get time, I'll find them again and repost. In the mean time, I've asked several times:

Don't you think it would be better to do something that actually HELPS poor people rather than costing them jobs and raising their cost of living?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I only read the first dozen or so pages. I was basing my comments on their top level conclusions.

I'm all for looking for ways to improve the lives of poor people. What are your suggestions?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Cut government "gimme" programs and find a legal way to eliminate the class-war and race-baiting "leaders" of the supposedly poor.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

are not actually interested in the minimum wage as an entry level device, they are actually motivated by moving toward regulating the marketplace to require a wage level sufficient for one to live without having to actually, you know, like work. At the national level the Dems haven't quite had the caj*nes to say it, you have to listen to the outer fringes of liberlism and their press for a "minimum livable wage."

John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

Here ya' go! We at Redstate aim to please.

Wikipedia Graph on Minimum Wage.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

Well that graph shows a steady increase in unemployment but we haven't had a change in the Federal minimum wage in nearly 10 years.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Not that health insurance is any guarantor of quality of life. In point of fact, aside from problems getting treatment without it, it shoud be less expensive for the average person to just sock the cost of health insurance away somewhere in a savings account or what-have-they and use that to pay for doctors' bills as needed. Insurance is really just a bet you make with your insurance company and, while immeasurably handy, it's not a bet that the insurer expects to lose money on.

What constitutes reasonable benefits, anyway? I know there was a thing going around back when I was in middle or high school (I think this was state legislation, actually) that would have required anyone employing somebody for more than, say, 16 or 20 hours a week to also supply health insurance for that employee. Which sounds great (I guess), until you find out it would have covered teenaged babysitters and so forth.