Third Party & Independents: Archives

Did you hear the story of some fast foods in Oregon setting up a service in North Dakota to take the orders via the phone and electronically sending them back to the burger flipper as you call them? Why do you suppose they would do that? What is the minimum wage in Oregon? Isn’t it the same in North Dakota?
Yes ND is in the USA. Now What is the wage needed in Oregon to entice one to work?

Posted by: George at March 8, 2005 12:17 PM

Someone please explain to me what this means!

What this means is that many of those minimum-wage workers are competing against the very same Third World laborers that you speak of. Raising the minimum wage simply encourages companies to move more jobs overseas (or at least to Mexico), where labor is cheaper. It’s a short-term fix, at best.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 8, 2005 12:54 PM

So we are in a race with the Third World to see who can get to the bottom of the income scale first? And as Third World incomes drift ever lower, should we lower the minimum wage to keep up? So much for the American Dream…

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2005 01:01 PM

Can a family of three, let alone a family of four or five survive on $824.00 a month? Can a single person for that matter?

My wife and I do. Money’s tight, but we haven’t had to go into debt over the simple expenses of life, and we still have a little money left over for the things that are nice, like movies and such.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 01:48 PM

Daniel,

Do both you and you wife work for minimum wage? Do you own a home? Do you own a car? Do you have children and if so how many? Do you have health /Dental /Vision insurance? How often do you go out to eat, or go to the movies? Where do you shop? I would love to know where you live if you can survive on minimum wage and still have money left over; the cost of living there is a lot lower then where I hand my hat.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2005 02:11 PM

Daniel, you are either lying or not divulging all of the important facts. For example, the average rent of an apartment would consume about 75% of your $824 per month in most parts of the country.

Please, give us some details so we need not conjecture the worst about your claim.

Posted by: David R Remer at March 8, 2005 02:21 PM

The question is not ‘can a family live off 824.00 a month?’ the question is ‘should a family have to live off 824.00 a month?’

One of the greatest tricks in the history of American politics are convencing the American worker to vote agaisnt his or her own best interests. To convence them that they got paid too much, that they were too organized, that they were too powerful. The fact is: there is plenty of money. While worker saleries continue to plumit perportionaly, CEO saleries are a higher than they ever been. As pointed out, both houses some how find the money to pay themselves more. Is this magical money? Does this money fail to exsist in the pocket of the average worker?

Posted by: justin at March 8, 2005 02:33 PM

Rob Cottrel, your answer is unsatisfactory for the following reason. First, Kennedy’s opponent was talking about pricing jobs out of the market which is factually true. Every minimum wage increase prices some employees out of the job market, temporarily.

However, you will note that we have had a number of minimum wage increases over the decades and unemployment remains low at 5.4%. Which means those displaced, found other jobs.

Second, Kennedy’s proposal would have benefitted millions of workers, while displacing only a fraction of that number. There would have been protracted great benefit from the phased in 7.25 in minimum wage of millions in America, with only a small amount of temporary loss.

Exported jobs overseas are of a very specific kind. One cannot export maid services, janitorial services, in-house maintenance and repair across the commodity spectrum, etc. etc. etc. Therefore, there is a maximum limit at any given time as to how many jobs can be pressured overseas by increased wages here at home.

Fact is, once again, the Republicans let ideology get in the way of actually sitting down and thinking it through and working with real pertinent data bearing on the problem.

Posted by: David R Remer at March 8, 2005 02:37 PM

Mr. Martin, David, Stephen, AP…anybody?

If the min. wage would have been raised 41%, is there a law saying businesses couldn’t just raise the cost of their goods by that same amount?
Thank you.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2005 02:47 PM

Kctim—

I am not aware of any law, but merchants raise prices at thier risk.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2005 03:05 PM

VEM -
Mocking Sununu’s objection displays ignorance of the economics at work here. It is well-documented that a hike in the minimum wage puts borderline people out of work, such as teenagers from poor areas. It often causes companies to scale employees back from full-time to part-time. If pursued too aggressively, wage hikes will cause inflation.

A minimum wage should be a means of preventing cruel, near-slavery conditions in the workplace; it should not be a tool of fiscal policy.

Of course, I wish everyone of age was making a good $10 or $12 an hour or more. However, there’s a key problem: value. One’s wage reflects created value, not need. If we’re going to give welfare to low earners, we should give it as welfare, not try to disguise it as a wage.

Alternatively, we could place a minimum on payroll taxes so that low-wage earners aren’t paying 15% of their paycheck (including the employer’s contribution) in taxes.

Posted by: Chops at March 8, 2005 03:17 PM

Chops—

My concern here is not teenaged workers, but those who have families and are trying to make it on minimum wage. McDonalds, Burger King or Wendy’s are not suddenly going to stop serving burgers and fries because the minimum wage goes up to $7.25 an hour over two years. Nor is Wal-Mart going to close its doors, or the neighborhood, locally owned Ace Hardware store go to hold a going out of business sale because the minimum wage is increased.

And I see no concern over the increased wages of the middle and upper class causing inflation. Further I would like to think that every employee who shows up and puts in a decent days work is valued by his or her employer. The price of consumer goods continue to inch up month by month despite a real drop in U.S. earning power; I do not have to have a degree in Economics to realize that my dollar buys less and less every passing month. And if I as a middle-class wage earner am struggling, those at the lower end of the latter are certainly finding it very difficult to make ends meet.

I ask again, is it moral, in a society that wears its religion on its collective sleeve, to allow this to continue? Perhaps I am ignorant of theoretical economics and I will seek to enlighten myself, but it seems to me that a balance can and should be struck, between allowing so many American to languish in poverty and extending the Christian hand of the American Dream to all Americans.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2005 03:40 PM

The minimum wage is not meant to be the ending wage. Most of us worked for minimum at one time, but we don’t anymore. If you are still making minimum wage after working more than a year, you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you don’t have any skills and/or you can’t be trained. Even fast food places give raises to the employees they want to keep. In which case, raising the minimum wage would indeed shut out of the job market anyone who needs it to get a raise.

In many regional markets workers’ pay starts at well above the minimum wage. In the Washington metro, kids at fast food places start at about $7 an hour. I am sure that is the case other places. It is not generosity that causes this; it is market demands. Just as the market drives the wages up, it can drive out workers who are not worth the cost to employers.

Not many people are trying to raise a family on minimum wage. Those that are either in some temporary situation (students) or should probably think about a skills upgrade. Raising the wage benefits a lot of suburban teenagers and if you draw more of them into the market with higher wages, you will push out some of the people you are trying to help. A suburban teenager is probably a better bet for a job than someone who worked for ten years and couldn’t move above minimum.

Posted by: jack at March 8, 2005 05:32 PM

Details … all right. You’re right to challenge me, and my case is a little unusual.

I am a senior Computer Science major in Longview, Texas (a couple of hours east of Dallas). My wife and I do not have any kids; if we did, what we make would be insufficient.

My wife is the sole wage-earner for our family, making 6 dollars an hour, slightly above minimum wage, which adds up to about $850 a month, give or take fifty dollars or so.

We pay about $425 a month for rent, but that also includes utilities and internet, which is quite nice. My wife does not have medical insurance; I am required to by my school, for which I pay about $600 a year, or so.

My scholarships and loans cover the cost of going to school and provide a little extra.

We have two cars; both were gifts, one from her parents, one from my grandmother. Neither is particularly flashy, but they get the job done. We received a good bit of money at our wedding a few months ago, but have simply put it into savings. Thank the Lord, we haven’t had to use it. Because of that, (and our owning a couple of cars), we do not qualify in Texas for government assistance - it’s a running joke between me and my wife.

Groceries come to a little less than $50 a week, most of the time - we eat simply but certainly don’t starve.

Oh, and we pay about $600 a year in collective car insurance.

All told, we are breaking about exactly even. Push a little bit, and we’d have to break into our savings. However, I’ve almost graduated, and when I do, we’ll probably jump up into middle class range. However, I don’t mind our current standard of living, and I’d like to continue it for a least a couple of years, wiping out my student debt. I don’t want to become dependent on a cushier lifestyle - I’ve lived overseas, and I know that my wife and I are outstandingly rich by most standards.

If we didn’t have the advantage of married student housing being rather generous, it would be a good deal tighter - possibly too much so. I’d have to see.

I know that we’ve got it pretty good, and that a lot of people making minimum wage don’t have it as good as we do. I’m just making the point that people can live quite happily off of less money than is commonly supposed.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 05:59 PM

should a family have to live off 824.00 a month?

Heh, heh … only in the West would we ask a question like that. Poverty, after simple survival, becomes a matter of perspective. Whatever their incomes, it wouldn’t be a horrible idea for most Americans to cut their lifestyle down to that level (or whatever is required for taking care of kids), directing the rest into savings, investment, and charity. That’s easy for me to say, I know, and I imagine that once my wife and I move beyond it that it will be really hard to discipline ourselves, but I hope it’s possible.

The seduction of money and material comforts is incredibly powerful, and I am certainly not immune to it. I remember when I first came back to this country from overseas and found my first job, working construction in Maryland. I was paid $9 an hour, well over minimum wage. I made more money in one week than I’d made in my entire preceding life! But as soon as I had it, it became enormously difficult to give it away, even a small portion. Money has incredible power, and I can almost pity the rich (meaning rich by our American standards), many of whom are slaves to it.

Most of the “necessities” of modern American life are laughable. I’ve seen real poverty, and I know that I am rich.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 06:09 PM

Sure, we’re not poor by say, Afghan standards, but the same time, is that the standard we want for this country? Additionally, given that we don’t NEED all of that luxurious 824 a month, why isn’t any one raising hell about the legislators giving them selves raises? They surly cannot justify 150 thousand a year. If I can get by on 830 a month, 1000 should do them fine.

The fact is this: there is plenty of money. This is not magical money that only works in the form of an Am Ex Black card. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t raise people’s standards of living. There is no reason we have to cut pensions. There is no reason why we have to give raises to the rich and layoff the poor.

Once again the argument is set up so that it’s not the wealthy that need to justify their life styles, it those at the bottom having to justify every last dime. On the one hand, we have those on the right arguing to cut social programs to get those lazy poor people off their asses. When they finally get a job, they’re called greedy for wanting a normal (by American standards) salary. Why is this? When exactly did the worker become the drain on the American economy? When did the CEO become the most valuable person in our society? When did unions become the special interest groups and industrial lobbyists become the voice of reason? This country has been absolutely bamboozled by the corporate infrastructure of this country. We’ve been trained to act and vote against our own self interest. We have middle managers pitted against the floor worker for the left over scraps while those at the top reap the real rewards of labor.

And Daniel – if your wife gets in a car accident or gets sick and has to be hospitalized, you may never pay that debt off. You need to get her some health insurance.

Posted by: justin at March 8, 2005 06:46 PM

In re-reading my posts, I realize I need to make it clear that I certainly don’t oppose the poor getting richer. My being (I think) currently below the poverty line is a temporary condition, and I will be glad when our finances are more secure. And I imagine that most people feel the same way; they’d like to get ahead. It’s a lot easier for me to be rather flippant about poverty when mine is temporary; it would be quite a different thing if I were facing it permanently.

I’m not sure what to think about a minimum wage or increasing it beyond what is necessary to keep up with inflation. Raising the minimum wage will decrease the number of minimum wage jobs out there, decreasing the opportunities available to young people in high school or college to get their first job and get some necessary experience. I’m not sure it’s such a good idea to raise the bottom of the economic ladder - in so doing, you may raise it out of the reach of those at the bottom.

Minimum wage becomes a problem when you become stuck there, when it is all you can forsee for the future, or when you need to support more than the wage was meant to support. I don’t think the lowest paying jobs were meant to support families, I think they were meant to support poor students like me. However, I do recognize that a lot of Americans are working minimum wage jobs and trying to support a family on them, and have no prospects of moving beyond the minimum wage. This is not good. Perhaps we ought to look into ways to help people move a few rungs up on the ladder. But I don’t see the need to raise minimum wage; rather, I see a need to improve people’s opportunities of finding something better.

We already have a few ways of helping - I receive massive aid from the government that makes it possible for me to attend a private university (that and my grades aren’t too bad, so I have a few scholarships). We have a great many programs to help people with a poor education to aquire a better one. These programs undoubtedly could stand to be improved, but they exist.

There are at least two things required to rise out of poverty - opportunity and initiative. Government can help provide opportunity, and help motivate people (by attaching benefits to steps currently being taken to improve), but it cannot be solely responsibile.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 06:48 PM

Justin -

Sorry, I began my reply before you posted yours, so I didn’t get a chance to form my reply in light of what you said. I most certainly will get my wife some health insurance when it becomes possible; I know the risks of not having it. But I think (and hope) we’ll make it a few more months … May is awfully close.

~ Daniel

PS. It is always easy to look at people who are richer than you are and say “They don’t need their money.” No, they don’t. But someone is looking up at you and saying the same thing. Let him who judges first remove the log from his own eye.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 06:53 PM

Sorry to post again, but I just remember a story that has a great deal of bearing on Justin’s last post.

I grew up in Mongolia and went to a small homeschool co-op where many foreigners of different nationalities sent their children. I had acquired a nest egg of about $25 US dollars, approximate 25,000 tugricks (Mongolia currency; I don’t know how to spell it in English). I determined to spend this money by going to the container market, several miles away across the city, where massive railroad containers full of stuff were sold, and buying various treats in bulk - Snickers, Pepsi, Kit-Kat bars, Ramon Noodles, that kind of thing. I bought them at relatively low prices (Snickers, for example, I bought at somewhere between 250-280 tugricks apiece - I don’t remember the exact figure) and marked them up a bit to 300 or 350 tugricks and resold them. I was still underselling most shops, where the average price was 360 to 370. Suffice it to say, my shop was a great little capitalistic success, and I was making more money than I’d ever seen before, about 5000 tugricks a week (5 bucks). Business was so good I decided to hire my brother and his friend to help. They helped me deal with the influx of customers. I paid them, in the beginning, 500 or 1000 tugricks a week, I can’t remember which. They agreed to work for that amount, and business was good. But they were annoyed at how much profit I was making, since I continued to make three or four or five times what they did. They actually went on strike at one point, though it didn’t do any good since I just demonstrated I could run the shop without them. I got them back by raising their wages to 1500, rather generous, I thought (at this time, we were making more money so I was still making about twice what they were). My point is that I remembering being seriously ticked at them - I was paying them darn good wages (for Mongolia), but they were all hung up on the fact I was making so much more. Of course I was, I was the bloody owner!

I recognize that the example I gave is rather silly, though it is the honest-to-God truth. I’m not sure what lesson to draw from it, I just thought that it provides a nice, easily accessible example, and puts the reader in the position of actually being the owner, or at least hearing his side. Was it right for me to make more money than they did, given that I started it with my own money (and I was still doing the lion’s share of the work - I was still the one making the rather long and somewhat dangerous trip across town by bus to buy the stuff in the Mongolian winter, which is no joke!)? I don’t dispute their right to strike, but I do dispute their envy of my making more money than them.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 07:14 PM

Daniel -

I bet you wish your wife made enough to buy some health insurance huh?

Also - don’t mis-read my quote. I personally have no problem with people getting rich. My point was simply that we don’t have to do it on the backs of the worker. I have only worked for one large company in my life, other than that I’ve worked for my families business, and then for 3 start ups. I’m a firm supporter of entrepreneur spirit, and of people with great ideas and hard work getting ahead. I’ll be the first to say that its ambition that drives me. But like my father, I’m not going to build my wealth stepping over the people who work for and with me. My father, who runs a rock climbing gym, pays all his employees no less than 10 an hour. Yet some how, he manages to take a trip to Europe every year, buy a new car every now and then manages enough left over to give everyone who works for him a winter bonus every year. At the same time, profits for the company have gone up double digits every year for 4 years, save this year when they were up only 8%.

Again, my point isn’t that we need to take from the rich. My point is that the rich need to stop taking from the rest of us.

Posted by: justin at March 8, 2005 07:25 PM

I am not surprised. Republicans consistently support their Core Corporation Supporters at the expense of the common man. Same like they did removing Medical Malpractice damages.

The only good thing is that the States most affected voted for Bush. HA HA HA!!!

Posted by: Aldous at March 8, 2005 07:59 PM

The minimum wage issue is a very difficult one and should take me a few years until I can come up with the master policy that will fix every single problem with a balance given the situation. I would think that the right direction to protect from outsourcing would be to keep the minimum wage as is and give the people in poverty (under 7 bucks I guess) and provide them with a retardedly low tax burden. Jerry Springer gave that plan a few years back and I liked it. I am glad someone brought it up. I am wondering though, if anyone knows this: being that the US is the center of a global economy, did the minimum wage increase or when the law for it was first in place; was that a primary or secondary reason for outsourcing? The reason I ask is because I think minimum wage was first put in the 1970’s and I think that is the global economy that Bill Clinton was bitching about in his autobiography. Just wondering. It will help me figure out a proposal. It disappoints me to think that the President is either a slimeball or an idiot because he gives amnesty to illegal immigrants yet they don’t have to pay taxes; from what I understand. If that is the case, why not alleviate a ridiculous amount of taxes for people under the 7 bucks per hour bracket and have one job? It would solve a lot of problems and I think this hypothesis is where I will drive with the master proposal to solve minimum wage. I am in my sophmore year in high school and I just started on my first job. I bus tables and I love it. From the perspective of the “guy who owns the company”, I just think it comes down to individualistic hedonism based on indulgense and greed. Why do I say that? It comes down to the fact that on Sunday I was working. I make 2.13 an hour plus a 1% tipout if I bus by myself. What happened was that I asked him if I could work the night shift on Sunday for a double. I worked the morning shift and made 7 bucks (my lowest ever)in a tip out. The prick pretty much said that I made enough money as it is; considering that I make 2.13 per hour and had a generally crappy tipout on Sunday lunch. It was fine so I took it for what it is. The Full House w/ Bob Sagget lesson in this (hit the piano note): The General Managers, CEO’s or whatever title you want to give him would rather help out themselves in profit by the millions than the give up 7 bucks of that million to value a decent worker trying to put a decent check in his bank account. I am not bitter as I will end up getting in one of the top colleges in the country so I don’t have to worry but people are having to live that way and it strikes a nerve.
If a minimum wage increase will benefit suburban teenagers while hurting the people at risk than I am against it. Most teenagers are more compelled to spend their money on chronic and Phillie’s Blunts to non tax paying drug dealers than to invest in their future. That is fine as I have my fair share of days in which I am dazed and confused but I want this policy to benefit the people whom are most at risk rather than kids who are still living with their parents. I would appreciate comments on this but so far, these comments are from my perspective, observation, and a few historical and economic notes spun in my argument.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 9, 2005 03:04 AM

VEM said:

(1) And I see no concern over the increased wages of the middle and upper class causing inflation. (2) Further I would like to think that every employee who shows up and puts in a decent days work is valued by his or her employer.

(1) Value-based wage raises do not cause inflation. When new computers mean that Jimmy the Worker can make three Whatzits in a day instead of two, his wage can increase without “hurting” anyone else because he’s adding more value to the world. You gotta take this back to the days when everybody produced something tangible: if you grew 5 bushels of grain, then your earnings were half of those of a man who grew 10 bushels of grain. Period.

(2) As I said in my first comment, charity is one thing. The idea of Christian charity is not that every person realizes the American dream, it’s that Christians give away their wealth. My grandmother is a paragon of this: she grew up playing dolls with the princesses of Norway; now she lives on a shoestring and gives away half her social security check to whoever is needy. That’s charity, and it’s a wonderful thing. But don’t demand that business owners be the ones to give out charity. Raising the minimum wage as high as Kennedy wants to is going to force stores, farms, and businesses to pay their least-valuable, most-replaceable employees a “charity” wage.

As long as we prevent monopolistic or otherwise market-failing conditions, labor markets will correct for bad situations. Earners should make what they earn, not what they need or deserve. If we as a society feel that it’s worthy to give everyone a certain living standard, we should do so as a society, not by forcing the job-creators themselves to give charity to those who happen to work for them.

Posted by: Chops at March 9, 2005 08:04 AM

VEM said:

So we are in a race with the Third World to see who can get to the bottom of the income scale first? And as Third World incomes drift ever lower, should we lower the minimum wage to keep up?

Probably not. But we do need to recognize the consequences of our actions. When you raise minimum wage, you affect more than just the paychecks of our lowest-paid employees. You affect profitability, trade balances, and inflation.

I’m not saying that minimum wage doesn’t need to go up — maybe it does. But the argument of “poor people need more money” doesn’t stand by itself. There are other questions that need to be answered.

As for the comparison between Congressional pay and minimum wage, it is a flawed comparison, as most minimum wage workers are not employed by the federal government. While I do believe that congressmen are overpaid, I would rather determine their pay based on their own merits than based on anyone else’s pay.

David said:

Daniel, you are either lying or not divulging all of the important facts. For example, the average rent of an apartment would consume about 75% of your $824 per month in most parts of the country.

In my neck of the woods (Indianapolis), you can get a 2-bedroom apartment for under $500, or a 3-bedroom for about $600. A 3-bedroom apartment, split between 3 roommates, is only $200/month.

Just because you can’t afford a big house and a new SUV every year doesn’t mean that you’re poor.

Don’t get me wrong — I have no problem with paying people a decent living wage. My question is, where do we stop? If we can raise the minimum without hurting the economy, as some here claim, why not raise it to $20/hour, or $30/hour, or $100/hour? Then we could ALL get raises.

Here’s another thought: Instead of another “big jump forward”, why not push for a minimum wage that automatically raises each year based upon the inflation rate of the previous year? Or would these increases lead to inflation, which would lead to another minimum wage hike, which would be the start of an ugly spiral downward?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 9, 2005 08:10 AM

Raising the min. wage will hurt they very people you want to help, the ones that can only do very limited, unskilled work.

What do you think happened to kids that used to pump gas after school to make a few extra bucks?

How about the semi-retarded person at the grocery store that used to carry-out grocerys and sweep up ?

The retired old granny that that takes your money at the gas station a few hrs. a day is being replaced by a debit-card!

Anytime you raise wages above value-added, you make it cost effective to replace unskilled workers with a machine.

The very easiest ones to replace are the ones with no other place to go.

If you live in a “bottle deposit” state, the kids that used to count your returns are gone, replaced by a freaking machine, now you get to stand there doing it yourself!

Be carefull what you wish for, you just might get !

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 10:32 AM

As long as we prevent monopolistic or otherwise market-failing conditions, labor markets will correct for bad situations.

This is a nice idea that’s not really true. We can look all over America and find places where corporations have been allowed to pillage communities down to nothing. They pit one town against another to find who will work the longest hours, for the least money, all while allowing them to pollute the most. And once they settle on this poor town, if they’re asked to contribute to the tax base in any way, they threaten to move to the next town. I’ve seen it happen where I live in Portland, as our schools continue to spiral downward, I’ve taken on a second, local, income tax to help pay, while companies like Louisiana Pacific pay the state baseline of 4 dollars, and then leave any way because they felt it was too expensive to do business here. In the emd though, Portland will do fine. If you want a real heart warmer, take a look at Carson City, Kansas. Just look that the middle class heaven that Tyson has brought!

Earners should make what they earn, not what they need or deserve.

Does this apply to C level employees too? Can you point out to me where a CEO has earned the equivalent of 100 - 200 floor workers? It’s the typical mentality though. When a C’level gets a raise, they’ve earned it. When a floor worker asks for a raise, it’s called charity.

If we as a society feel that it’s worthy to give everyone a certain living standard

If by ‘certain living standard’ you mean, the ability to have a roof, food and health insurance, than yes, I would say that’s a worthy goal.

we should do so as a society, not by forcing the job-creators themselves to give charity to those who happen to work for them.

See above. I’m sure that when Daniels wife is in a hospital bed racking up debt after she gets in a car wreck, she’ll take comfort in the fact that although it may take her the rest of her life to pay off the debt, at least her boos didn’t have to hand out any ‘charity’ to her for her 8 hour day.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 11:34 AM

If forcing a company to pay more than value-added worked, wouldn’t unions be growing their membership ?

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 12:29 PM

Beagle -

Yes, they should be growing shouldn’t they? Refer to my earlier post: “One of the greatest tricks in the history of American politics is convincing the American worker to vote against his or her own best interests.”

This whole post is about making sure that every low level worker gets the absolute lowest amount they can be paid. We have people in this thread arguing against raising minimum wage when they can’t even afford to insure themselves. Imagine that, a society where corporations have convinces people that not only should they not get health insurance paid for, but they should also not get enough money to pay for health insurance, and then that this is a beneficial solution for them. And, if that weren’t amazing enough, convincing them that while they risk future ending health related debt, their CEO’s raise is a sign that the economy is doing well. Honestly, I’m left in awe.

I’ll say it again: Workers are not the enemy.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 12:51 PM

Minimum wage is just that. The minimum a business can pay you by law - unless you are a waitress.
There are businesses that never start anyone higher than minimum and those that will start higher.

I can understand a HS kid being paid minimum wage and even a college student.
BUT -
When you are married, have kids and go looking for a job, even places like Burger King and Taco Bell should have positions available that pay more and give you health insurance.
Maybe our government should require fast food restaurants and gas stations to hire a certain # of full-time, higher wage workers instead of being able to have nothing but part time minimum wage positions that aren’t in management.
Maybe they should lower the # of hours required per week, to say -25-, that an employee has to work before the business is required to give benefits.

Pump your own gas -
I don’t know if anyone thinks about this … but … when you go in a gas station and can have your gas pumped for a penny more per gallon - that goes straight into the profit pot of the station.
I knew this.
When I stop at my usual station and there is a new employee - I say “Do you get that penny per gallon when you pump the gas?”
- I try and make sure someone is having him/her do it right then and they can hear me -
When they say no I tell them that if they did I would have paid it but since the company gets it and they are doing the work I’ll keep doing it myself.
It makes them feel better and hopefully gets that lazy slob in the other car out doing it theirself next time.

Buy gas on tuesday.
I’m sure most of us pay enough attention to gas prices to know they usually go up on Thurs. or Fri. and back down on Mon. night or Tues. morning.
If you can, buy on tuesday. The oil companies have made about 60 billion profit off us in the past year and never give us any breaks.

Posted by: dawn at March 9, 2005 01:16 PM

Justin,

“One of the greatest tricks in the history of American politics is convincing the American worker to vote against his or her own best interests.”

By that I assume you mean people voting in a union ?
I agree with you on that.
I’ve seen that happen, they vote in a union, the union demands that the company pay far beyond the going rate for a worker with few skills, over time the company closes, the very skilled go to work at another non-union plant that is thriving, the unskilled ones shoot themselves in the head when they find out they are worth 20k on the open market, not the 50k that was being extorted from the company.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 01:48 PM

I was actually talking about voting in general. But we can go with voting to organize.

Once again - I have to point out the overlaying fallacy that it’s the workers that are the enemy of success. That it’s a person making 50k a year that causes the downfall of the company and not the management. Instead of blaming the middle class blue collar works, who built this country, for the failing of industry, maybe we should start looking at the piss poor management laying around, failing to plan, failing to lead, and all the while grabbing as much as they possibly can from the coffers while crying that there’s no money for health insurance.

The right likes to talk about the Lefts ‘Blame America first’ attitude. Maybe we should also be talking about the Rights ‘Blame the worker first’ mentality.

In terms of those shining, successful non-Union factories - some one should let the folks working at Tyson know how lucky they really are.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 02:07 PM

Dawn,

“When you are married, have kids and go looking for a job, even places like Burger King and Taco Bell should have positions available that pay more and give you health insurance.”

If someone gets married, has kids, then goes looking for a burger-flipper job, they have problems farrrr beyond the min. wage.

” Pump your own gas -
I don’t know if anyone thinks about this … but … when you go in a gas station and can have your gas pumped for a penny more per gallon - that goes straight into the profit pot of the station.
I knew this.
When I stop at my usual station and there is a new employee - I say “Do you get that penny per gallon when you pump the gas?”
- I try and make sure someone is having him/her do it right then and they can hear me -
When they say no I tell them that if they did I would have paid it but since the company gets it and they are doing the work I’ll keep doing it myself.”

If the station is paying someone to pump your gas, why should the employee get to keep the extra money?
That makes no sence at all.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 02:15 PM

Rob Cottrel said: In my neck of the woods (Indianapolis), you can get a 2-bedroom apartment for under $500, or a 3-bedroom for about $600. A 3-bedroom apartment, split between 3 roommates, is only $200/month.

Just because you can’t afford a big house and a new SUV every year doesn’t mean that you’re poor.

Rob, do you realize what you just said? Minimum wage puts $824/month in the pocket, and rent in your area takes 75% of that, leaving $224/month for utilities, gasoline, car maintenance, school supplies, clothing, FOOD, insurance, etc. C’mon, guy, think about it. That is poverty. Working poverty. This minimum wage insures that if you work, you stay poor and probably even file bankruptcy at least once in your life.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 9, 2005 02:27 PM

Justin,

I’m not blameing the worker, I blame the union for forcing the company to close.

Now the unskilled worker has no job at all.

Go to a video store, rent the movie “American Dream”, its a true story starring the real people.
Its about what a union did to its own workers at Hormell foods.

It might just open your eyes a lil bit.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 02:31 PM

Beagle, you raise a great point of debate. In the face of globalization and competitive wages overseas, Unions have a choice to make if they are to survive. Either come up with a plan that both favors employees and stems the flight of jobs overseas, or die and drop off like a vestigial limb no longer used or needed.

To me, unions make sense only for those industries where overseas low wages have no effect here. Many service industries like janitorial services etc. fall into this category where a warm body here in the US is the only option. Unions under the old paradigm, make no sense in internationally competitive manufacturing or production where labor anywhere in the world is capable of producing the product.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 9, 2005 02:41 PM

David,

Even those service ind. jobs have compete for market share.
If a union drives their wages beyond the going-rate of that job, the company will close.

I would much rather see states set their own min. wage standards based on their economy and liveing costs in that state.
That way if it forces low income workers out of jobs, the state can support them with their own social programs.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 03:01 PM

Another thing you have to consider;..

What happens if the min. wage goes up just enough that someone loses their foodstamps, medicaid, and low income housing?

They may well be far worse off than they were before.

I’m all for everyone having a great job with healthcare and a super retirement plan, comming up with a way to pay for it is one of those peskey lil details that nobody wants to work on.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 03:23 PM

David,

Rob, do you realize what you just said? Minimum wage puts $824/month in the pocket, and rent in your area takes 75% of that, leaving $224/month for utilities, gasoline, car maintenance, school supplies, clothing, FOOD, insurance, etc. C’mon, guy, think about it. That is poverty. Working poverty. This minimum wage insures that if you work, you stay poor and probably even file bankruptcy at least once in your life.

That’s only 75% of your income if you’re living in a 3-bedroom apartment by yourself. If you expect to be able to do that while living on minimum wage, you’re living beyond your means.

My sister, for example, spent several years in a 3BR apartment with her son, another couple, and their son. My sister (a single mom at the time) had one room, the couple had another, and the kids had the third. Half the rent would be about $300/month. If she was making today’s minimum wage, that would leave her with over $500/month for other expenses. And since the arrangement also let them carpool, watch each other’s kids, split utility bills, and combine meals, that $500/month would go a lot further.

And, no, she didn’t end up filing bankruptcy. She worked her way up to a better job, and is now living in a nice house, driving a new car, and attending school in the evenings.

It didn’t take a federally-mandated pay hike to get her there. It just took responsible living on her part.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 9, 2005 03:25 PM

V. Edward, David, Justin,

Yes, it is time for the Republicans to show us (Americans) the true meaning of family values by once again denying the working poor even the promise of a decent wage from which to raise their families. Can a family of three, let alone a family of four or five survive on $824.00 a month? Can a single person for that matter?

The question is not ‘can a family live off 824.00 a month?’ the question is ‘should a family have to live off 824.00 a month?

Second, Kennedy’s proposal would have benefitted millions of workers,

My concern here is not teenaged workers, but those who have families and are trying to make it on minimum wage.

Here are some statistics for all of you who are decrying the fate of those minimum wage workers.

1) Of the 122.3 million US workers in 2003, 72.9 million or 59.6% were paid hourly.

2) Of the 122.3 million, 2.1 million or 1.72% earned at or below $5.15 per hour.

3) Of the 2.1 million, 1.05 million or 50% were under the age of 25.

4) Of the 122.3 million, only 0.86% over the age of 25 earn $5.15 or less per hour.

5) Of the 2.1 million, 388 thousand or 18.5% were employed in food prep/serving positions (Tips were not included in the calculation of wages).

6) Of the 2.1 million, 1.296 million or 61.7% have never been married.

7) The percentage of workers earning the prevailing minimum wage or less has been on a constant decline since 1997 (6.7%) to 1003 (2.9%)

If you care to verify this information the link below will take you to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report “Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2003”. With some simple math the percentages not given in the report are easily calculated.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2003.htm

These percentages dispel the myth of the left that there are millions of families trying to survive on the minimum wage.

It is also simple economics that when a business’ costs increase they will need to do one of three things.

1) Continue conducting business with reduced operating capital / profit.

2) Reduce costs through reductions in labor, material costs (read lay-offs)

3) Increase prices to compensate for the increased costs.

The first option is not really an option for an extended period of time for most businesses. The two others will directly impact on the very people you claim to be helping with the minimum wage increase.

Posted by: Kirk at March 9, 2005 04:12 PM

I’m not blaming the worker, I blame the union for forcing the company to close.

Yes, yes, the poor company, hands tied, the victim of the ruthless factory worker, attempting at every step to get his grubby hands on things like health insurance, or a pension! DAMN HIM AND HIS GREEDY WAYS!

If only there were more people like Ken Lay around to help the worker out. If only there were more managers who realized that pension fund looks a lot better as a shower curtain than as clothing on the backs of the worker. IF ONLY!

Then we could have the healthy middle class we used too.

Alas, that blue collar devil and his money grubbing pals are ruining everything.

I’ll tell you what beagle. You show me one Fortune 500 company, where the CEO drove a Honda to work and they still went out of business because they paid their workers too much, and I’ll just shut up. Any of them, really. Boeing, Tyson, LP any of them at all. I want to see this CEO that did everything he could, sacrificed for the company, gave up his bonuses, and shared a house with another couple and their kids. Just one. Please.

You’re right about one thing: Someone needs to open their eyes.

——————————————————————

What happens if the min. wage goes up just enough that someone loses their food stamps, Medicaid, and low income housing?

They may well be far worse off than they were before.

I’m all for everyone having a great job with healthcare and a super retirement plan, coming up with a way to pay for it is one of those pesky lil details that nobody wants to work on.

Hey! Here’s an idea: what if, instead of making a built in conflict between working and having no safety net, and not working and having a crappy safety net; we just don’t.

Novel I know, but what if we had, say, an extra 200 billion dollars lying around?

You know, again, the right loves to talk about how the Left is the ‘party of no’, but all I’m hearing here from you guys is: sorry, it’s just the way it is. Factory workers don’t deserve health care. They don’t deserve to have their voices heard. They deserve the lowest possible amount that a company can get away with paying them. The corporation is the victim here.

You guys talk good game:
‘Support the Troops’, ‘Support America’ but when it comes to supporting the blue collar of this country, it becomes pretty apparent that it’s all lip service. All I’ve heard from you is apology for the richest of the rich in this country, all at the expense of the worker. There was a time in this country when a person wasn’t a commodity. When they weren’t pitted against one another to see who could do the most with the least. When the blue collar was the pride of the country, not an obstacle. And still, today, these people come out for president after president. They come out for the US, no questions asked. Doing what is asked of them, showing up every day for their shity job, knowing they don’t make enough to eat and save and buy health insurance for their children, and that as soon as someone cheaper comes along, their ass is out the front door. They have no voice, because as soon as they start to organize, their factory gets shut down. And all you can think to do is find reasons they should work for less and less while those at the top make more and more. I think it says a lot about them, and I think it says a lot about you.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 04:14 PM

Justin,

Thanks for your last tirade/post, it really helped this thread alot.

This is a subject that I had long asked David R. Remer to start a thread on so reasonable persons could debate the pros and cons of the issue and perhaps even figure out how to benifit the working poor.

I guess that is not to be.
Thanks again

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 05:04 PM

Rob, no, it took her living in poverty and hoping another better paying job was forthcoming.

In America, having a roof over your head does not mean one isn’t living in poverty. Hell, you can have a car and home paid for and still live in poverty in America. A low paying wage means too often means no health insurance, no advantages for your children’s education, a depressing and dangerous neighborhood, and a host of angst, stress, and worry, all of which contribute to a lesser state of health than would otehrwise be the case.

My family shared a place with my mother’s parents in the 50’s. It was not a great situation at all. It means being trapped with the people you live with. It means being dependent upon them. Which has its own negative psychology. Almost all people who are dependent on others eventually resent the people they depend upon. Poverty forces people to depend on others. Can you say nursing home? Can you say staying married to someone you can’t stand and who beats you because poverty threatens outside your front or back door?

It takes a pretty big lack of imagination for folks to want to demand that the working poor lift themselves up by the bootstraps. Such folks are befret of the ability to walk in another person’s shoes and ask is that what they would want for themselves?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 9, 2005 05:04 PM

Justin,

You know, again, the right loves to talk about how the Left is the ‘party of no’, but all I’m hearing here from you guys is: sorry, it’s just the way it is. Factory workers don’t deserve health care. They don’t deserve to have their voices heard. They deserve the lowest possible amount that a company can get away with paying them. The corporation is the victim here.

The factory worker is not the one earning minimum wage. This is a farce along with the millions of families trying to scrape by on a minimum wage.

Again, according to statistics on the Bureau of Labor Statistics web-site, there are a total of eight occupations out of 440 occupations that have a median wage at or lower than Kennedy’s proposed $7.25 per hour. Four of those occupations only fall below the $7.25 as a Part Time position. Not a single one of them is a factory worker.

Dancers – Part Time $6.88

Parking Lot Attendant – Part Time $6.38

Waiter – Full Time $4.33 / Part Time $4.20

Bartender – Full Time $6.98 / Part Time $6.60

Waiter’s Assistant – Full Time $5.95 / Part Time $5.49

Kitchen Staff – Part Time $7.23

Food Preparation – Part Time $7.05

Facilities Maint. – Full Time $6.94 / Part Time $6.88

The left needs to quit trying to use highly emotional charges to pull the wool over the eyes of those who will not take the time to look up the facts.

Posted by: Kirk at March 9, 2005 05:20 PM

so reasonable persons could debate the pros and cons of the issue and perhaps even figure out how to benifit the working poor.

You had 39 posts to submit a single solution.

You solutions have ranged from ‘be carful what you wish for’ to suggesting that people displaced go on welfare.

This doesnt seem like an hoesnt debate to me. I’m just calling it like I see it.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 05:26 PM

“This doesnt seem like an hoesnt debate to me. I’m just calling it like I see it.”

Guess you didn’t SEE Kirk’s posts then.

Beagle
So true, so true.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2005 05:58 PM

Okay then. Beagle, KC and Kirk.

Lets look at it this way. Am I correct in taking from your arguments, that from your point of view, there is no problem. Because if thats the case, we can just stop this now and save us all some time.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 06:01 PM

Actually, as an employer, I have to say I have a specific solution that I wish the government would provide to me:

A) Organize their statistics to come out with figures based on a 40 hour work week with 8 weeks of vacation. Show how much per hour dollars would be the sustainable amount to spend on health insurance, show how much per hour dollars would be the sustainable amount for retirement, disability, illness, pregnancy, etc. Show how much per hour you should pay extra for hiring people short-term or part-time.

B) Put this on a website where you can input 1. how long you plan to employ the person 2. how many guaranteed hours, and then output what the minimum is you should pay the person to be sustainable.

C) Be able to send the check to one central source where it automatically gets partitioned.

People are going to get hurt, they’re going to get sick, they’re going to get pregnant, they’re going to get old, they’re going to burn out, they’re going to need time to find a new job. These issues have existed for hundreds of years. We have elaborate systems to mitigate these problems, but that was before computers.

Now we have computers, and we also have the data that shows what is typically necesarry for each worker.

It bothers me that I don’t provide health insurance to my part-time short-term employees. I try to pay them enough so that they can afford their own policies, but I know that some can’t get them because of pre-existing conditions, and others can’t because they hop from one job to the next (that’s the way my industry works).

If I input into a computer that I was hiring someone for 5 weeks, for 30 hours a week, and the computer said: set aside $2 an hour for health insurance, $1 in unemployment compensation, $1 in disability $1 for potential family leave, and $6 to pay for basic life. Then I’d be happy to.

Paying people too little, means that they take services from the state. They go on Medicare, or they go to an emergency room, or they declare bankruptcy, or they temporarily go on Welfare, etc. A more efficient system would be to pay up front what is necesarry. It’s possible to do this, it just takes a little organization.

People who don’t make any money, take risks. They don’t save for retirement, because they spend what they make. They don’t have life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, because, again, they’re making just enough to break even.

Humans are good at dealing with the short term. But statistics show that we have always had long-term issues that need to be solved.

Anyway. That’s my solution.

A plain jane health policy costs $100 a mos. .50 an hour for a full time employee, probably .75 an hour for an employee who skips from job to job (averaging 10 hours a week looking for a job, and 30 hours a week working at it) If you count in the fact that they will go on vacation and get sick, and take time off for family, then it’s probably .80 an hour for full time, and 1.20 for part-time.

Set this aside in an account that can only be used for health care. Provide three policies up-front that the person can sign onto when they do their tax returns, but make certain they are allowed to apply the money to any policy they want (they can opt for a nicer policy, that they pony up money to make the difference).

I am thinking of doing this on my own. I just don’t have the data. The government HAS the data, but it isn’t organized.

I’d like to see someone make up this equation and and post it on their website. Call it “sustainable wage”. It would be cool.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at March 9, 2005 06:29 PM

You guys talk good game: ‘Support the Troops’, ‘Support America’ but when it comes to supporting the blue collar of this country, it becomes pretty apparent that it?s all lip service. All I’ve heard from you is apology for the richest of the rich in this country, all at the expense of the worker. There was a time in this country when a person wasn’t a commodity. When they weren’t pitted against one another to see who could do the most with the least.

Several of many, many good points Justin. Bravo.

You have to understand that the people you are arguing with here found thier political outlook on greed and selfishness. You made a lot of good points, and gave a perspective that millions of us live every day. Unfortunately, you’re going to have a near impossible time getting the red team to think of anyone but themselves. It’s an all too sad but true reality of the situation our country is in. Until they live it, they won’t believe it. Nothing you or anyone says seems to change that.

I enjoyed your post however, and wanted to commend you for passions.

Posted by: Taylor at March 9, 2005 06:30 PM

Paying people too little, means that they take services from the state. …. ….. or they declare bankruptcy

Probably won’t have to worry about that much longer….

Senate close to passing tougher bankruptcy bill

Posted by: Taylor at March 9, 2005 06:37 PM

So the great and wise left, instead of railing on the poor, downtrodden blue-collar worker, rails on the rich. It’s the rich who are the cause of all evil in the world! If the greedy rich would just give all their money and salary and perks away, we would have true happiness. But, oh no, the wicked, evil rich are bent on extracting every last dollar they can get.

Which is why the great and powerful and wise government needs to force the rich to do their duty and give up some (most/all depending on your shade) of their ill-gotten lucre to the oppressed poor. It’s the evil rich and their monopolistic ways that bring this down upon them!

I know (or at least, I hope) that these two paragraphs are a caricature of the left’s position on this subject. So can’t you see that your contrary caricature is also false? Let me see if I can paint your caricature correctly

We, the mighty, godfearing, sanctimonious, priggish right are bent on crushing the worker into the dirt. Feudalism really was the best idea after all, and we have a special itch for slavery. Gradiose wealth to the few, abject povery to the many is our cry. It’s not that we don’t care about workers, but we actively desire to oppress, victimize, and exterminate them.

Sound familiar? That’s what many of the above posts sound like to me. Question - if you actually believe those things about us, why are you talking to us at all? You can’t have a conversation with someone as odious as the preceding paragraph! Ahh … now I see. That’s why much of the tone of this column is the way it is … because this is not a debate, this is not a conversation, this is a diatribe and public tongue-lashing!

Look, the only way we can ever make any progress at all is to first make the assumption that your opponents are not quite as horrible as the two caricatures outlined above. If any of them appear to be, don’t waste your breath on them, look for those who aren’t.

That said, we do have a fundamental disagreement. The right, in general, believes that the answer to poverty is discipline, dedication, and a consistent effort. The left, in general, believes in government assistence and protection. Both sides have their weaknesses. The hard fact of poverty is that many people are crushed by it; they simply cannot get ahead and they’re working themselves to the bone. This is bad, and if too many people fall into this trap we’ll have a revolution, which is bad for everybody. We, on the right, have to come up with a way to make sure that as few people as possible are trapped in permanent poverty.

You on the left have your own weaknesses. It seems to me that there is no place for an individual’s will and dedication, no place for a human’s freedom to choose. It seems to me that you view the poor as helpless pawns of the greedy rich. I do not find that an ennobling view of the poor, or an accurate view of the rich. The rich are people, too, with rights and feelings and desires. Having more money is not a strike against you, any more than having less money is.

The free enterprise system is founded on a person’s desire to succeed. But you on the left penalize success by demonizing the successful. Why should I become rich if I’m only going to be called names, accused of every evil thing under the sun, and divested of all my money (which, I am told, “I didn’t really earn anyway”)? Why shouldn’t I just be content to be poor, where I get lots of sympathy for my station in life, where I have an army of leftist advocates to make sure I’m taken care of?

Please, understand, I’m not saying that’s what the poor do. I’m saying that, if you won completely, I think that you would destroy the free enterprise system by removing the incentive to get rich.

I suppose, to some degree, we need each other. We on the right need you on the left to make sure that the everlasting drive to profit doesn’t crush the defenseless. You on the left need us on the right to make sure that in your everlasting drive for equality for the poor you don’t make us all equally poor and victimized.

By the way, nobody seemed to pick up on my earlier idea, so I’ll reiterate it.

No family should be permanently on minimum wage. Minimum wage should always be temporary, and mostly for the young and inexperienced. The solution is not to raise the minimum wage, the solution is to raise the people stuck on it off of it.

And the best way I know of for doing that is through education.

Posted by: Daniel at March 9, 2005 06:50 PM

Oh … and Julia’s idea seems to be a good one, or at least, an interesting one (I was writing my post for quite a while and didn’t see hers before I posted mine).

Posted by: Daniel at March 9, 2005 06:54 PM

Daniel -

I’m not sure where, in any of my posts I said that the government should do anything. I also never said that ‘If the greedy rich would just give all their money and salary and perks away, we would have true happiness.’

If fact if you look at my 3rd post you’ll see that in fact I’m a firm believer in both ambition and entrepreneurship. I like money. I make no secret of that. I like to shop, I like to travel, and I like to go out to eat. I will never say that money is root of anything. My point that I have been making through out this thread is that paying people a realistic wage is NOT bad for business. You CAN pay your employees enough to buy health insurance, eat, pay rent and save, and still be a profitable company. I’ve worked for these companies and I’ve watched my father run one of these companies.

My agitation comes when people ask a worker to justify their worth down to the last dime, as though the guy making 20k or 30k or 40k was the problem. My agitation comes when I see towns pitted against one another for a race to the bottom. It irritates me to see middle managers locked in a struggle with floor workers to see who can just keep their jobs. I hate to this happening in my country, and I hate to see people defending it as though it were the only solution.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 07:07 PM

Beagle,

“If someone gets married, has kids, then goes looking for a burger-flipper job, they have problems farrrr beyond the min. wage.”

Let’s consider the town I live in … either you work at a union factory, a hospital, doctor’s office, or you can get a job flipping burgers, a gas station, or at Walmart.
Some places have a low wage and higher wage work force with hardly any jobs in between. Considering good jobs are hard to find … one usually has to wait for another to retire or die. Then 2,000 people fight for the one position that is usually filled by a draw from a hat of relatives at the factory.
Things are improving, but not fast enough.

“If the station is paying someone to pump your gas, why should the employee get to keep the extra money?
That makes no sence at all.”

The station is paying the person - $5.50/hr -whether they pump my gas or not. If he/she never had to pump it they would be paid the same amount.
The company gets the extra money - not the person doing the extra work.

Posted by: dawn at March 9, 2005 07:15 PM

Daniel,

I think everyone is lazy. I think employers don’t properly take care of their employees because they’re too busy balancing the books, ordering supplies… etc. I think most employers would be happy to pay their workers a sustainble wage, but will only do so if it is simple for them to comply.

I think workers don’t plan for the future (especially the low-wage ones) because they are busy meeting their daily demands. Who plans for retirment when your car is breaking down? Workers would like to think long term, but many are overwhelmed by just surviving. Making it easy for them to make sound, long-term decisions is a good idea.

For those of us who do think long term, streamlining our savings, having easy ways to deduct health and disability expenses, having a swift, organized way to plan for the unforseen, is also a benefit.

This is why I listed myself as “undeclared”. Although I am a liberal, what I’m really interested in is a responsive government that makes it easy for us to make good decisions. I don’t think that’s anyone’s platform.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at March 9, 2005 07:22 PM

There is a problem, the working poor.

I don’t see the Fed. min. wage as a way to solve that.
Let the States set their own min. wage based on the cost of living in that state. The states set the guidlines for earnings/qualifications for social program help to get by. let them set the state min. wage.

As far as lifting the working poor ;..

Education and skills are the key to that IMO.

We need to stress more english,science, math, and lifeskills.

4 years of lifeskills class should be required for everyone starting in 9th grade.(or before).

Everything from cooking and shopping to balancing a checkbook and fixing a leakie water pipe, add in some basic finance, health, grooming, relationships, well you get the idea, teach them some of the basics they will need in the real world and explain why they will need those skills.
It wouldn’t be a sluff-off class either, make it tough and test them on it.

For those out of school, tie some education to social programs, pitch in some real life work at a job they can handle, give them a hand-up rather than a hand-out.

I agree with David, we can’t just say the poor have to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”,lets help them put their boots on, and if the person/gov. workers in charge of that program can’t do it, fire them all and find someone that can get the job done.

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 07:29 PM

Justin -

That is why I called that description a caricature. It’s what runs through most conservatives’ minds when they hear rhetoric about greedy rich people. You should be aware of that, so that when you make claims about greedy rich people (of which there are many), you should always temper them. It makes it easier for conservatives to listen to you, just as, I hope, my above parenthetical remark did for you.

Oh, and by the way, I agree with you. I believe that it is possible for companies to pay their workers well and still get ahead. If I didn’t, I would reject the free enterprise system. I also believe that companys ought to make every effort to pay their workers well, and I also believe that we pay CEOs a ridiculous amount of money (though I don’t think I want a government cap on it).

Posted by: Daniel at March 9, 2005 07:30 PM

The Right’s Idol is Ken Lay.

The Left’s Idol is Warren Buffet.

Posted by: Aldous at March 9, 2005 07:31 PM

Dawn,

“The station is paying the person - $5.50/hr -whether they pump my gas or not. If he/she never had to pump it they would be paid the same amount.
The company gets the extra money - not the person doing the extra work.”

With all due respect (and I respect you alot),If a gas station is paying someone $5.50 an hr.,if they work or not, how do they stay in business ?

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 08:01 PM

speaking of Warren Buffet, I love this text taken from a meeting with him in which he discussed his rules for life:

1. Be Grateful -

There are roughly 6 Billion people in the world. Imagine the worlds biggest lottery where every one of those 6 Billion people was required to draw a ticket. Printed on each ticket were the circumstances in which they would be required to live for the rest of their lives.

Printed on each ticket were the following items:

- Sex
- Race
- Place of Birth (Country, State, City, etc.)
- Type of Government
- Parents names, income levels & occupations
- IQ (a normal distribution, with a 66% chance of your IQ being 100 & a standard deviation of 20)
- Weight, height, eye color, hair color, etc.
- Personality traits, temperment, wit, sense of humor
- Health risks

If you are reading this blog right now, I’m guessing the ticket you drew when you were born wasn’t too bad. The probability of you drawing a ticket that has the favorable circumstances you are in right now is incredibly small (say, 1 in 6 billion). The probability of you being born as your prefereable sex, in the United States, with an average IQ, good health and supportive parents is miniscule.

Warren spent about an hour talking about how grateful we should all be for the circumstances we were born into and for the generous ticket we’ve been offered in life. He said that we should not take it for granted or think that it is the product of something we did - we just drew a lucky ticket. (He also pointed out that his skill of “allocating capital” would be useless if he would have been born in poverty in Bangladesh.)

2. Be Ethical & Fair

Continuing on the analogy above, consider this scenario:

Imagine that you were selected as the one person (out of 6 Billion) to create the systems of the world. This includes the type of government, social programs, tax systems, military systems, job markets, laws, regulations, etc.

The only catch was this: You had to come up with systems that you believed were fair and that you wanted to live with, before you were allowed to look at your ticket.

That second one is brilliant

you can read the whole thing here

Beagle -

Good ideas. Really. Keep in mind though in most cities, schools are being cut back, not being added too. In Portland for example, we losing another 3 next year. This is with the additional local income tax we all voted for last year.

If you can come up with a way to pay for it. I’m on board.

Posted by: justin at March 9, 2005 08:09 PM

“Keep in mind though in most cities, schools are being cut back, not being added too. In Portland for example, we losing another 3 next year. This is with the additional local income tax we all voted for last year.”

Perhaps more taxes wasn’t the key to solving the problem ?

“If you can come up with a way to pay for it. I’m on board”

Most companys I’ve ever worked for paid for programs to get themselves out of “red ink” by trimming deadwood, I don’t like the term “deadwood” because they are real people with familys to support.
But facts are facts, if you go through hard times you cut things you can live without.

Government could cut some “deadwood” programs/workers untill we get out of red ink.

We need to spend our tax money on things that will fix the problems that create the working poor.

When I was very young and out of work, just trying to get by, I found that those lil pieces of bar soap that everyone throws away, work great for replacing shaving cream. I use them to this day.

We need a bipartisan group in congress to come up with ways to get the country out of red ink.

Pick them from “safe states” where they cant get voted out by the opposing party, screw all the lobbyists and special interest groups, explain to all the voters that this group is working on what is best for the entire country as a whole.
If they get in that group and turn it into a fustercluck of partisan bullcrap, expose them to the entire countrys voters.
Whatever party nominateted that person into that group, should be held responcible to the voters for sending in a brainless hack!
Lets include someone from every party, and I mean greens and libertatians and Ind.’s also.

I’m not saying start a new gov.program, I’m saying let each party send someone into a group to come up with some real anwsers to problems facing the nation.
When they get done they present their idea to congress to be voted on.

Sounds like any other committe in congress we have now??
NOT quite!
Force each one to write their own idea of how to solve the problem at the start, furnish that info to all the voters in America and let them vote the stupidist one out of office.
Pick a new problem every year that effects the entire nation for them to work on. Every year one dumbass get voted out of office on a national scale.
I guess a party could opt to send nobody to the problem solving group, but wouldn’t that prove that it was a party of dumbasses with no real ideas??

Posted by: Beagle at March 9, 2005 09:43 PM

Beagle said: I don’t see the Fed. min. wage as a way to solve that.
Let the States set their own min. wage based on the cost of living in that state. The states set the guidlines for earnings/qualifications for social program help to get by. let them set the state min. wage.

There is one huge problem with that, Beagle. Companies that hire would be moving from the higher wage states to the lowest wage states just like the credit card companies all moved to the two most favorable states for credit companies. Think about it. One state raises min. wage, and companies move to the next state. With 50 states, you can readily see that states favorable to working wages would end up with the highest unemployment rates.

This would create far more problems and a whole lot more poverty for whole state populations. In the end, the most poverty stricken states would have the highest employment of lowest wage jobs. Is that a solution? I don’t think so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 9, 2005 10:12 PM

DAvid:

There is one huge problem with that, Beagle. Companies that hire would be moving from the higher wage states to the lowest wage states just like the credit card companies all moved to the two most favorable states for credit companies. Think about it. One state raises min. wage, and companies move to the next state. With 50 states, you can readily see that states favorable to working wages would end up with the highest unemployment rates.

This sounds like you are opposed to competition. Let the states compete for workers. If you don’t, companies will choose countries with lower wages instead of states with lower wages.

CH

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 9, 2005 11:52 PM

Kctim,

Guess you didn’t SEE Kirk’s posts then.

No, they avoid facts that dispel their highly emotional appeals.

Justin,

Lets look at it this way. Am I correct in taking from your arguments, that from your point of view, there is no problem.

You are absolutely correct. There is no problem with the current Minimum Wage and it most definitely does not need to be raised to $7.25.

Look back at the statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that I posted earlier. Only 0.86% of those earning at or below the current $5.15 Minimum Wage are over the age of 25. In addition a full 61.7% of those earning at or below the current Minimum Wage have never been married.

These statistics show that the overwhelming vast majority of those earning at or below the current Minimum Wage are high school or college students still being supported at least in part by their parents. These workers are not supporting families on these wages. The Minimum Wage is applicable to mainly inexperienced or those lacking skills.

It all goes to the age-old law of supply and demand. The reason that a doctor for instance earns $200,000 a year while a kid at McDonalds earns $6,000 a year is because of supply and demand. The number of people with the knowledge and skills to be a doctor are far fewer than those with the ability to flip a burger. As you move up the earning scale the number of qualified workers for those positions falls.

Increased wage costs cause lower employment levels and increased consumer prices. Totally removing some from the work force and mostly negating the increase for others. You must remember that the Minimum Wage is only a portion of the cost of each employee to an employer. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the legally required benefits (SS, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Comp) add 8.1% to the cost of each employee.

That means that at the current Minimum Wage each employee costs an employer at least $5.67 per hour. If the Minimum Wage were to increase to $7.25 that same employee would cost his employer at least $7.84 per hour. That is excluding any other benefits the employee may receive.

If an employer were working with 10 employees under the current system employee cost would be $56.70 per hour. Under Kennedy’s proposal the employer would have to reduce their work force by 3 to maintain their current employee costs. That is 3 workers now out of a job.

Posted by: Kirk at March 10, 2005 01:55 AM

After reading my post above again, I need to make a slight modification concerning the BLS statistics listed.

Only 0.86% of those earning at or below the current $5.15 Minimum Wage are over the age of 25.

What I should have said is Only 0.86% of all workers over the age of 25 are earning at or below the current $5.15 Minimum Wage.

Posted by: Kirk at March 10, 2005 02:05 AM

Craig, you apparently didn’t THINK about it, as I asked Beagle to. The huge upheavals in employment shifts, the huge costs added to companies and businesses moving to other states, and perhaps having to move again a few years later are just some of the disruptions state competition for min. wages would cause. Please, THINK about it. I am sure you can come up with at least another half dozen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 05:36 AM

I’m not sure what to think about a minimum wage or increasing it beyond what is necessary to keep up with inflation.

This is an important point that has slipped by the wayside. In REAL DOLLARS, the minimum wage has not been increasing, it’s been going down. If the minimum wage was the same now as it was in 1968 (in real dollars), it would be $13.80!

So to be accurate about this, we shouldn’t even be talking about raising the minimum wage. It is rather slowing the rate at which the minimum wage is decreasing.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2005 08:36 AM

David,

I dont think that a state min. wage would cause that big of a problem.
Few states would set the min. wage higher than what their companys could live with.
If a state did raise it so much all the jobs left, I think the voters would vote those lawmakers out of office. If they didn’t vote them out, I can’t feel too sorry for them.

Most of the companys that move to other states is because of taxes,regulations, and workman comp. laws, or as I stated before…unions drove them out.
States have always competed for high wage companys to build in their state, the companys also have to compete in a world market now.

American workers can compete with anyone in the world and do it safely, cleanly, and still pay the workers a very good wage, if we don’t regulate all the mfg. plants out of business or overseas.

When that happens what will we do? Everyone can sell pizzas to eachother ?

Posted by: Beagle at March 10, 2005 08:55 AM

Woodie,

IF this country still controled the market share that we did in 1968 it wouldn’t be a problem paying $14 an hr. min. wage.

Lets go back to 1968 and review what the business taxes and regulations were at that time.

That is about the time our mfg. standards got sloppy, we allowed japan (a tiny lil island with no natural resorces) steal a big chunk of our market share of auto’s.

At that time the “big 3” auto plants were driving the economy of the nation.
Shortly after that we had the oil embargo and the carter years(don’t you long for that era back, put on a sweater and walk to work?)

That era knocked this country on its ass!

When you go back and look at the unemployment rates of the mid 70’s, you must also adjust that for most of those households were “single income” familys. Todays “2 income familys” unemployment rates can’t be fairly compared to then without adjusting for that.
Pitch in the 18% home morgage rates and 10-12% inflation rates and you’ll start to understand how crappy things got!

Everyones wages took a “bad hit” for a long time.
I don’t know if you lived through that era, but I did and I don’t want this country to ever get that lax again.

Posted by: Beagle at March 10, 2005 10:11 AM

David:

Craig, you apparently didn’t THINK about it, as I asked Beagle to. The huge upheavals in employment shifts, the huge costs added to companies and businesses moving to other states, and perhaps having to move again a few years later are just some of the disruptions state competition for min. wages would cause. Please, THINK about it. I am sure you can come up with at least another half dozen.

Actually since I live on the Washington state next to Idaho, I live it. Fifteen miles to the east is a lower minimum wage. There are pluses and minuses, but no big deal. Business growth is much higher next door in Idaho as it is a more business friendly environment. We have better benefits for the poor but it is a challenge getting businesses to relocate or do business here. Why should they? They can locate 15 miles from here and market to us.

Our state is struggling with an image of not being business friendly. It hurts our tax revenues, and employment growth is an issue. How much do you want me to “think” about it? (Or should I just move to Idaho?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 01:11 PM

David:

Ok, I will think about it some more. Lets say that liberals push through a higher minimum wage for Idaho as well as here in Washington State. My assumption is that businesses that are relocating to Idaho will relocate to Mexico, as capital will continue to go to lower labor costs. How does that help the poor?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 01:13 PM

Beagle, but it is happening as we speak. Has been increasing as a problem for many years now. That is why the trade deficits have continued to rise inexorably for so many years now.

Fact: US workers CANNOT compete with foreign low wage markets AND keep our middle class quality of compensation.

Fact: A government-Industry partnership that devotes resources to innovation: new product and service creation which has global demand and affordable reach is one of the only major ways America can continue to compete in the global marketplace.

Fact: Our national debt and interest on that debt stand as obstacles to that government-industry partnership so desperately needed to innovate.

Fact: Industry on its own, will move to the leanest cost environments for doing business. Congress simply must innovate laws that prevent American born companies and products and services from escaping their debt to America for fostering their development and growth in the first place. Congress needs to close American markets to US companies that move their operations overseas. Congress needs to collect back from companies and corporations government funding and subsidies which fostered a business’ development and growth before they can leave the US and incorporate overseas. To do otherwise is no more than a gross export of tax dollars overseas.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 01:22 PM

Craig, if business can emmigrate to lower wage markets overseas, they will when it becomes cost effective to do so. Therefore, there is nothing in the minimum wage current or hiked, that is going to prevent it. However, there are certain intangibles that keep a vast number of companies and corporations in the US. Also, is a huge number of businesses which simply cannot move overseas, because there customer base is here in the US. Service jobs that maintain American facilities, infrastructure, and other American companies, cannot relocate overseas because their market is here.

So your argument about businesses moving overseas is moot. Those that can benefit from it, will anyway. Those that can’t will look for the best state to do business in. There are a host of factors that go into the decision of a company’s chosen state to do business in, of which minimum wage is just one. If the minimum wage is the same across the states, it ceases to be a factor. That is precisely why a federal minimum wage is so conducive to business’ bottom line. It eliminates pressures to cost account moving from state to state based on that factor.

Moving a company is very expensive. The differential between cost of doing business where a business is at, vs. the cost of doing business in another state PLUS the cost of moving there, has to be very high to movtivate a business to move. State determined minimum wages will increase that cost differential in favor of moving which will be an inflationary factor for our economy by raising business costs for moves which will be passed on to the customers.

Neither states nor businesses will want to increase labor cost shopping and relocation incentive increases into the American landscape via eliminating federal minimum wages and replacing it with state determined minimum wage standards. Predictability is a very desired commodity for business. A federal minimum wage is predictable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 01:47 PM

David said:

Moving a company is very expensive. The differential between cost of doing business where a business is at, vs. the cost of doing business in another state PLUS the cost of moving there, has to be very high to movtivate a business to move. State determined minimum wages will increase that cost differential in favor of moving which will be an inflationary factor for our economy by raising business costs for moves which will be passed on to the customers.

If it’s so hard to move a company, where does outsourcing come from?

Here’s my solution to the problems laid out in this post and thread:

(1) Lower the Federal minimum wage to $4.00 an hour (or leave it where it is; as Kirk pointed out, it hardly affects anyone).
(2) Repeal payroll taxes (about 15%) on the first $10,000 of everyone’s income. To offset the income loss, abolish the maximum on the payroll tax. This would give us progressive taxation instead of regressive, and would discourage high CEO salaries (they’d get stock options instead, which is good because it gives them more incentive to run the company well).

These two actions would have the effect of opening up more employment opportunities to those who are barely employable while improving take-home pay for everyone who makes less than $105,000. The tax change would provide a disproportionately strong benefit to the working poor and the companies that employ them.

Ideas?

Posted by: Chops at March 10, 2005 04:42 PM

On a different note, I’m disgusted by the venom displayed toward businesses by many in this thread. Businesses are just people who are creating value - they build strollers, wash carpets, do people’s taxes, recycle junk metal, cook meals, transport people, and give manicures.

Any economist can tell you that there are no such thing as “economic profits” in the long run. In other words, in a market system, no one business can fleece the public for more than the value they give the public. I’m not rich and I don’t ever plan on being rich or even trying to be rich. However, I’m grateful to the folks who create value and risk large personal investments in time and money to create something from nothing.

My Boys & Girls Club Swim Team was funded by Gillette; my grad school education will be indirectly supported by Eastman Kodak. I drive a car, use a computer, and I wipe my butt with paper instead of leaves. I get prompt service when my drain breaks, and I can buy some weird goo to pour down it when it clogs up. These things don’t just “happen”; technology alone can’t create our world. The Soviet Union didn’t lose the Cold War because America had better scientists and engineers (we didn’t; they did) - they lost because they stifled entrepreneurship.

The biggest underlying fallacy of socialism is that the economy is a zero-sum game. This couldn’t be less true. The economies with the richest “rich people” generally have the richest “poor people” as well, not the poorest. You want to find a country where the poor are in terrible condition? Look for one where the rich have no money. Both are dependent on each other, and neither should be viewed as an enemy to society.

If economic wellbeing is a race, then the role for the government is to play referee and make sure that nobody obstructs another. What socialists propose is that the government should slow down the people in front and give their speed to the people behind them. Unfortunately for them, the analogy works: stopping frontrunners makes the people behind them trip; it doesn’t make them faster. And it doesn’t help the society reach any meaningful goal faster.

Do we want long lifespans, good jobs, a healthy environment, an educated populace, mobility, communication, and freedom? Or do we want egality. The choice seems clear to me.

Posted by: Chops at March 10, 2005 04:50 PM

David -

As we’ve said before, a federally mandated minimum wage does not take into account local conditions. When I was going through professional magazines recently, they gave advice on evaluating salary offers, claiming that $30,000 a year in a mostly rural state is worth more than $50,000 a year in New York City. A federally mandated minimum wage should take into account the cost of living in a state, or even a county of that state.

If companies migrate to places where the minimum wage is low, those areas tend to be relatively poor. The movement of large companies into their area could be an enormously good thing for them.

Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 05:03 PM

David:

So your argument about businesses moving overseas is moot.

It is so nice to know that we do not have an outsourcing problem in this country.

I do have a question for you. How come when I call a 1-800 number on technical issues I hear an Indian accent??

The truth is that we do not live in a zero sum game economy as you imply. A simplistic view of economics is not going to cut it when the world functions on information, which can be located nearly anywhere (within reason) on the globe.

Go ahead a raise the minimum wage. If you do it too much, when you get your hamburger at McDonald’s some day, you will hear that same “Indian” accent, but you will feel so good because you “helped” the poor. Don’t worry though, next election you can still make outsourcing a campaign issue. D*mn Republicans!!

CH

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 05:12 PM

David:

If the minimum wage is the same across the states, it ceases to be a factor.

This is very dated thinking. We live in a global economy with an information highway that is extremely cheap. China alone needs to create a million jobs a month to keep up with it’s population that is moving to the cities. You need to think broader. With medical costs going through the roof, it is sooo much easier to do business overseas.

Your thinking only works in a closed system, when there is a labor shortage. Worldwide there is a huge surplus of labor, ready to move in an take jobs.

THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE answer is not to raise the minimum wage but to make minimum wage earners more productive through training programs so they command a higher wage.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 05:20 PM

Craig, I agree with you on upgrading American work skills which the Clinton Admin. was headlong into. Regretfully, the current President has scaled back those efforts and spending.

However, I must disagree with you on exporting jobs. This is unstoppable in a global market place, BUT, only for those jobs that lend themselves to geographical independence. What the US needs to be concerned about as its cornerstone for global competitive positioning, is EDUCATION!!! Something this President and his party are loathe to do because of their biased opinion of educators and our educational systems.

Hence, America’s future is very much in doubt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 05:41 PM

David -

If you’re going to blame the President, I’m going to blame the NEA for resisting anything that might challenge their power or political views.

Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 05:44 PM

* note, this post is off-topic, so I will keep it very brief *

David -

In the thread: “Blogging 4 Bucks,” you wrote in answer to Aldous’ statement that Bushco controlled all the media

Aldous, that is such a biased and unworthy comment. The Republicans don’t control the media any more than the Democrats do.

Thank you for being fair. That was jolly decent of you, and I appreciate it.

Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 05:53 PM

I would hire more employees if I didn’t need to hire an accountant, a lawyer, and a specialized worker’s comp agent to do so.

Making it easier to comply with regulations is the first step, in my opinion.

I can’t tell you how angry I get when I call the feds or teh state and ASK them if I owe them money, and they tell me to hire a lawyer to find out. If they don’t know how the system works, then why should I find out?

We need to focus on ways to make it easy for people to comply.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at March 10, 2005 06:12 PM

Julia, sometimes stating the obvious is obviously needed. I agree with 100%.

It is important to note though, that law is not math. It is not efficient, linear, and directed toward single outcome or answer. Law, is a very, very messy affair. That is why lawyers and doctors have so much in common.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 06:33 PM

So where exactly does the government get the right to tell me how much I can work for? Or how much I can pay? Am I not free?
Maybe you can make a colorable argument that the States have that power, as they retained the general police power to regulate health, safety, and welfare under our Constitution, but it’s hard to say the Feds have that power. The commerce clause does not stretch that far - even if the socialist tyrants want it to.

A govt big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take away everythng you have (paraphrasing Jefferson).
Although, I would change my tune if they set a min wage at $50 dollars an hour, a 20 hour work week, and 16 weeks of paid vacation a year.

Posted by: Tflan at March 10, 2005 10:27 PM

David:

Actually, jobs will “flow” around the world as supply and demand dictate.

The future of America is fine. I remember an article called “A Nation at Risk” which was projecting dome because of our “failed schools”. The paper concluded that because of Americas “failed schools” we would fall behind our trading partners. Of course over 20 years have gone by, and “trading Partners meant “Japan”. So where are we now? We are not worried about Japan, but China.

America is on a good path. Next to China we are the fastest growing major economy, and actually one of the few ecnomies still growing. Europe hat has all of that “minimum wage” stuff you are talking about, is in trouble.

China will be interesting to watch. I think America is on a great path for the future. It might encourage you to know that productivity is growing at historical rates. We can have increases in energy, and medical expenses and still not have a spike in our unit labor costs. This is exactly because the american worker is the most productive workforce in history.

I think issues like the one you bring should be discussed from a position of strength not weakness. I read today on Drudge that American household wealth is the highest in history. The bubble of wealth has switched from the stock market to housing because of low interest rates. Employment looks good as well.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 11:11 PM

Tflan- you are the only one on this thread who has hit on the principle at stake here. The bottom line is that the idea of individual rights has been abandoned by social schemes like Mr. Kennedy, who think they have the right to manage your life, your finance, your job- just because they have the support of the majority. This country was built on a foundation of individual rights- of liberty of contract. It has slowly erroded to the point where Republicans and Democrats squable over how much freedom they will allow you to keep (how much FCC regulation, how much minimum wage, how many workplace regulation).

They say: “The question is not ‘can a family live off 824.00 a month?’ the question is ‘should a family have to live off 824.00 a month?’”

Notice how it is taken for granted on this thread that the government has a legitimate right to take from you the right to work at whatever rate you wish or hire people at rates you want to pay- in fact, its seen as a terrible indignity if the government does not take that right from you! The question of “should a family” is now decided by those in government, not by free individuals exchanging value for value in the market.

In the muddled mess of this utilitarian argument about whether a minimum wage is better or worse for poor people lies the principle of liberty- which is being discarded by the social planners who know better for individual americans than americans know for themselves. Dont worry friend, there are other people who see this as well.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 10, 2005 11:18 PM

Misha! Good to see your posts again.

Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 11:34 PM

Sorry, Daniel, for being absent. The pressures of law school have really eaten up my time this semester. I read up on the articles comments on watchblog as much as I can a