-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
-
The Plot Thickens
September 12, 2012 | 41 comments
A Further Perspective
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
A study in liberal “good” intentions.
Once again Democratic politicians want to increase the dosage of a popular but extremely toxic form of public policy snake oil. In his State of the Union message Tuesday President Obama proclaimed, “Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour. We should be able to get that done.” Pat Quinn, the governor of Illinois, last week proposed raising his state’s minimum wage from the current $8.25 an hour to $10 an hour.
A spokesman for Governor Quinn said, “The governor feels very strongly that nobody should work 40 hours a week and live in poverty. It’s obvious the governor feels such an increase will be good for the economy and good for workers who drive our economic growth. So many people are struggling to make ends meet earning the basic minimum wage—and these ends never get met.” If that’s what the governor thinks, he couldn’t be more confused.
As H. L. Mencken observed, “There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” Minimum wage laws score extremely well on all three counts.
Minimum wage laws are an important public policy issue not only for the damage they do to individuals and the economy, but also as an illustration of the profound difference between liberal and conservative approaches to problem solving.
The federal minimum wage for 2013 is $7.25. San Francisco, not surprisingly, has the country’s highest minimum wage—$10.55
When I taught economics, when possible I liked to use the “Socratic method,” which is essentially teaching by asking questions. The Socratic method helps the student deduce the answer by using what he already knows.
Most people, especially college freshmen and sophomores, feel that minimum wage laws are beneficial. When discussing the topic I would ask, “If a minimum wage of $8 is better than one of $5, why skimp? Why not make the minimum wage $10, or $20, or $30?” Passing minimum wage laws is relatively easy. If eliminating poverty is that easy, why not go all the way? Why be so miserly? It’s not your money you’re spending. Go big or go home!
Most people realize that a minimum wage of $30 or $50 an hour would not work or be a good idea. They recognize that employers simply could afford to hire far fewer people at such wages. Most people can appreciate that not everyone is worth $30 an hour. Minimum wage laws at those levels would do major damage to the economy. Less obvious is the fact that virtually any minimum wage does the same kind of damage.
A favorite talking point of minimum wage proponents is the so-called “living wage.” They argue that the minimum wage is the absolute least a person can survive on. But why settle for mere survival? Why not set it high enough to move every working person into the middle class?
President Obama said in his speech, “But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year.… Even with the tax relief we put in place, a family of four who earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.” A minimum wage of $30 would give that family an annual income of $60,000. Go for it!
Minimum wage laws are one of the many ways the government commandeers private companies into its ill-conceived crusades for solving societal problems (the “war on poverty,” for example). It is essentially a form of “taking,” that is, the taking of private property for public use without compensation. Such laws ought to be considered a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Minimum wage laws force private companies to supposedly help solve the societal problem of poverty. If you start a business, be prepared not only to provide a product or service for your customers, but also to provide a service for politicians.
It’s an easy and alluring fix for politicians. Rather than having to tax the private companies and spending the proceeds on welfare, they dictate that the private companies do it directly. It’s deceptively simple and straightforward. Besides being insidious, it’s also counterproductive. Minimum wage laws do not decrease poverty, they actually increase it, probably more than any other single law.
You could have a job that pays $4 an hour where you learn something, develop good work habits, and increase your marketable skills, or you could have no job, earn zero dollars an hour, and have no chance make progress. The true “minimum wage” is not $7.25, it’s zero. The minimum wage doesn’t assure a “living wage,” rather it assures a job-killing wage.
Is a high school dropout with no work experience worth the minimum wage? Are all jobs (sweeping the shop floor, for example) worth the minimum wage? At a time when the nation is desperate for “job creation” the minimum wage is by far the worst job destroyer. Minimum wage laws effectively outlaw all jobs with less economic value than the minimum wage. Rather than appreciating the fact that there are millions of job situations in our economy, such laws apply the government’s typical, crude, one-size-fits-all approach.
Furthermore, when someone is paid $7.25 an hour, the total cost for the employer is considerably higher. Various payroll taxes and fringe benefits typically add another ten to twenty percent or more to the cost of hiring someone.
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (203) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/14/president-obamas-minimum-wage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 2.14.13 @ 6:16AM
Well,if Barokeydoke is so concerned about raising the wages of the middle class he professes to care so much about,why stop at $9/hr?...why not $12 or $15 or $20 or $50/hr?...what better way to sock it to "the rich" he despises so much and claims aren't paying their "fair share" in taxes anyway?...he is a sterling example of a sociological truism...ignorance is only skin deep...but stupid goes all the way to the bone
DTOM| 2.14.13 @ 10:21AM
Setting a non-zero minimum wage simply outlaws all low value jobs.
It does not raise a penny, a single penny, of wages anywhere, for anyone.
Legislators and other idiots need to hear from everyone that all they are doing is outlawing work, not raising wages.
Good grief!
Don't Tread On Me!
P.S. Raising the minimum wage to $30/hr simply outlaws any job not worth $60,000 a year. So if they really wanted to create a socialist state- they could do it with one law - raising the minimum wage to $30/hr.
Be DAMN careful what you wish for - these idiots have ears! And they are listening - sort of...DTOM
Appleby| 2.14.13 @ 6:55AM
I tried to explain this concept to my Occupier sister, and added in the fact that most of the people earning minimum wage are young single people, not "families of four." And lots of them live with their parents. I have also tried to explain the policies of Wal-Mart in this regard, hiring people who in some cases are not even worth the wage they are paid, but in whom Wal-Mart believes enough to put them on the first rung of the ladder. My sister refers to this as "capitalist bafflegab." Then she got hit with the New Years Tax Grab, and suddenly she began to understand that it's not the Government that pays her wages, it's the Government who lowers her wages so they can fling money to the peons out the windows of their speeding limousines.
By the way, our outgoing (actually, fleeing) Premier in Ontario rewarded the serfs who toiil for him by declaring another provincial holiday. This of course forces our bosses to give us the day off and pay us -- it didn't cost HIM a thing. I'm glad to have the holiday, who wouldn't be? But I'm under no illusion that this was a gift from Dumba** Dalton.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:45PM
Perhaps it's time to take your Idiot Sister to your next Mens Room Meeting?
Maybe the flushing of the Toilets, and the smell of the Round Things they put in the Urinals, will knock some sense into her?
You know that I love you, right?
It's true.
Come to The Contest, tomorrow.
It'll be Fun.
I promise.
I have an IQ of 148, bye the way.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 2:35PM
When I was dispatching for a local UVL agent, the owner had his facilities manager put some round pink coloured things in the mens room urinals. A couple of months later one of the truck drivers I dealt with complained that the breath mints in the men's room were too hard to peel open and could we please get something simpler.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 2.15.13 @ 9:12PM
Tim's IQ is 1.48 and everybody knows that.
Stephie| 2.14.13 @ 7:50AM
This is so effing stupid because we ALL know that a job paying minimum wage was NOT established to be your "career" job. This is so asinine of him to put the hurting on small business owners because we won't hire anyone or we'll pay them under the table at whatever rated we want.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 8:47AM
Stephie,
Actually, the proposed increase in minimum wage might actually work against Barry's immigration reform proposal.
In a labor glut, who benefits? The poor college/high school student/person in transition with a $9 per hour price tag on his/her head or the illegal immigrant who has bargaining power with the employer?
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 8:48AM
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive it is to remain an illegal alien.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 9:36AM
How fitting that the State of Illinois - arguably the worst run State in the Union - (At least, the most Corrupt, and that's sayin a lot) is the first one to get on Board with a Brand New Liberal Economic Impossibility.
Why don't they just Spin Straw into Gold, and be done with it?
There's a Great Man, out there, who's made a rather nice living by: Illustrating Absurdity, by being Absurd. Especially on this topic.
"If $8 an hour is good? Wouldn't $9 be better? What about $10? $11? Why not make it $20? Why not make it $100? What's the problem?"
This is how we got the Term: "Good Work if you can get it."
During the Depression, the Human Disaster - FDR - in conjunction with the Unions, set up a Minimum Wage for any and all workers who were at certain Industries. People got more money. Companies hired Less People, and NO BLACKS.
Now, they're back at it, again. All of these Economic/Entrepenuerial/Free Market "Experts" who've never had a Job in the Private Sector. Never Run so much as a Lemonade Stand. And never even left the Faculty Lounge, let alone Make a Payroll, are making Proclamations from on High about the need to Remake the Wheel. (Or, at least Charge More for it)
Does anyone wanna make a guess as to how many Private Sector Jobs we'll have left, 4 Years from now?
Cause, I'm thinking: NONE.
Warrior| 2.14.13 @ 11:34AM
I'm so confused. Didn't they just tell us that unemployment compensation is the fastest and bestest stimulus to our economy. Why would we want to employ more people at higher wages and ruin all the stimulus the Socialists have injected into our dead economy over the last 4 years?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:48PM
Seriously.
Why do you Hate this Black President?
Contest, tomorrow.
JJC| 2.14.13 @ 7:40PM
He isn't hated because he is black, sir, he is hated because he is red.
Archie| 2.14.13 @ 12:20PM
Exactly. I've had plenty of minimum wage jobs...as a teenager and college student working part time (or full time in the summer). It's a stepping stone that instills a work ethic and appreciation for the means to buy things with income you earned. Here in metro DC, lots of hispanics work for minimum wage, but they make it a living wage by living 3+ familes per dwelling. Don't get me wrong, many of them work in skilled trades, but not all.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:53PM
Let me put it this way, Archie.
If the Halfrican was to get his wish?
The Unemployment Rate of Black Teenagers would be 90%.
And they'd Deserve it, for Spitting on Martin Luther King Jr's DREAM of "Not by the Colour of Skin. But, by the Content of Character.
BShep| 2.14.13 @ 7:56AM
The minimum wage law is an issue of freedom, pure and simple freedom.
It is no one’s business, least of all any government’s, at what rate I decide to sell my labor.
This is the solution we should be pushing, not “capitalist bafflegab”.
One simple, strong argument, FREEDOM!
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 9:52AM
Even if we were to buy into this "capitalism is freedom" argument of the conservatives, I'd like to see what they have to say on drug use and prostitution. Why not let people do what they want with their own bodies? Isn't the illegal drug and prostitution industry the ultimate expression of private enterprise capitalism?
On a personal level, I got my start in IT working minimum wage at a university for an operator's position. I don't think the position would have been eliminated if the wage had been raised, however. On the contrary, I think if the minimum wage was eliminated, HR probably would have based the wage upon average pay of the industry which was higher. In any case, I got some experience and moved on to better things in the industry. But if it was working as a busboy or clerk in a store? No way. It simply wasn't worth it to me to work for those wages for my time and effort at jobs that didn't offer me a future. I'm sure smart people come to the same conclusions which is why the right loves illegals who then turn around and vote for Obama and go on welfare the first chance they get.
Nancy in NC| 2.14.13 @ 7:59AM
I can already hear the liberals screaming when the price of everything goes up to compensate for the minimum wage. They fail to realize that business will pass along the increase to the consumers.
I come in contact with people daily who are overpaid at the minimum wage as they can't seem to do their job at any cost.
Those two nimrods (Tavis Smiley & sidekick) are touring the country promoting a minumum wage of $20 an hour. Some fools should be careful of what they wish for. Would anyone pay $20 to put up with an hour of these two Marxists?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 9:46AM
You have to understand WHY President Flucke You wants to do this.
UNION SCALE IS DETERMINED BY THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE.
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?
The Unions are given a % above and beyond the Minimum Wage Rate.
Unions are Down. Right to Work is up. Union Dues are Down. Ipso Facto - Barry's "CUT" is Lower.
How does he get it Higher?
Thus endith the lesson. (Untouchables)
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 9:55AM
This is NOT a Delusion, on the part of the Halfrican.
It's a Plan, 100 Years in the making.
Can we please stop saying that "He doesn't know what he's doing".
He knows exactly what he's doing.
How much more "Proof" do you need?
DTOM| 2.14.13 @ 10:26AM
And the higher the minimum wage, the fewer people have incomes independent of the government...
Socialism on the freakin' hoof!!!!
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 11:21AM
It's actually, just the opposite.
Less people are Hired at the new Wage, thus creating More Unemployed.
I don't blame you for getting it wrong.
Everything he does is so INSIDIOUS, that it's easy for Good People to mistaken a Purpose Driven Job Killing Agenda, with one of Poor Judgement and Ignorance.
That is what he's Counting On.
Murl| 2.14.13 @ 12:08PM
TLP said, "This is NOT a Delusion, on the part of the Halfrican."
Why not just call him the "HNIC"?
junkyard infidel| 2.14.13 @ 6:13PM
no, he's a "mongrel" ! and that's straight from lil' berry hussein's own mouth !
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 6:28PM
Did he say mongrel or mutt?
MelvinNC| 2.14.13 @ 8:01AM
I have the perfect solution to this. As an example of the Social Democrats looking out for the little guy, by raising the minimum wage to $9.00. I will use two Social Democrat examples. First is Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and former Senator John Kerry. Both are multi millionaires, Pelosi as a owner of a major hotel concern which in-itself has a multitude of low wage housekeepers.
Then there is Kerry whose wife owns the Heinz conglomerate. That business to has multitudes of low wage employees.
Both of these politicians in the spirit of President Obama's mandate to the minions of low wage masses can themselves without any legislation, raise they're low wage employees to a living wage.
If this is such a good an aduacious plan presented by President Obama. Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and T, Heinze Kerry can immediately order they're human resources officer to raise any employee not getting paid $9.00 to $9.00 effective immediately.
Thats right no legislation, no congress, no senate, Pelosi and Kerry could use their own executive decision without government getting involved.
Maxwell| 2.14.13 @ 8:28AM
Melvin, are you saying that Queen Nancy & John Long Face should lead by example? That would surely be refreshing! I'd pay good money to see ANY reporter ask them to do just as you say.
MelvinNC| 2.14.13 @ 8:47AM
Thats right Maxwell. Oh sure none of us expect neither Pelosi or Kerry to do that, but you see it changes the dynamics of the argument. Right now the onus is on the evil rich Republicans, If any Republican got infront of the michrophone and suggested thisl that the Democrats put their money where their mouthes are, it would put the onus on the Social Democrats because the masses would see this as, "Yea, why doens't these millioniares just raise their employees wages by order of the CEO's?"
Then the Republicans could hammer this day in and day out and take Barrack off his game, because he would have to explain why the millionaire Social Democrats are not just raising they're employees wages. The Republicans could say, "Why wait for Legislation, do it now, do it right now.
This would put the RHINOS in the hot seat as well.
Maxwell| 2.14.13 @ 9:29AM
I'd LOVE to see that happen! However that would require someone, ANYONE to have a 'set' & use them too. Not holding my breath, blue ain't my colour.
SUBVET| 2.14.13 @ 10:30AM
Maxwell.....the problem is we don't have any "real reporters".
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:55PM
Exactly.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 10:05AM
Guys, news flash for you: The minimum wage has been so devalued by inflation that most jobs pay at least that rate EVEN TO ILLEGALS. The "free market" often has LEGAL citizens asking for MORE than $9 which is why the ethical capitalists love to break the law and hire illegals for less or to keep the "uppity" legal workers in line.
Another point to ponder: capitalist free enterprise in the states loved slavery and indentured servitude and the result of these business practices haunts the country to this day.
If the right can't start making decent policy to benefit a decent number of people in their electorate, they'll lose even more elections. Other than business owners and anti-abortionists/gay-marriage, why should most of the right's electorate bother getting out of bed to show up to vote?
DTOM| 2.14.13 @ 10:29AM
No one loves slavery more than the Socialist Obama.
Ask any doctor!
PK, are you a useful idiot or a confirmed communist? I vote "idiot."
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 10:47AM
DTOM, I would hope I'm a useful idiot for the right side. I'm giving out useful advice here.
Comparing doctors to slaves? Hahahaha! Doctors still make pretty good money. Keep in mind that they have a union of their own to limit the numbers of doctors and set caps on immigration. Imagine... if Russian doctors were allowed to come in!
The sad reality is that Obama doesn't really need slaves or even the rich. He's just printing up money to keep his empire going.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:56PM
There is no Inflation.
Remember?
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 8:17AM
This is actually a stealth move on Moochelle's (along with an obviously complicit Mayor Bloomers) part to get folks off of fast food. After all, who's going to pay $17.00 for a Big Mac so Mickey D's can cover the new wage costs?
Maxwell| 2.14.13 @ 8:23AM
Interesting timing of this article Mr. Ross. As I was coming home from my local (Trenton) vo-tec school last night I was pondering, just how do I approach an employer about an entry level welding job & pay? While I will be three times older than just about every person hired at the entry level my skill is at best entry level.
I remember when I first started as a programmer almost 30 years ago my project manager said, it takes three years to train both a dog & a programmer but a dog is faster in most cases. So, at entry level or minimum wage the employer is giving you a chance to learn which costs him (or her) money. My father said he would ask himself at the end of each day, did I make a profit for my company? Can I justify what I was payed today? I know that is so 1918 but that is what my father asked himself while he was employed by GE for almost 60 years.
When anyone actually thinks about minimum wage the cost is anything but minimum. The true cost is my time, my future employers time (if I can find an entry level welding job), the inability to providing a profit for my employer for 'X' amount of time, & the costs of training while learning a new skill set. This is not rocket science & I fail to see how liberals cannot see the obvious!
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 9:52AM
They see it.
They don't give a shitt.
Are you a Minority?
No?
Then you deserve whatever bad happens to ya.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 8:31AM
I have the perfect anecdote to the proposed increase in minimum wage:
How about we introduce 11 million additional low-skilled workers so they can compete for those ever-dwindling low-paying jobs, albeit at a now higher rate?
What do you say? Come on. It'll be fun.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 8:32AM
Obama and his merry band of lefties would like a MAXIMUM wage/income.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 8:31AM
Labor unions are too dumb to realize the min wage hurts their organizing efforts. When they try to organize employees in the retail and fast food industries that pay the min wage, the employees usually ask: what can you do for us? The answer is usually not much,especially since now Obamacare will require health insurance. The unions would have better results organizing employees if the gov did not mandate the benefits and wages.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.14.13 @ 9:11AM
I'm not sure that this is always the case. I've heard tell that a number of union contracts set their wage not using a dollar figure, but at a rate of a percentage of the national minimum wage (say, 400%). If the minimum wage goes up from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour, a laborer with such a contract sees his rate go from $29 to $36 an hour without having to waste a minute (or a dime for a labor lawyer) negotiating.
If this is accurate, it explains why the unions in general also seem to support minimum wage increases, even though the rest of us might think it should be irrelevant to them.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 9:29AM
Al,
Don't unions have to abide by market realities? Aren't unions stronger (meaning an increase in total union dues) when there's a jobs surplus?
If the minimum wage increases, and therefore union demand increases, the market will dictate that there will be fewer jobs, and thus, fewer dues in the unions' coffers. A self-defeating cycle.
The only way this changes is if the government determines a company pays X amount of their profits on wages.
I think Castro, Chavez, (insert current communist leader), are rubbing their hands together with a certain s**t eating grin on their faces. They've seen this act and know exactly how it will end.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.14.13 @ 9:50AM
The answer to your question, Bob, is that sooner or later, we all have to abide by market realities.
Each day, I drive past the GM plant less than a mile from my home, where semi-skilled workers with no educational requirement used to earn $45K-$75K per year when they were working.
The operative words, though, are used to earn, as the plant has been closed for good during the Obama administration. Ditto for the Newark Chrysler plant, whose former grounds I drove past yesterday.
As TLP noted above, "Great Work, if you can get it".
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 10:33AM
Albert and Bob
You are 100% correct. The unions in the Pgh steel mills were successful in negotiating contracts. But most closed. Over 100,000 workers lost steel related jobs in Western Pa in th2 late 70's and 80's.
The Big Steel contract provided for 13 weeks vacation every 5 years. My relatives, and everyone else, in the mill went stir crazy and took only 3 weeks, received 10 weeks pay, and worked those 10 weeks.
There's a good book describing the collapse of the unionized steel industry "And The Wolf Finally Came."
But it was the fault of management that agreed to unsustainable wages and benefits. It is what we now have with the entitlements and the 16 trillion deficit. We cannot afford the spending by the federal gov.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 2:42PM
Oy Al Jr. Didjiz ever go over to Fair Hill in May to observe the braw lads tossing ye cabar?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.14.13 @ 11:03PM
I haven't made the Highland Games, though I did work Fair Hill a couple of years on a equestrian competition, making sure nobody rustled any horses.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 10:25AM
Albert
My experience in negotiating labor contracts was that the minimum wage set the floor, usually in the retail industry, and then the hourly wage for the first year of employment was 25 cents or some similar figure above the min wage, with the increase covering the union dues and initiation fee. In the industrial factories the starting hourly wage was always a few dollars above min wage. The min wage was relevant to the first year. I did not see any percentage increases for year 2 or 3, but there probably are as you say. It does make sense.
You are right that it does help existing employees. I was focusing only on the difficulties that unions have in organizing private employers that pay around the min wage.
Obama and his crowd seem to think that workers stay at the min wage their entire life. These min wage jobs are entry level for young employees in fast food, or retail, and now we see it with retirees working to supplement their SS.
Fiscal| 2.14.13 @ 8:35AM
The only reason a minimum wage is necessary is because we have so many write-offs, exclusions, and special interest deductions for corporations and the wealthy. We would have less need for a minimum wage if we eliminated preferences for corporations and the wealthy.
That said, from an econometric point of view, the minimum wage should be set at the point that shows the "least cost option" for social programs. If it is too low, then we pay more for food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare/safety net programs. If it is too high, then it makes some businesses less competitive. It is a balance from a non-ideological, econometric viewpoint.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 8:40AM
Tinker much?
How about if we let private corporations and the laborer determine the wage and be done with it?
I bet you would have alot more opportunities for people to move up the income ladder, if they so choose. We might actually see a jobs glut.
How beautiful would that be?
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 8:59AM
Corporations have deductions for business expenses just like an individual has deductions for business expenses. The purpose is for the business to stay in business so it can hire employees and pay them more than the minimum wages.
This may come as a shock to you but business corporations employ workers, and if a corp does well it employs more workers and can afford to pay them more than min wage. You sound like the Dems who supposedly love employees but hate employers.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 9:08AM
CJW,
His hatred and envy of the wealthy trumps his love of a well paying job.
It's that simple.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 10:38AM
How about we make every job pay $50 an hour, which at 2040 hours per week, is about $100,000 per year. Every job including Pres, Congress, judges, doctors, lawyers, movie-tv actors, entertainers, the whole works. Bet the Hollywood libs and Ruling Class take it?
Of course you actually have to work 2080 hours per year, so Obama and Congress might make 20,000 or 30,000 per year.
vtwin| 2.14.13 @ 9:33AM
I agree, we as tax payers are subsidizing low-wage employers like Wall-Mart whose employees are paid ONLY the minimum wage thus making these workers eligible for food stamps, housing, Medicaid… and the wealthy have through political contributions so manipulated the tax laws that Romney’s federal tax liability of 9% on over $10 million of income was as a percentage of income less than ANY employee of Wall-Mart.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 9:48AM
vtwin, Perhaps you should suggest to the Marxist currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that he do a trial run starting with G. E.?
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 10:46AM
vtwin
Taxpayers at the low end do not pay any federal income tax. You know that. They pay the FICA tax of about 7% and the employer matches it.
Romney, and your Dem pals like Buffet, Kennedys,etc . pay a capital gains tax of 15% because their income is from capital gains and dividends. That is the law passed by Congress and signed by Dem and Rep presidents.
Romney paid about 3 mil in taxes each year,and donated about 3 mil to charity. Not enough for you?
JJC| 2.14.13 @ 8:09PM
Not to mention that the income that he pays the 15% capital gains rate on has already been taxed, usually at the corporate rate.
WhiteBikerTrash| 2.14.13 @ 2:05PM
V-Twin, hows the Honda running? I just did a cam change on a Twin-Cam to get rid of the EPA mandated chain drives. Worn out in under 30,000 miles. Do you really believe the stuff you spew? Are you really that mislead? Did you hear about the starting wage at Walmarts in North Dakota? Did you peruse Rommny's tax returns? Could you find a clue, if it had a flashing light on it, in a dark room? You really need to change your screen name to Vespa! That would fit you and your beliefs much better.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 2:53PM
V-twin is like that from smoking his hair and looks forward to stroking his duck butter pump. An extra piece of raisin pie should be yours tomorrow, WhiteBikerTrash.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 5:07PM
I didn't understand a word you just said.
But I liked it, all the same.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 6:56PM
Maybe I am the only arse hole in the chain who has read EasyRiders magazine, where some of my langwich in the previous post originated.
junkyard infidel| 2.14.13 @ 6:18PM
ha ha, exactly...the vtwink rides an algae powered moped that emits unicorn farts and fairy dust from the exhaust pipe !
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 11:31AM
You mean like green job spending ?
Mike G| 2.14.13 @ 8:43AM
"Employers are not forced to hire a certain number of workers."
You have just given the elitists their next good idea. Every business will be forced to hire x number of employees for every y dollars of profit.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 8:49AM
That's coming!
NE-Conservative| 2.14.13 @ 8:46AM
Excellent presentation of basic economic facts. Unfortunately, the argument remains beyond the ability of many college graduates to comprehend. I'm speaking of students of technology (Information Systems, any engineering, bio sciences, etc.) as well as the 'softer' degrees. In my professional life, I interact with IT industry 'bright lights' whose knowledge of practical business or operational economics is at the level of a child running a lemonade stand fully subsidized by their parents. This includes graduates of institutions like MIT, CALTECH, etc.
Dai Alanye | 2.14.13 @ 8:51AM
One thing conservative commentators should never do is to repeat the official "unemployment" figure. 7.9% indeed! We all know the true figure is around twice that. The "employment" figure is what we should use, and it's surely below 90% today.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 9:49AM
68% to be exact.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 9:54AM
Further, if you factor in the number of government employees at all levels of government, the percentage of workers who actually PRODUCE something (goods and services) drops to around 45%. Nice, huh?
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 10:00AM
I typed the wrong first number in the first post above. Actual percentage of employed to population is closer to 58%, NOT
68%.
DTOM| 2.14.13 @ 10:34AM
What socialists never understand that the only reason to run a business is for the profit. And ALL taxes are paid with profits. No profits, no tax revenues - it really is that simple and they are that STUPID.
DOH!
DTOM
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 11:04AM
DTOM, nice cool aid but it doesn't work. Here's why:
Even a "non profit" business still pays provides plenty of tax revenues. Their workers will pay income tax on their own. The business will pay various taxes that aren't income taxes. You're generalizing that corporate income taxes are the only source of federal tax income.
It can be argued that corporations shouldn't pay income taxes because the income is reported by the shareholders when they cash in their shares or dividends. So corporate income taxes are a form of double taxation. Many Democrat fascist cronies such as GE have this figured out.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 11:17AM
PK, Your last two sentences are exactly right but, to a degree, DTOM is correct in his assertion and you are incorrect in your conclusion. The money that the employees of a non-profit pay in income taxes come from (drum-roll) donations from private or corporate individuals. So, as is the case with public employees who pay a portion of their income BACK to the government in the form of income tax, they are merely recycling wealth CREATED by the productive class. Ergo, DTOM gets it right.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 11:17AM
And by the way, PK, I LOVE the phrase "Democrat fascist cronies". Thanks for that.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 11:45AM
Kennesawjack, my apologies for my inability to express humor sufficiently for you to "get it". I put "non profit" in Dr. Evil (no pun intended) double quotes to refer to businesses that don't have significant profit to warrant income taxes and not strictly "non-profit" companies that you refer to. But even many non-profits are not necessarily qualified by the IRS as deductible (and even if they are, many people can't take the deductions because they file a simple return as I do.) Also, many non-profits make money in a true business sense (such as Paul Newman's salad dressing.)
Even so, your claim that a non-profit as you refer to it even via 100% donations from people who took the money off of their reported income (not a straight credit as you know) is still "private" income if the donor works in private industry so the tax revenues generated by the economic activity isn't a wash as you refer to it. But I agree a socialist economy of government workers paying income taxes is a wash. Fair enough?
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 12:01PM
I'm an old guy so it is sometimes more difficult for me to "get it" (Don't go there, Tim) than you youngsters. Keep that in mind.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 1:59PM
Maybe if you Styled your Hair, you'd "Get It" more often?
Contest, tomorrow.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 2:19PM
If I had hair, I would. Didn't I tell you not to go there?
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 2:54PM
You could always braid your nosehairs, Kennesaw Jack.
Pecos Pete| 2.14.13 @ 1:56PM
Also a source of funds for non profits is ... drum roll ... government grants.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 2:21PM
Pete, any truth to the rumor that Obamarx's stimulus included a serious amount of money to study the effects of piquante sauce as opposed to barbecue sauce on the taste of mountain oysters?
Pecos Pete| 2.14.13 @ 6:35PM
Ah KJ, mi amigo, it is to die for! The succulent taste of a mountain oyster covered with butter and black pepper grilled over medium coals then served from the grill on delicate oyster plates for the devotees to then dip said oyster in a picante sauce.
My stimulus grant proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that BBQ sauce is not as tastey, nor as healthy, as butter and picante sauce. This is true whether the picante sauce is HOT, Medium or mild. Gringos generally prerfer mild while us home grown walkin' tall bow-legged cowboys like it HOT!
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 6:59PM
Someone once told me that the cowboys who are bow-legged are that way because they can not get their calves together.
JimH| 2.14.13 @ 9:02AM
This just in; The Obama administration has announced their solution to poor schools. They have declared the henceforth the minimum grade shall be a B, thus making all students above average.
Von Mises Jr| 2.14.13 @ 10:40AM
Minorities and GLBT students get an additional half-grade for the discrimination that undermines their effort. This is social justice and without these affirmative action policies, little barry would still be a communist organizer.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 2:04PM
Blacks get 10 extra points for their Skin Colour. Women get 10 extra points as Survivors of the Republican's War on Women. Gays got 10 extra points because the CIA created AIDS to get rid of them. And, Hispanics get 10 extra points. And, they get them in Spanish.
Pecos Pete| 2.14.13 @ 9:13AM
Santa Fe, NM: Effective March 1, 2013 all employers are required to pay employees an hourly wage of $10.51 per hour. This includes part-time and temporary employees.
I just had breakfast at a local restaurant frequented by locals, not tourists. Paid $14.95, before tip, for 2 fried eggs, bacon, toast, coffee and a glass of water.
I can make the same meal at home for about one dollar. $1.00 !!!!! The underlying cost structure is thus heavily weighted to labor cost, insurance cost, regulatory cost, energy cost, taxes, etc. The generally accepted profit margin for medium styled full-service restaurants is approximately 3%. Thus, the owner of my breakfast restaurant probably made about 45 cents ($.45) from my meal.
I was there for about an hour during which I counted 15 customers having breakfast. 15 x $.45 = $6.75 for owner profit for one hour.
And, what does the owner make during down hours when the restaurant has no customers? $0.00 per hour.
The minimum labor wage is socialist fairy dust spread large.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:53PM
This calculation assumes that the profit margin is only 3% for that particular business exchange. Let's ignore that for a moment and look at what we know. You multiplied 15x0.45 while ignoring the bigger factor which is the gross receipts: $224.25. It would be useful if you could have provided the number of people on staff and the impact of the higher minimum wage so we could gauge its impact upon the price of the meal. Would a staff of 4 seem reasonable? Let's assume they're all minimum wagers or impacted by a raise in it. So let's give them all 3 dollars more per hour. You counted one hour so that's 12 bucks.
12/224.25 X 100 = 5.3% increase in operating expenses. That increases the price of your meal, if the business wants to preserve profit margin, by 80 cents so now it's $15.75.
Yes, that's 3/4 of a buck out of your pocket but for those 4 people (including the waitress you tip generously, I hope), it means a lot. It means a 33% increase in their take home pay. It means fewer people deciding to just go on welfare rather than bother to do this kind of work. Or a small business owner hiring an illegal who will later go on welfare and vote Democrat.
Anyways... if breakfast is that much, why not go to McD's? I get my wife the big meal for 5 bucks with all that. Wouldn't capitalism say that this small business should go under and be replaced with a McDonalds?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 2:11PM
How much do you think the Profit Margin is?
How much is too much, according to you?
The OIL COMPANIES' Profit Margin is 3%. The Federal and State Governments, through their Taxing of Petroleum Products, make way more than the Oil Companies.
Did you know that?
Of course you didn't.
You're an Idiot.
What's YOUR Profit Margin?
Aladin Sane| 2.14.13 @ 2:34PM
"Anyways... if breakfast is that much, why not go to McD's? I get my wife the big meal for 5 bucks with all that. Wouldn't capitalism say that this small business should go under and be replaced with a McDonalds?"
Capitalism wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing a minimum wage on anyone. So, no capitalism wouldn't be in favor of the small businsess going under. Would you?
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 2:51PM
Capitalism would be interested in survival of the fittest. Period. So if McD's can deliver Happy Meals for $5 with the same food as a small owned business for three times that much, all things being equal, why shouldn't capitalism be in "favor" of the small business going under?
The problem with capitalism is that it assumes either a super free market (wild-west/Ethiopia) or a set of "limited" regulations which doesn't get out of control. Free market capitalism evolves into socialist fascism. Socialism-marxism evolves into socialist fascism. I love to point that out to my leftist friends that crony capitalism LOVES Obama! Shuts them up fast.
Oil companies can make a ton of money out of a 3 percent profit margin because they have huge volume. A smaller business such as the diner would find a $10 profit on $245 rather lean.
Aladin Sane| 2.14.13 @ 3:48PM
Yes, but when survival of the fittest is not who responds to the market, but who lobbies the government (the direction we are headed) our nation becomes a non-sustaining entity. The capitalist who isn't attached to the government teat would advocate less government.
I supposed that means I agree about crony capitalism loving Obama. Wasn't that what Solyndra was all about?
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 4:48PM
That's the problem Aladin: Tt appears that capitalism/free-markets that don't wind up becoming lobbyist whores is about as realistic as socialism that doesn't wind up becoming fascism.
Just as anarchy is ideal when people don't go and form gangs to then go around and rob people, the presence of legal lobbying means that if a capitalist doesn't take advantage of the power to get favorable regulations and tax breaks at the expense of his competitor, then he's going to go out of business someday.
Bottom line: Survival of the fittest isn't about what's fair. It's simply about survival. If you try to prettify capitalism, you wind up sounding a lot like a socialist. Yes?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 5:10PM
And if you push for Socialism, you wind up sounding like a Moron. Yes?
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 5:45PM
You didn't "get" my point, did you? That is, capitalism ultimately "pushes for socialism" on their own as they lobby for favorable regulations and kickbacks in the system. Consider the milk and sugar lobbies. Free market capitalism simply doesn't work anymore than anarchy works because eventually people would form gangs and generate a fuedal oligarchy.
Now let us pray to The Constitution...
Pecos Pete| 2.14.13 @ 6:53PM
PK wrote: " So if McD's can deliver Happy Meals for $5 with the same food as a small owned business for three times that much, all things being equal, why shouldn't capitalism be in "favor" of the small business going under?"
It your statement were true, then yes the lower price business would survive. The problem is, "all things ain't equal" when McD's Happy Meals at $5 ain't the same meal in taste, quality, or the location/building doesn't have the ambiance in terms of service and aesthetic appeal. I can buy a cheaper breakfast than the one McD serves, so according to your economic theories, McDonalds should go out of business tomorrow, all things being equal.
Your subtle attempt to be an economist by using a strawman argument simply exposes your lack of knowledge. The point is, an increase in the minimum wage forces businesses to increase prices thus keeping the minimum wage earner in the same, or worse, price to earnings ratio.
The minimum wage is simply socialistic fairy dust spread about to make people think they are better off than would otherwise be the case.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 7:02PM
McDonalds dung have waitresses who know you and call you "Hon", even if they dung know you.
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 1:51PM
Next time you quote me, please read what I wrote: "all things being equal" (I should have written "all OTHER things being equal") but the point is there: I clearly indicated that price wasn't the only factor.
It's funny that after giving me a schoolboy lecture that you then engage in a similar argument that you had just criticized me for: only looking at the bottom line (price) without consideration for other business factors. For example: health department regulations no doubt "forces" (eek! FORCE!) businesses to increase prices. But wouldn't you say that such proper regulations ultimately benefits such businesses in the long run by improving their reputation and encouraging customers to feel safe when ordering food?
Small businesses are well known to be hiring illegals to save money and then dumping the costs of the welfare state, educating the children, and crime upon the rest of society. But they are "saving" customers money, right?
In the meantime, Republicans lose elections while the businesses that they let screw over consumers and workers send money over to the Democrats much of the time for crony regulations and tax breaks and the working class whites didn't bother to get out of bed to vote for Romney. Good job! In a way, that's the free market at work: Stodgy, inflexible, and retro Republicans losing elections to the left. But hey, blame me. It's all MY fault. Feel better?
JJC| 2.14.13 @ 8:31PM
I notice that you ignore the fact that the higher price will drive customers away. It is always thus - the human nature element in economic behavior is just a nuisance so we will pretend it doesn't exist. Hey, the CBO does it, right?
MikeW| 2.14.13 @ 9:37AM
More worrisome than the 9-dollar proposal is Obama's (and Romney's) proposal to automatically increase the minimum wage every year to match the inflation rate. Wage/price spiral, here we come.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 2:23PM
Unemployment Spike, here we come.
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 3:02PM
In New Juhsey the DemocRAT controlled Senate and Assembly sent a minimum wage bill raising the rate to $7.50 an hour and changing the state Constitution to automatically raise the minimum wage in subsequent years. Governor Christie vetoed the bill, so the DemocRATS now have it coming to the registered voters to decide on a ballot measure. Do we have enough residents who find such a bill deplorable to hold off the "low information" voters?
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 9:47AM
I love being a devil's advocate. The author's arguments are dishonest and reminds me much of the left. Let's start with the "why not raise the minimum wage to $40 an hour?" This would imply that if a regulation can't be taken to an extreme, it should be abandoned. OK, fine. How about if there are limits on how many hours a pilot should fly before he feels tired, why not limit it to 1 hour? Or if you want a speed limit on the roads, then why not make it 10 mph on all roads? You get the idea.
I laughed when he prattled on about "voluntary exchange" and "free market". Indeed, many on the right love the idea of open borders and hiring H1B with fake diplomas because they undercut American labor and they can dump the side costs on the welfare state much like the robber barons of old dumping their factory waste into drinking water as they do now in Asia. If free market capitalists didn't act like such scumbags, perhaps socialism wouldn't be so popular.
Ironically, the private industry working and middle class that the right are so quick to throw under the bus in the name of "free enterprise" are the last refuge for them to win elections since they do nothing about racist entitlement schemes. But thank heavens they want to keep tax rates low for the rich. For a minute there, I was worried! I'd hate to think they'd have to pay a higher tax rate on their private jet. Then the country would be in a pickle!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.14.13 @ 9:52AM
I never would have guessed that you enjoyed the role of devil's advocate.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 2:13PM
Do we have a problem?
I haven't heard from you, all day.
If I've Lost Cronkite?
I wanna know.
DTOM| 2.14.13 @ 10:39AM
Hey, you ignorant sausage!
They ARE trying to raise the minimum wage to $40/hr. They are just too stupid to know it!
A minimum wage of $40/hr outlaws 90% of private jobs. Naturally, the government exempts itself from the minimum wage law - so they can instantly plunge all workers into poverty.
Don't think for three seconds that they are not thinking about it!
Don't Tread On Me!!!
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 10:52AM
DTOM, this argument doesn't make sense. As everyone knows, the Federal government generally tends to pay wages HIGHER than private industry. It's now largely a slush fund of cronyism and nepotism. How many federal or even state jobs are you aware of that pay lower than minimum wage? Or even close to it?
So do you think we should lower the speed limit to 10MPH or just get rid of it? Heck, get rid of all traffic laws! And also, let people just dump toxic waste into the local river and poison thousands. Nothing should get in the way of a fast buck! Those darn regulations!
Warrior| 2.14.13 @ 11:51AM
This is your version of devil's advocate? Why not make all moving vehicles out of Nerf material, let the government set all wages for every job in America, give all the homeless a vacant home in Detroit, and declare everyone in California is a citizen of Mexico, the rest of us are Canadians. We've solved just about every major crisis that remains.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:56PM
The devil's advocate illustrates that it's difficult to get rid of the devil via simplistic arguments and positions. The Devil is in the details. The Constitution was a great idea, but it didn't work. It's been amended more than a dozen times, was written during a period of slavery, and the populace wants a state that provides such things as welfare to keep families with children from dying in the street. I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm only observing reality here. God made man. He also made the devil. Live with all three.
Warrior| 2.14.13 @ 4:28PM
Your progressive reality is as warped as your progressive ideology.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 5:12PM
Considering that the term progressive has become as warped as the terms "liberal" and "equal opportunity", perhaps it's useful to understand what's meant by your use of it directed at me. But first, let's clarify the "conservative" position:
Most of them love anti-abortion laws, laws against gay marriage, and drug laws. Aren't those big government agendas? And if they favor these social policies for some end (even one to maintain "traditional values"), in a way that's progressive since it advocates pushing society in one direction over another.
In addition, if you're not "progressing" then you're just a reactionary. As capitalists talk about "adapting to the market", old style conservatives call for preaching The Constitution and resisting change. But if we resist change and freeze things at this point here and now, wouldn't that suck? And if we try to go back, go back to where? Jimmy Carter stagnation of the 70's? Or how about the cold war? We have to figure out where we want society to go rather than just pray to The Holy Constitution and just oppose the left.
If you want maximum business and personal freedom and simultaneously to encourage heterosexual family values, great. I'm on board with that. But you have to keep in mind the needs of the electorate. Simply telling us to eat gruel until our capitalist saviors get around to it sounds a lot like voting for John McCain.
Warrior| 2.15.13 @ 10:56AM
Abortion is murder. The left loves change and forward, unfortunately, your arguments are centered in Marx and Alinsky.
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 1:54PM
If the goal of Marx and Alinsky was to win elections, then sure, say that about me. I think it's great to worship the Constitution and deny abortions to rape victims but the problem with that is that it won't win elections and is a political loser. Find a way to really win elections and get people fired up and to get me stuff that matters in my life and I'll be happy to help out.
I'm sorry (truly) to tell you this, but I don't give a rat's butt about abortion. It's not a daily issue for me. I want civil rights in the workplace and education first and foremost. That's because I don't get an abortion every day. I do go to work 5 days a week (or more.) Adopt policies people care about or lose.
And that's not Alinsky. That's the fundamental operation of a Democratic republic and the Constitution itself.
pigdog| 2.14.13 @ 10:14AM
re "The true “minimum wage” is not $7.25, it’s zero. The minimum wage doesn’t assure a “living wage,” rather it assures a job-killing wage."
There is a flip side to the above statement, and I hope someone asks Barrack Obama this question when he is out speechifying: What is the true minimum wage in Williston, North Dakota?
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 10:27AM
Hopefully Dr. Ross, or someone else reading this will give me the facts on the following: Last night I was listening to talk radio and the guest was a guy named Garafalo (supposedly a PhD in economics) who works for Think Progress. (I know, my Spydee senses went into Red Alert status too when I heard this.) He inisted that EVERY academic study done on the minimum wage going back to about 1992 had shown that raising the minimum wage had actually increased employment and had NO negative effect on the net number of employees that small businesses kept on the payroll. At one point he said that if small business man 'A' laid off a worker that the worker would find a job down the street with business 'B' because raising the minimum wage increased economic activity. I didn't believe it, and neither did the radio host, but the guy politely insisted that all the studies showed this. Can anyone clarify or verify this guys assertion? Thanks in advance.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:46AM
Yes, those studies are correct.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 10:53AM
Says who?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 2:57PM
Maybe Arnie should ask the Blacks, during the Depression, who all lost their jobs, after FDR started his Minimum Wage deal, what their situation became, shortly thereafter.
You didn't expect Arnie to get one Right, did you?
"Good Work If You Can Get It."
Look it up.
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 10:58AM
ROTFL. If I was skeptical of the PhD on the radio, you don't really expect me to take the word of an anonymous person on a blog thread do you? Maybe you're just trying to be funny. If not, please cite the studies, if you know them. I'd like to read them for myself.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 11:00AM
Incorrect!
Increasing the minimum wage has a minimal to ZERO multiplier effect.
What little multiplier effect it MIGHT have on economic activity WILL NEVER overcome the price distortion is causes.
This ain't rocket science folks!
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 11:06AM
Thanks for your response, Bob. That is my reaction and was the radio host's as well. What I am trying to find out is- are those "studies" Garafalo referenced real, biased or totally bogus- or actually even exist. I've NEVER heard of them before last night and experience suggests to me that I would have heard something about them long before 2013. Can anyone give info on what studies Garafalo was talking about, or a citation of some kind(s)?
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 11:17AM
That sounds more like rantings from Janeane Garafalo than someone who knows what they are talking about :-)
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 11:38AM
LOL. I agree. Unfortunately the host didn't force the guy to name the studies so we could check his assertions. Maybe he would have if he hadn't "run out of time".
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 11:06AM
Arneeeeeeeee,
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Arneeeeee says the studies are correct so that's that!
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 11:21AM
Of the story, the end. So thankful, I am. (as long as we're engaging in fantasy......)
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 10:56AM
I laugh at the notion that a poor, victim employer will have to lay off some worker sweeping floors because the minimum wage is just too high to pay him. Boo hoo hoo!
What bunk and here's why: Many employers are laying off people or refusing to hire even if they have tons of money in the portfolio. They think they can stop sweeping the floors that often and customers will still come and they can get away it. I see cutbacks like this all the time and only after they start losing money FROM THE CUSTOMERS LEAVING does the Harvard graduate think "Maybe I should end the hiring freeze."
Consequently, workers who try to keep up with less resources find out that the boss says "Wow! They made it work! Make some more cuts!" It's kind of like the Soviet system of pretending to work and pretending to get paid.
Employers will hire the guy to sweep floors, provided the price isn't totally outrageous of course, if they NEED the floors swept. Period. A few bucks more isn't a big deal and since it has to be factored in with other expenses (rent, utilities, legal, etc.) it doesn't kill the business.
In the meantime, good luck with finding the remaining white people willing to vote to keep taxes on the rich low while nothing is done about Obama's race entitlements agenda...
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 11:01AM
Yo, 'Knight'. I think you need some anger management. Thanks for the reply, but you didn't shed any light on the studies.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 11:06AM
I provided an explanation of the economic factors behind the effects of raising the minimum wage on employment. If you want to dismiss them (and me) because what I said doesn't suit your faith in capitalism and The Constitution, so be it. Good luck with that next election cycle...
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 11:54AM
I realize your estimation of yourself is way, way up there someplace: aka- "A Legend In Your Own Mind". But, alas, I don't know you from Adam and therefore, you have zero credibility as an economic expert in the blogosphere and in particular with me. Also, you merely make assertions in a rant against employers which further undermines your 'credibility', AND your proof of these assertions is anecdotal- at best. Addtionally I was looking for verifiable info. Usually called EVIDENCE. You know, the kind I can research on my own to verify what Garafalo was saying. You don't object to hard evidence and having it scrutinized for veracity do you 'Knight'? Afterall, if raising the minimum wage is a great cure all, I'm down for the struggle to raise it.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:25PM
I'm looking for where I said 'credibility' or proof and I don't see any such claim. You're projecting a strawman onto me. Have fun with it. Or should I say, 'fun' with it!
I merely commented, that's all. If you want to insist that every comment here be backed up by a cite to a formal study, please do so. There's 97 in here total so far (divided by individual discussions, of course). So should NOBODY say anything if it doesn't meet your standards?
Or perhaps you should call for some regulations...
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 3:02PM
So, you admit that you're just Talking Shitt.
At least you're Honest.
JimP| 2.14.13 @ 3:59PM
You're a real piece of work, 'Knight'. First you didn't answer my initial question. You gave a personal rant. Then you snarked as if your word actually has some credibility. Now you misread my reply to your snark. I wasn't saying you said 'credibility'. I was questioning your credibility and underscoring you lack of it with apostrophes at both ends of the word. Duh. Further, I'm not insisting that every comment be backed up with a citation, but I was/am asking for that if anyone has them. But, even with all your brilliance, you didn't get that?! Why are you so sensaaaaative about a REQUEST for information that will lead me to these studies? Why are you misreading it as "insistence"? I think TLP summed it up perfectly. I can't top his comment to you.
Bon chance with career as an economist.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 5:38PM
I was just commenting Jim, I mean 'Jim.' But sure, I'm talking shit but that's what most comments are here without a precious cite to a study. If that makes you feel better. 'night.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 12:02PM
You are confusing small business with Microsoft. Idiot.
who makes 9 an hour at a fortune 100 company ? Maybe fast food chains-all of this gets passed on to consumer or investor trying to gain a dividend and some growth. Alot of kids are happy with the current wage-leave it alone-citing stidies that are dubious-measuring rather minor increase, usually with exemption for rural areas and starter worker and most of all passed into law at times of actual growth-we are is a puny growth at best scenario now. But I propose a maximon wage of 550 k all money that would come in over that can go into a central fund and be dispersed quarterly to the folks in need ? Will Mr. Clooney and Affeck and Eva Longboria and all the rest joing me in the effort for FUNDEMENTAL FAIRNESS.
spike59| 2.15.13 @ 6:05AM
....uh huh...because raising the cost of goods and services NEVER has any negative effects...typical 'libtard logic'
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:46AM
I think it's funny that in America it's so easy for conservatives to say that someone may not be worth 10, 14, or 20 dollars an hour.
But it's perfectly fine to say that somebody is worth 30,000 dollars an hour, and don't question it, because according to conservatives, that CEO earned, and is worth, every penny of it.
Absurd.
How about we tie the highest paid salaries to a maximum ratio with the lowest paid salaries in a company? Like 80 to 1. That would do wonders.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 11:01AM
Bravo Arnie!
I'm a heretic here at this point for not licking the boots of the right's country club masters. Having met many CEO's and seeing them run companies into the ground because they don't understand the business beyond an org chart, I find it hilarious to here Rush Limbaugh compare them to star athletes who actually have to provide results and have a certain rare skillset. Only a few specialized jocks can jump 4 feet into the air and sink hoops and sell game tickets. But the average corporate CEO is not much more skilled than his secretary who ultimately makes the org chart for them anyway.
Then a new CEO comes in and rearranges the org chart again until it comes back full circle. What a joke. These guys ought to get paid less than the floor sweepers.
Carly Fiorina tried to run for Congress in California after treating IT workers like trash and running HP into the ground. HP makes shitty printers now. She went down in flames.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 11:53AM
I guess if a secratary can run a major Corp, a dog can run my silly small business. Nurturse that trust fund carefully will ya.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:30PM
At one time, secretaries often were more prestigious and could become CEO's but perhaps the glamor and prestige went downhill with women flooding the industry? Then it became unimaginable for someone besides a woman to do such a job.
I have a friend who worked as an aide for a General. He was an officer himself and no slouch and could easily have run things in the General's absence.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 3:00PM
And, at one time, I'm sure that you didn't go through every day with your Head Up Your Ass.
Obviously, things change.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 5:47PM
TLP, I'll take your outburst as a form of unintential flattery. When you say things that cause someone to face some difficult truths, they take it out on you.
Get it out. It's ok.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:45PM
You just fabricate nonsense. Really live in a hollywood fantasy world. Just can't admit some people really are super talented and have attributes in the world of business the vast majority lack. Look at the current jackass in the whitehouse and those in Congress-yeah they could run a business-sure. Just chattering class performers who want ALL THE MONEY. And you can't wait to fork it over.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 1:12PM
PolishKnight, you nailed it. The GOP could win elections if so many of them weren't a boot licking bunch. If they campaigned about getting workers more pay, they would win with a landslide.
The only people really happy with the current pay differences are the ones on the top and the well connected. Democrats try, and sometimes make progress, but really don't do enough in this area honestly. The Republican Party doesn't even slightly care about this stuff.
The fact is a too high amount of money goes top management and owners and not enough to the people that actually run the companies and generate most of the wealth.
I've seen it myself. Top CEOs with crap for brains make bad decisions or commit outright fraud, and what does the company do....transfer him to another department or give them a huge golden parachute. It's simply ridiculous, while many of the workers struggle to pay the bills.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 3:58PM
Lie, lie lie. All you do is lie!
Nobody is happy with people getting paid for doing bad work. We simply realize that your proposed "solutions" are moronic and devastating to an economy. But you, being incapable of distinguishing intentions from results (as the author of this article wrote), cannot comprehend that our opposition could stem from anything other than a love of the problem.
Furthermore, much of the problem is YOUR fault. It is you who created the tax and regulatory framework that leads companies to structure CEO compensation as they do. YOU created the legal quagmire that makes golden parachutes preferable to legal battles at separation time. YOU own this, and your every idea to "fix" it will make it worse!
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 5:56PM
Actually, the one thing CEO's do other than play musical chairs with org charts and send work overseas or import fake professionals via H1B's is demand regulations that favor their own businesses. It's both a curse to capitalism and also to the left that likes to pretend they have crony capitalism under control.
I think a secretary could do a better job of simply making the org chart on her own and say "My friends at Haaaaavard country club agree that your friends should talk to the Senator about a tax break for our company. Cheers chaps! Now let's get on my private jet and go home. Cheerio!"
What BS. What a bunch of worthless, over-credentialed skanks.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 3:36PM
"But the average corporate CEO is not much more skilled than his secretary who ultimately makes the org chart for them anyway."
An indefensible statement made out of great ignorance. You Leftists have the incredible capacity to think that if you find one example of a mistake, you can make sweeping generalizations about a group.
And, no, that's not what I just did. I have yet to see one of you NOT exhibit this mistake.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:05PM
Calling me a leftist? Consider that I'm far to the right of most conservatives here on matters such as anti-feminism, abolishing affirmative action and favor cutting federal spending to the bone.
It's not just one example of a mistake but rather if capitalist CEO masters of the Org chart and outsourcing (I'm reminded of a scene, yes, in Hollywood of Zorg in The Fifth Element where he's asked to cut a half million jobs responding: "Cut a million".) It would be neat if CEO's could make companies successful with business strategies OTHER than org charts, layoffs, mergers, and backscratch regulations and tax breaks. But if that's all they do, then just give a secretary 2 years in business school and maybe put a few animals to sleep working as an intern to a vet (so she can layoff people to get a small stock price gain) and put her on the private jet. She'd do a far better job.
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 11:13AM
Arneeeee,
There ya go. Let's focus all of our anger on the real problem, the CEO!
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 11:48AM
I have to give credit to Barry in that when he (or his buddies) added a rider to the TARP funds that the CEO's would take pay cuts if the money wasn't paid back, they sure made sure to pay it back as soon as possible.
Sorry, but if worshiping the Holy Constitution and CEO country clubbers was working, would we be in this mess? But let's talk about gay marriage and abortion and cutting upper tax rates. That'll win elections and solve all this!
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 12:09PM
PK so smaret yet so easily duped. Yeah I type poorly and all that-but ya know, at the end of the day you the fool not me.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:31PM
Sticks and stones...
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:31PM
Sticks and stones...
JD| 2.14.13 @ 5:11PM
The key to modern Leftism is to assert that the Right is getting its way.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 11:48AM
Arnie the overpaid are not just the CEO folks-quite frankly the are mostly talented and vital people. Hollywood, the STARS and others of the media conglomerates, and certain trial lawyers and CEOS and Investment manager of investment and hedge funds who are big time dems like the Solyndra guys who are Big Sur gazzionaires who once the venture were the first to be protected on their share of investment-Really clean up your own pig pen house mister hero of the common man democrat-did you make one peep over Gore_s srore-current tv or whatever-you are a piece of crap fraud you and every other class warfare man of the people democrat-help the little guy, my ass. The head ache you have is alot of people you consider the litte guy-one day we will wake up and kiss some ass and you'll be shocked it is not the CEO of Exxon-but more likely the afore cited. And by the way, Obama and his juicy book deal and Hillary as well. All provided by medi conglomerates the democrats have givem monopoly power over the air waves, cable and all the rest. Creating money machines that fill the troughs of the beauitful and special pigs to feed gloriously from. Will somebody please do a study of the media conglomerates and the way the operate and gouge us for the little television many of us actuall recqire and a losy wire to feed our computers ?
JD| 2.14.13 @ 12:19PM
The only person who should say what a person is worth is the one paying him.
Arnie will never admit nor understand that.
Archie| 2.14.13 @ 12:40PM
The CEO will listen to the board, and the board will listen to the stock and bond holders (i.e., the owners). This isn't complicated.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 12:59PM
Who was listening to the Enron stock and bond holders? Or Freddie Mac's? Or GM's? Or HP's?
But the CEO got to pack their money from (most of) these failing companies in their private jets. F'ers. We ought to have a law: They only get as much money as they can carry away on their backs, in 100 dollar bills, and no private jets. Just a big duffel bag.
Archie| 2.14.13 @ 1:58PM
I understand your point, but in the big picture, aren't these out-liers? Can we ever get rid of corruption? I don't think so. Should we regulate to death the entire private economy in order to punish or catch the corrupt few? I don't think so.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:00PM
I hate the "we can't make the world perfect, so stop bothering us?" Ok. We can't ever make pregnancy absolutely safe and without miscarriage so what's the big deal about legalized abortion? Don't many if not most pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway? What's up with those pro-lifers?
This isn't just curruption at the level of Enron but rather a general, more insidious version where the notion of free market capitalism becomes a joke because by the time they lobby for favorable regulations and screw over their customers, employees, and even shareholders via legal methods of corruption, it makes capitalism a joke. Socialism also is a joke since they wind up becoming economic fascists.
The solution is more complex than either worshiping the Constitution as written (no more than 10 amendments) or Karl Marx. That's what I'm saying.
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 3:04PM
I can answer that.
BILL CLINTON.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 3:05PM
"We ought to have a law" - the famous words of a Leftist about to do something stupid.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:07PM
I didn't seriously propose the "amount of money the CEO has to carry" law. It was a joke. Unfortunately, when you grind up people's sacred cows they lose their sense of humor.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 3:09PM
PolishKnight, I suggest that you read up on Toyota's "Five Whys" approach, and then practice it.
Leftists treat symptoms, not causes, and this complaining about CEOs is a complaining about a symptom. You must ask WHY this happens before you will be prepared to suggest an intelligent solution.
Why do people pay them?
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:08PM
Absolutely agreed about CEO's being a symptom. But conservatives worshiping lousy CEO's is also a symptom that they need to re-evaluate their goals. I view the Constitution as a tool, that's all. It's not my God. I don't worship it. It's about finding what works. This crony capitalism/socialist fascism model doesn't.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:53PM
Well th Enron guy committed suicide and the others are in jail.Freddie-well those folks were democrats and are living large like the rest of the ruling class frauds of the party of the people.Do not mention movie stars and celebs and medi people as being overpaid-you are a real slave to the STARS. You are happy when the fill yet another swimmiug pool diamonds and rubies. Groupie.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:10PM
Carly Fiorina who ran HP into the ground was a Republican. She then tried to spend her outsource-reorg-chart money to buy a congressional election. She went down in flames. I'm sure she had a private jet ride home after she lost though.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 5:45PM
Arnie
How about we pay everybody $100,000 per year, from President to the current min wage employees.
Then you do not need another government department to decide salaries for jobs.
Or, since Jean Kerry, also known as Mr Teresa Heinz, is going to make a bundle when Warren Buffet buys Heinz at $72 share, John donates his profits to the US Treasury. Surely he does not need it. And surely he did not earn it. It is unfair for him to double his fortune just by getting married while the poor are starving.
Jean Kerry knows his economics, marry a rich, rich, rich widow.
Von Mises Jr| 2.14.13 @ 11:05AM
Wage and price controls always lead to unemployment and shortages.
During the Depression, FDR instituted wage and price controls. Setting upper limits on wages gave us our current Third-Party Health Insurance debacle. Since employers could not compensate high-value employees with wages, they started offering health benefits as an alternative. Seventy-five years later, there is a total disconnect and vast corruption in our health insurance sector. Likewise, his attempt to create minimum food prices by destroying crops led to shortages while usually it is the reverses when prices are set at a maximum, once a bushel of corn cost more to grow than its mandated selling price, farmers only grow for them since they lose on every marginal unit.
Von Mises Jr| 2.14.13 @ 11:05AM
Currently, Argentina has 30% inflation. Kirchner is setting 10% maximum price controls. This will cause shortages and black markets since if one cannot charge the market price for goods, there is little incentive to produce them. And if marketed, they will be bought up in volume since the buyer is getting a near 20% discount. The problem is not solved by wage and price controls, but only by sound monetary and fiscal policy that eliminates the inflation and shortages.
Our Sub-prime housing collapse was a similar debacle forcing lending at low rates and higher amounts to unqualified buyers. It created a surge in housing starts forcing up prices. But when market forces dictated that many could not afford the payments, the market collapsed and gave us a giant devaluation of home prices.
The controls work in both directions depending on minimums or maximum of wage and price controls, but the result is always a disaster.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 11:22AM
And really, Von, all that really matters is the Falklands.
Maxwell| 2.14.13 @ 11:34AM
Von, after reading about the Argentina 'solution' of setting price controls on the Drudge Report, I asked myself, if prices are controlled then what incentive is there to produce? If a farmer is going to loose money growing crops then why bother?
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 11:51AM
You ask too many questions. I sense a "vacation" is in your immediate future where you will be told of the latest theories in economics, and you won't be quite so...inquisitive.
cicero| 2.14.13 @ 11:26AM
Employment rises with the NEED for labor to produce what people are willing and able to pay for. This doesn't take a genius to figure out. The real purpose for raising minimum wages is to buy votes. At the present, this liberal government is inflating the currency, thereby making all basic commodities (food, gasoline, . . . ) more expensive. This hurts the poor and the marginal most. As a result, the governing class, if they want to stay in power, and in their postions whereby they can continue to plunder the country, have to keep the poor and marginal quiet, and voting for them. They can't just vote them more from an empty treasury - that is too obvious. So, they vote to give them other peoples' money.
They don't have to fool all of the people all of the time. They only need to fool the majority long enough to fill their pockets, and scurry out of town.
MelvinNC| 2.14.13 @ 11:55AM
"Living Wage," Kind of a grand title isn't it? I'll think I'll rush home and tell the misses straight away.
Yea, living wage, for whom? It surely isn't for us to prosper, more like survive and that in-itself is highly questionable.
The cost of health insurance is rising, the cost of food is rising, the cost of energy whether it be fossil fuels, or the electricity that is powered by the fossil fuels. My home owners insurance is rising by 20%, electricity by 12%, and the county wants to raise the property owners rate of taxation for no better reason than the children.
Like I said living for whom?
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 7:16PM
When Henry Ford was building his model "T", he paid the unprecedented wage of five dollars a week. The men assembling cars were able to buy what they built and support a family whilst working more than eight hours a day. The competition thought five dollars a week was extravagant and that Henry Ford could not stay in business paying that much money.
Murl| 2.14.13 @ 11:58AM
This article was far too long. He could have summed up his point in 200 words or less. Bloviate on.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 12:17PM
Who is this author who has been quoting me so well? He wrote several of my favorite statements in this article:
"Minimum wage laws attack a symptom instead of its cause, another distinctive characteristic of liberalism."
Actually, attacking symptoms instead of causes is a DEFINITIONAL characteristic of liberalism. If liberals understood causes of problems, they wouldn't so often BE the causes!
"In liberal never-never land, intentions are all that matter. Intentions are the be-all-and-end-all of public policy choices. Results be damned!"
Couldn't have said it better. Liberals cannot distinguish intentions from results; they assume that the two are always one.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 12:26PM
Ah, the "living wage". A vague, open-ended term. Perfect for Leftists - they can exploit it indefinitely.
But "need" does not create wealth, and no one is guaranteed anything.
Furthermore, the notion that even a society's least productive can live independently is historically unprecedented, and still unrealistic. The poorest have always had to live together, pooling resources. In fact, throughout the vast majority of history, even the "average" members of a society have had to live in multi-person households in order to survive. One person living alone simply couldn't produce enough to sustain himself.
Contrary to Leftist mathematical fallacy, we are not so productive that even our least productive now produce enough to sustain themselves alone. And even if we were, they'd just raise the definition of "living wage" to necessitate more redistribution.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 1:10PM
35 years ago, I remember that the cost of a small studio apartment could be afforded on a minimum wage. It wasn't luxurious by any means, but doable.
Then socialists came up with the idea of pumping up the real estate bubble because real estate ALWAYS goes up! You can't go wrong! Also, the right didn't mind the banks making liar loans to women and minorities to share in the guaranteed wealth of investing in real estate because real estate ALWAYS goes up! And conservative middle and working class homeowners loved the socialist subsidies and regulations and favorable tax breaks because it suited them. Socialism is great when it works!
Until it didn't. But even then, many regions still have the bubble inflated via continued subsidies to Freddie Mac and the banks floating the failed loans in secret. So housing is still more expensive then a FREE MARKET says it should be.
Let's eliminate the mortgage tax deduction (it's mostly useful to the ultra wealthy anyway), subsidies to prop up the bubble, etc. and return the money to the taxpayers. Let the market correct itself.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 1:28PM
You seem to be one of those self-righteous "independents" who revels in saying "everyone else was wrong".
"Also, the right didn't mind the banks making liar loans..." " And conservative middle and working class homeowners loved the socialist subsidies..."
You make the statements above, but they are not true. One cannot be conservative and embrace Leftism; the two are mutually exclusive. That some might have claimed to be conservative while doing these things does not mean that "conservatives" did these things; it means that these people were dishonest about who they were.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:13PM
Sounds a lot like my leftists friends who say that Stalin wasn't a leftist since if he was bad, then he wasn't a real socialist. Only things that people LIKE count in their ideologies.
The Realtor mafia capitalist union loved seeing taxpayer money go into the real estate bubble. They still do. Most of my conservative friends loved saying that real estate always goes up and didn't say anything about Fannie and Freddie when they were making money on paper.
So sure, I don't have a study to prove that conservatives looked the other way for most of the bubble but come now, don't we know most didn't mind at the time? Do I need to prove that for you?
TLP| 2.14.13 @ 3:08PM
Let's eliminate all of the deductions, and just go with a Flat Tax.
Okay Pollock?
JD| 2.14.13 @ 3:10PM
Indeed. Why does he suggest that it is "conservative" to support Leftist social engineering through the tax code? Can anyone possibly read what we say here and believe that we think that?
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 5:49PM
Tim,
I agree. A low flat tax on income with a sales tax to capture the cash economy. Gets rid of most of IRS, the most intrusive gov agency. Gets rid of the lobbyists bribing our poor congressmen to give them tax breaks.
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 2:07PM
Nie, nie pozondku. Dlaczego: (if you address me as Pollock, expect me to speak some Polish!)
Flat tax isn't this magical solution because it's politically impossible even among the conservative's base. It could mean that the working and middle class will pay MORE in taxes. Granted, the left has lied about the "rich not paying taxes" but we know otherwise.
Next, define income. A flat tax would essentially make small business owners with high volume and high expenses pay through the nose while those with fewer expenses would see a massive drop in their tax liability. Consider the impact of that for a moment. Imagine if grocery stores had to pay a flat tax of 10% for all receipts. Yes, I know that's oversimplification, but I'm making it to raise a point. In addition, you haven't provided a credible number of what the "flat tax" would be but still cover existing tax revenue. Until you have that number, you're playing russian roulette without even checking counting the number of rounds in the chambers first.
I personally think a flat tax on all property is more fair and hard to avoid. A billionaire with assets spread around in lots of small places can't "smurf" away their tax burden. They just have each smurf pay their share. The difficulty of defining "income" goes away (albeit replaced with value assessments but these tend to be more fair and clearcut than income definition.)
To jest dobra?
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:58PM
Ultra wealthy democrats in California and New York with massive propert taxes would never allow a mort deduction limit. By the way, Romney and Ryan actually campaigned on such reforms-did they not ?
BackToBasics| 2.14.13 @ 1:09PM
He tries to make a point that teenagers and entry level wagres are meant to have living wages yet trade, tax and immigration policies set by both parties bring the net wages of the middle class closer to the minimum wage.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 1:24PM
The middle class is disappearing because the Left has caused the difference between the poor and the middle class to disappear:
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....family-mak
BackToBasics| 2.14.13 @ 1:59PM
Without a doubt the left is much more culpable in this regard but I include both parties because Republican leadership has not helped as they are more globalist in their worldview rather than having all American citizens' interests at heart when making policy especially in trade and immigration.
JD| 2.14.13 @ 2:22PM
As I said to PolishKnight, it is definitionally true that you can't blame an ideology for actions conforming to an opposite ideology. If people claim to hold to the first ideology but practice the second, then it is not the first ideology that is tarnished but rather the people who are dishonest.
I grant you that naming ideologies is difficult in this era. I use the terms "Right" and "Left" as much as possible, but not everyone understands those either. "Liberal" is especially unfortunate, since the word much better describes small-government advocates who were called "liberals" about 240 years ago. "Conservative" is also a misnomer.
Unfortunately, since Reagan, the Left has really worked hard to destroy the dictionary, making every term on every issue difficult to use with clarity.
BackToBasics| 2.14.13 @ 3:10PM
Agree, it is ever more difficult to be definitive using standard right-left, democrat-republican terminology. Most on this site would agree that true conservatives do not have major party representation. Republican leaders have compromised or moved so far left themselves that to be more accurate in these posts I and others often have to include them in citing damaging policies.
But minimal distinctions aside, the effects and the contrasts between raising minimum wages to a "living wage" and at the same time placing heavier burdens on the middle class is not argued or pointed out at all by Republicans.
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 1:58PM
BacktoBasics: One of the best ways for the right to help the working and middle class without the evil socialist horrors of raising the minimum wage would be... (drum roll): Ending the marriage penalty. Not only would that put money into the pockets of heterosexual, committed red-state meat-eating families but also would indirectly stop subsidizing unwed motherhood.
But... the Republicans have done NOTHING about it since Nixon signed off. Oh, wait, too busy with war on drugs, keeping the minimum wage low, anti-gay marriage, etc. Thank heavens. All that is super important in the daily lives of breadwinners in the private industry.
And they wonder why conservatives are losing the culture war...
BackToBasics| 2.18.13 @ 3:16AM
Polish Knight, maybe too late for you to view but your suggestion about ending the marriage penalty is a good one and just one practical policy that Republicans should be fighting for.
I am not at all for super low wages, but I am also not for trying to make the minimum wage equivalent to being the family breadwinner. I think there are other ways to compensate for a lower minimum wage such as making it possible for those older than teenagers to educate or work themselves into an upwardly mobile position. Trade, coroproate tax policy excessive legal immigration and illegal aliens are ALL things Republican leaders should be more pro-American-citizen about and less globalists in their thinking.
PolishKnight| 2.14.13 @ 6:53PM
JD, it's not definitionally true. That's your opinion. Nothing more. Do you hold the left to this standard? That if leftist people's actions wind up being contrary to their stated ideology, then it's not the fault of leftism? That when socialism fails because instead of government bureaucrats being angelic administrators they instead turn out to be corrupt, self-interested power-hungry monsters, it's not the fault of socialism and leftism?
Come now. If capitalists can't restrain themselves via free market magic from ruining their own businesses, ideology and reputation in the interests of short term gain then it's time to re-evaluate capitalism. Or perhaps clean up the Constitution for it's daily prayer worship service.
cicero| 2.14.13 @ 3:29PM
Some basic concepts are being lost in order for our governing class to pulll off this highjacking of our society. They seem to equate money with wealth, and assume that all economic activity is to be included in the country's GDP. That gives them the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the less informed.
The money they print obviously is not wealth, but only a indicator of it. If the currency is inflated, it fails to accurately indicate the amount of wealth it is supposed to represent. In order to mask the true extent of the debt, the government has been including banking and stock transactions in the GDP. These are mere paper shuffles, and do not represent any good or service. However, they are represented as much as 30% of the total. This allows the govt to claim that the debt represents a much lower portion of the GDP than it actually does. All of them are complicit in this. They have bankruptced the country, but don't want to own up to it.
The only way out is to monetise the debt. The 51% who kept these guys in power will be the first to feel the fire. It won't be pretty.
Frank Drackman| 2.14.13 @ 4:14PM
I remember 1980, cooking steaks at a National Chain for the minimal wage of $3.10/hr, if I wasn't boosting 50 lbs of T-bones/week I never would have made it..
Then January 1st, it went up to $3.35/hr, HA! I thought, Stick it to the MAN, a whole $10 more per week!! Which was some real money in 1981.
Then the MAN(ager)stuck it to me, firing the Dishwasher, and making me do 2 jobs for the pay of one, I'd have gone to my Union Represenative if we'd had a Union.
So I did the next best thang, boosted 200 lbs of T-bones and quit, literally walking out as the detectives were walking in...
I'd have been in real trouble if the Man(ager) wasnt stealing more than me...
Frank
Bob Grant| 2.14.13 @ 7:37PM
Frank,
Your story of hard work and grit warms the cockles of my heart (whatever the hell that is).
It's like you ripped (off) the story right out of The Saturday Evening Post, ala Norman Rockwell.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.14.13 @ 11:11PM
...that is, if Norman Rockwell was drawing the graffiti on the office building where they published the Saturday Evening Post...
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 2:12PM
Something to keep in mind is that managers often lay off people just to make more money rather than being "forced" to cutback due to government regulations or true financial loss. Many companies engage in layoffs even when making record profits (at least before they get loaded onto the CEO's private jet.)
Smart workers (the "Wally" of Dilbert) figure out what they need to do to get by and that's it. They don't feel guilt if the company NEEDS them to do two jobs, but they can get away with doing just 1. Or even half. In the former USSR, "management" said they were giving the employees a socialist paradise and the employees knew otherwise and later figured out how to lie themselves. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work".
I've seen many restaurants with combination waitors/busboys doing the same task and kitchens having combo cooks/dishwashers. The food was lousy and the tables and dishes were dirty. People complained and "capitalism" worked in that the restaurants often went out of business (happened with a local business I know.)
My wife remarked when working at one such business that the Soviets treated their workers better. And she meant it. I told her only fools worked hard at working class jobs for slavedrivers.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 5:07PM
I worked for peanuts as a kid-but was happy to have a few bucks in my pocked. The kids I see working in super markets and fast food today are damn good young people.
they are gonna be fine, unless they have sex too soona and get pregnant.
Many are minorities. They know work works-they should be republicans. I listen to them and talk to them. They are down on their lazy slacker friends and family. But they are young movies, the music all the culture poisens them against conservatives and GOP. But, in my gut I gotta tell you Rubio and Jindal can connect to them-Rand Paul never will. Not fair but true. Your other new star=Ted Cruz-maybe-but he has a nasty abouy him. Maybe.
PolishKnight| 2.15.13 @ 2:13PM
Two words: racial preferences. As long as the left dangles VIP treatment to these people, they are going to think it's stupid not to vote Democrat.
Jimbobogie| 2.16.13 @ 1:21PM
Just in case anybody happens to be wondering why illegal immigrants are WELCOMED into the United States at harvest time...
Snakeeyes | 2.17.13 @ 3:04PM
Delusion is right. Minimum wage like other gov't feel good programs have done more to damage the lower and middle classes than anything else. Look at the charts: http://confoundedinterest.word.....-recovery/