fayfreethinkers.com

I have a rightwing friend Bill that I have been roasting for many years (everyone should have one, you learn sooooo much!). He sent me this article from the Washington (Moonie) Times today. See my roast below (I have invited him to come and get roasted over here).

***
Pelosi exempts American Samoa from minimum wage hike.

House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

link

DAR RESPONSE
An excerpt from the above:

"A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the
Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off
Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an
amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry
pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will
sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his
large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the
minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to
learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the
legislation did not include American Samoa."

Republican's pretending to be suddenly concerned
about minimum wage? Now that IS funny.

Actually I had already watched a clip of the
above exchange, with some glee. Barney Frank
teaches republican newbees the rules of order.
They're not used to having to follow the rules.
But they are going to learn. You can see it here.
I recommend it:

LINK

And since you are suddenly so concerned about
every possession, territory, affiliate, franchise
and aquantance of the US receiving the exact same
pay (because you think minimum wage is SO
important, <snort>), you will enjoy this cartoon
too:



D.

More exchange later today:

***
BILL wrote:
> You misunderstand!

DAR
No, I understand perfectly.

BILL
I have never been in favor
> of a minimum wage.

DAR
I know. Hence the irony of your, and republican, mock outrage at the idea that an unorganized US Territory wouldn't receive the benefits of a Federal mandated minimum wage.

BILL
Why should
> the government be concerned about what a
> willing employee and a willing
> employer agree on, regarding a wage?

DAR
Because we aren't a third world country and don't want to look like one?

BILL
If a
> person is willing to work for $X,
> why should that be a concern for anyone else?

DAR
Because that wage X doesn't occur in a vaccum. It occurs in a society. People living and working in poverty breed crime, disease and a lot of other problems. We decided to put a floor on poverty. In America, if you work you shouldn't have to eat dog food or go hungry. Lots of people do and some people think that is unacceptable in a country that spends a 1/2 trillion a year on the military.
And it's just a plain good idea. Good for the economy too.

BILL
> What I object to, is the hypocrisy of Nancy
> Pelosi,

DAR
You haven't demonstrated any hypocrisy.

BILL
who claims that she
> wants to raise the minimum wage,

DAR
She doesn't just claim it, she did it. And fast.

BILL
and then
> exempts those in her home
> district.

DAR
The minimum wage in her home district was raised, as it was in every state. Didn't you read your Moonie article carefully? Are you a Moonie Bill? I thought only Moonies would read and subscribe to the Washington Moonie Times.
I just posted an important article about the Washington (Moonie) Times on our forum. You should read it. You can read it here:

LINK

It would really be great if you would consider posting your rightwing claptrap material in that forum so others can learn your important insights.

BILL
> And I share your scorn for the Republicans, who
> did not carry through with
> much of what they promised.

DAR
Didn't they promise to make the richer more rich and the poor more poor? That's what they always do.

BILL
> Are you ready to answer the question I raised?
> If a person is not worth
> $7.25 an hour, should he not be able to work at
> all?

DAR
I don't know anyone not worth $7.25 an hour. Give me the name of someone not worth $7.25 an hour. If the government via the law decides that that is what they are worth, then that is what they will be paid and that, by defintion, is what they are worth. "Value" is a very subjective thing. We get to make it up (not always, but a lot of the time).

A couple extra points:

a) The Washington (Moonie) Times is junk. Don't make a fool of yourself by quoting it or even reading it. Make sure and read the article about them at the link I provide above.

b) Showing a *correlation* between Starfish Tuna being in Nancy's district and the Federal minimum wage not being imposed upon the US Territory of American Samoa, does not show causation. You need to prove causation to make your point. Good luck with that project.

c) Even your article admits this was a big first:

"The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands."

They didn't need to do that, but it's nice of them. Maybe American Samoa will get it someday too.

So I did a little reading.

From wiki:

"American Samoa is an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States,...
Persons born in American Samoa are United States nationals, but not United States citizens."

Contrast this with The Northern Mariana Islands which is "a commonwealth in political union with the United States."

Whole different ball game.

Consider also (ibid):

"In 1976, Congress approved the mutually negotiated Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in Political Union with the United States. The CNMI Government adopted its own constitution in 1977, and the constitutional government took office in January 1978. The Covenant was fully implemented on November 3, 1986, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation no. 5564, which conferred United States citizenship on legally qualified CNMI residents."

Even a republican should be able to see that this is a different kettle of fish, than American Samoa.

So we find there is no need to concoct a conspiracy of Nancy actually representing the Tuna interest in her district (which is her job afterall), and putting the interest of the citizens in her district over that of non-citizens living halfway around the world in an unincorporated and unorganized territory (which would be entirely defensible even IF you could make the case, and you have not). It's just another republican rightwing rag pulling things out of it's ass again and not getting it's story straight. This is the best you've got?!

D.

Darrel wrote:BILL
> What I object to, is the hypocrisy of Nancy
> Pelosi,

DAR
You haven't demonstrated any hypocrisy.

Wrong, Darrel. He has demonstrated hypocrisy: he's demonstrated his own hypocrisy pretty well...

And the fact that minimum wage was just extended to the Marianas means that Abramoff/DeLay deal has just been overridden. Good for Pelosi.

Fresh Bill roast:

BILL
I have never been in favor
> of a minimum wage.

DAR
I know. Hence the irony of your, and
republican, mock outrage at the idea that an
unorganized US Territory wouldn't receive the
benefits of a Federal mandated minimum wage.

Bill
This isn't just about American Samoa. The parent company, Starfish
Tuna, a major company, is headquartered in Pelosi's district, and it is obvious that political concerns prevailed to exempt them from the minimum wage.

DAR
Well then you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating this. When are you going to do this? I gave you a perfectly plausible reason why this unincorporated and unorganized territory, populated by non-citizens and which has never been under US minimum wage standards, wouldn't have been included in this federal mandate. You completely ignored my points. That won't do. Defend your case or don't waste my time.

BILL
Why should
> the government be concerned about what a
> willing employee and a willing
> employer agree on, regarding a wage?

DAR
Because we aren't a third world country and
don't want to look like one?

Bill
You are claiming that if the government allowed employees and employers freedom in negotiating wages, that the result would be that of a third world country? Make your case, don't just state it.

DAR
No, I am not saying it would make the US a third world country. I am saying it would drive wages down, increase poverty, suffering, wage disparity and everything that goes along an increase in these things. I know many republicans would like to have some Americans slaving away for $3 an hour (or less) while they get rich off of it but most Americans find the working destitution that $24 a day provides, unacceptable. And with good reason.

BILL
If a person is willing to work for $X, why should that be a concern
for anyone else?

DAR
Because that wage X doesn't occur in a vaccum.
It occurs in a society. People living and working
in poverty breed crime, disease and a lot of
other problems. We decided to put a floor on
poverty. In America, if you work you shouldn't
have to eat dog food or go hungry. Lots of people
do and some people think that is unacceptable in
a country that spends a 1/2 trillion a year on
the military.
And it's just a plain good idea. Good for the
economy too.

Bill
No one living in the US, can be said to be living in poverty, with all
the handouts, grants, services, etc. that are available to so many on low
income.

DAR
Well Bill, thanks for showing me that I had not yet plumbed the depths of your ignorance. Just when I think I have reached the bottom you barf up a howler like the above. It really is too stupid to be worthy of debunking but I can't resist:

As published in our local Morning News, 12/23/06:

***
Who is Homeless?

An estimated 842,000 adults and children are homeless in a given week in the United States, even though nearly 44 percent of the homeless work at least part time.

* 66 percent of the homeless are single adults, three-fourths of those are men.

* 11 percent are parents with children, 84 percent of those are single women.

* 23 percent are children younger than 18 and with a parent. Of these children, 42 percent are younger than 5.

* 54 percent were in jail or prison at some point in their lives.

* 27 percent were in foster care or institutions as children.

* 25 percent were physically or sexually abused as children.

* 23 percent are veterans.

* 21 percent were homeless as children.

Source: National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov

link

NOTE: "11 percent are parents with children, 84 percent of those are single women. 27 percent were in foster care or institutions as children."

Who was your Jesus often talking about when he preached to take care of the poor? Widows and orphans.

You should read the rest of the above article too.

BILL
I don't know anyone who is working that has to eat dog food or
go hungry.

DAR
Well I am sure they don't exist then.

And I know of many charities, churches, etc. that feed the
hungry.

DAR
That's nice. Maybe if these poor (some destitute) people (44% work) could live in DIGNITY and not on HANDOUTS if they WERE PAID A @$&#% LIVING WAGE.

BILL
I sent you an article some time ago from an economist, who was not in
favor of raising the minimum wage. If you received it, you did not see fit to respond.

DAR
I roast most of your crap but I don't have time to give you a private roast on every piece of junk you pass along. Post it in this forum and I'll roast it.
I have read both sides of the minimum wage argument. There are good arguments on both sides (although nothing you have provided on the issue has approached the level of "good", it's always junk). If you raise the MW too much it puts pressure on employment. So it's a balance. The idea that there should be no price floor, no minimum wage, is just radical rightwing greed and it has very little support. This is why it is a losing issue for you.

BILL
> What I object to, is the hypocrisy of Nancy
> Pelosi,

DAR
You haven't demonstrated any hypocrisy.

[Snip]

BILL
and then
> exempts those in her home
> district.

DAR
The minimum wage in her home district was
raised, as it was in every state.

Bill
She made an exception for the Tuna Company headquartered in her
district.

DAR
Prove it. When Starkist Tuna pays US employees, in the United States, they pay them minimum wage. I don't think the US government should make Starkist pay MW when they hire people who are non-citizens, living in unorganized, unincorporated territories not governed by the US. But we are supposed to believe that you do? Is that what you expect me to believe?
If they want the minimum wage there than the US congressman from American Samoa should put forward a bill. Oh wait, THEY DON'T HAVE A US CONGRESSMAN because they aren't governed by the US.

I think read somewhere that their government has given them a MW (might have been The Northern Mariana Islands). I think it was $3 an hour. I don't know about their economy and standard of living. That might be a decent standard of living there. It isn't here.

BILL
That sounds like hypocrisy to me.

DAR
It's hypocritical to represent and look out for interests of the people in your district? How is that? Why should US companies be forced to pay US minimum wage when they employ non-citizens that don't live in the US? Please support this idiotic argument of yours.

DAR
I don't know anyone not worth $7.25 an hour.
Give me the name of someone not worth $7.25 an
hour. If the government via the law decides that
that is what they are worth, then that is what
they will be paid and that, by defintion, is what
they are worth. "Value" is a very subjective
thing. We get to make it up (not always, but a
lot of the time).

Bill
A person is not worth $7.25 per hour if what he can do will not profit
a business by more than $7.25 per hour. If the business loses money by
hiring him, it is a net loss. Remember Mr. B.? (spelling?) He was a piano technician briefly and is now in some other field. You wrote me about him telling me how incompetent he was. Would you admit that as a
technician, he was not worth $7.25 per hour?

DAR
No, he was easily worth $7.25 per hour. He was probably charging $40 per hour or more. He went out of business because he wasn't trained and didn't do good work, but supervised and instructed in what to do his labor would easily be worth more like $15 per hour. Any one doing competent supervised piano work is worth this. If they are incompetent for this detailed work (as he may have been, it's not for everyone), fire them and get someone who can.

BILL
Oh, I forgot; if the government decides that he is worth $7.25 per hour, then that is what he is worth.

DAR
Right. And dollars are worth 100 pennies. Always will be (but the value of pennies will fluctuate). Please make a note of it.

BILL
How about a retarded youngster?

DAR
Oh how you love to reminisce about your youth!

BILL
They can do simple tasks such as emptying waste cans, sweeping floors, etc. But they would require much supervision and guidance.

DAR
It's called janitorial work and it regularly earns more than minimum wage with supervision.

BILL
Would you agree that $7.25 per hour would be too much for their work?

DAR
The job is worth minimum wage or more. I worked for years in janitorial work as a teenager. If someone is so mentally challenged that they cannot do the work then they should do a task they can do (Church of Christ pastor?).
But your example is bogus anyway. If you have an instance like this you can pay a person by the job or by salary.

BILL
Should they not work at all?

DAR
Some people fall in this category yes. Nursing homes are filled with such tragic examples. And because the republicans have not yet destroyed SS and other parts of the government safety net, we don't yet turn them out in the streets to be eaten by wild animals. But maybe you guys will do better in the next election and can impliment more of the republican plan for the Christianization of America.

D.

Just a comment on the "churches hand out meals" item - yes, we have a good (donation funded) community meals program in Fayetteville, run jointly by St. Paul's Episcopal and the Central United Methodist. There are hot meals served for lunch Monday through Thursday, and if you wish, you can take home a "brown bag" which usually has a peanutbutter sandwich and a piece of fruit and maybe a couple of cookies or a granola bar in it.

"3 squares" considered "normal" for a day times 7 for the days in a week = 21 meals. The community meals program provides 4 hot meals (largely refined carbs, which are cheep) and 4 bag lunches = 8 meals. Even if you're working, at minimum wage all your money goes to paying the rent and keeping the water and electricity on, and you can end up depending for food on the charity of groups whose donations can only provide 8 meals a week. So much for "I was hungry and you fed me".

DAR
Heard a republican press conference today where they were trying to get some miles out of this ridiculous Samoa/Tuna story. What a load. The lies would incredible. I can't imagine the press buying any of it.
But I did catch them say that a representative came from American Samoa and spoke before congress and said that they did not want to have the $7.25 federal minimum wage imposed upon them. Why? They have a small population of about 60,000 and most of them are employeed by the Tuna industry (Starkist). They fear they would lose it all. Starkist would pick up and move to a true third world venue for cheaper labor.

Darrel wrote:Wage X doesn't occur in a vaccum. It occurs in a society. People living and working in poverty breed crime, disease and a lot of other problems. We decided to put a floor on poverty. In America, if you work you shouldn't have to eat dog food or go hungry. Lots of people do and some people think that is unacceptable in a country that spends a 1/2 trillion a year on the military. And it's just a plain good idea. Good for the economy too.

Darrel seems to assume that minimim productivity laws* alleviate poverty. In fact, they aggravate it. TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) Mandating higher pay induces layoffs and other less favorable employment (read part-time.) Studies show this clearly. Marginal employers are forced out of business, or to replace unskilled labor with machines, and other such strategies. Minimum productivity laws are hardest on marginal workers such as inner-city black teenagers. Whenever a minimum productivity raise occurs, unemployment increases. If politicians could magically increase wages simply by passing a law, why not just mandate a minimum $100 per hour wage? I suppose that next these idiot politicians will pass a minimum weather conditions law to outlaw rain and snow on weekends!

*"Minimum productivity laws" are a better, more descriptive name, since such laws effectively outlaw anyone who can't produce X dollars per hour from getting a job.

hogeye wrote:If politicians could magically increase wages simply by passing a law...

DAR
They just did.

...why not just mandate a minimum $100 per hour wage?

DAR
The first time I heard this ridiculous rebuttal to increasing the MW (by Limbaugh) I thought it was an abberation. But this same howling strawman, slippery slope fallacy is parroted by every person I have came across that was against a MW. This does not speak well for their position. Why do they even bother with this foolishness? I don't understand.

Marginal employers are forced out of business,...

DAR
Good, who wants to work for a marginal employer? Something I forgot to mention earlier: the Fed MW only effects employers with several dozen employees but it does raise the bar and put pressure on everyone to raise wages a little as they compete for workers. This helps those at the bottom, unless you raise it too much and increase unemployment. So it's a balance, not a black and white good/bad.

or to replace unskilled labor with machines, and other such strategies.

DAR
More good. Put the machines to work, increase productivity and get these people doing things the machines can't do. I have never been for the old argument of keeping horse transportation in order to employ the people who shoe horses. Onward and upward.
The US has low unemployment so more productivity via machines is not a problem (and the machines need to be maintained and fixed). Low stagnant wages is a bigger problem and this is why a vast majority of the population (80+%) are for this moderate, sensible and much delayed MW increase.

Whenever a minimum productivity raise occurs, unemployment increases.

DAR
This is false of course. Let me know if you can't find the obvious counter examples refuting it.

D.

Here is an excerpt of Milton Friedman, nobel-prize winning economist with his views re: minimum wage. Darrel has requested that this be presented in this forum.

UPDATE: Sadly, Milton Friedman passed away on the 16th November 2006. Even at the age of 94, Professor Friedman was planning to attend a National Review symposium as a guest panelist. You can read an article about his legacy at National Review Online.

"The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws. We regard the minimum wage law as one of the most, if not the most, antiblack laws on the statute books."

- Milton Friedman, interviewed by Larry Arnn for "Hillsdale College"





Minimum Wage Causes Maximum Pain
Sixty years ago on June 25, 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law America’s first minimum wage: 25 cents an hour, rising to 40 cents an hour over the next seven years, which is equivalent to almost $5.00 in 1998 dollars. Today, many increases later, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is pushing for yet another hike in the minimum wage. Now is a good time to reexamine the origins of this important law and its impact on the job market.

Once the original bill was passed, many economists and politicians predicted that more workers would be thrown out of work and that the Great Depression—already in its ninth year—would get worse. That’s exactly what happened and during the fall elections, Roosevelt lost an astonishing 80 House seats to the Republicans.

It turns out that Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts is where the impetus for the minimum wage actually began. The working poor struggling to eke out a living were not the driving force behind the 1938 law. New England’s highly paid textile workers were.

During the 1920s and 30s, the American textile industry had begun to shift from New England to the South, where the cost of living was lower and where Southern workers produced a high quality product for lower wages. Politicians in Massachusetts, led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. and House leader Joseph Martin, battled in Congress for a law that would force Southern textile mills to raise wages and thereby lose their competitive edge.

Governor Charles Hurley of Massachusetts bluntly demanded that Southern wages be hiked so that "Massachusetts [would] have equal competition with other sections of the country, thus affording labor and industry of Massachusetts some degree of assurance that our present industries will not move out of the state."

Southerners were well aware of what Massachusetts was attempting and they scuttled all minimum wage laws before Congress during 1937 and well into 1938. In doing so, they handed President Roosevelt his first major legislative defeat.

"Northern industries are trying to stop the progress of the South," Congressman Sam McReynolds of Tennessee observed, "and they feel if they can pass this [minimum wage] bill it will really be a tariff against Southern goods."

Southern congressmen joined those economists who argued that Congress couldn’t make a man worth a certain amount by simply making it illegal to pay him any less. They said that people whose skills and experience were worth less than whatever Congress decreed as the minimum wage would be priced out of the labor market. The Great Depression, they said, would get worse by Congress telling workers, in effect, "If you can’t find a job that pays at least the minimum, then you’re not allowed to work."

The desperate plight of unskilled workers trying to hold on to their jobs disturbed Congressman Carl Mapes of Grand Rapids, Michigan. "The enactment of this legislation," Mapes concluded, "will further increase unemployment, not reduce it. It is bound to increase unemployment unless all human experience is reversed." Mapes cited the case of a local minimum wage law passed in early 1938 in Washington, D. C. Immediately after its passage, the Washington Post lamented, scores of maids and unskilled workers were laid off by local hotels.

Roosevelt’s political muscle eventually prevailed and the national law was passed, but Mapes’s prediction has proven to be prophetic. Over the years, steady hikes in the minimum wage have priced out of the market the most vulnerable workers, including blacks, teenagers, and women with limited skills. Also vulnerable have been workers with developing skills whose labor is not yet worth what the law says they must be paid.

The bias of minimum wage laws against disadvantaged minorities has been conspicuous ever since 1956, when the minimum wage shot up from 75 cents to $1.00 an hour. During the next two years, nonwhite teenage unemployment spiraled from 14 to 24 percent. The recent 1996 hike in the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour had a similar effect: unemployment among black male teenagers jumped from 37 to 41 percent almost immediately, at a time when the economy was doing well for almost everyone else. That’s why Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, once called the minimum wage "the most anti-black law on the books."

Data from President Clinton’s own labor department show that at least 20,000 jobs were eliminated by the 1996 hike. The Employment Policies Institute calculates that the real job loss was closer to 128,000.

Senator Kennedy would have us believe that hiking the minimum wage again would be good for Massachusetts, and that what’s good for Massachusetts is good for Michigan and the nation, too. That was wrong in 1938, and it’s still wrong sixty years later.



(Mackinac Center for Public Policy)

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=356

Hogeye> If politicians could magically increase wages simply by passing a law...

Darrel> They just did.

No, they did not magically increase wages for everyone. They cost some people their jobs, made employment worse or impossible for others. At the cost of many, a very few may benefit by getting raises.

Hogeye> ...why not just mandate a minimum $100 per hour wage?

Darrel> Why do they even bother with this foolishness? I don't understand.

It's simple: Once you admit that a mandated higher wage can cost jobs, the ridiculous claim that minimum productivity laws are costless is refuted. Now that you agree that a mandated raise costs jobs, you're just haggling over how many are lost at the proposed fixed-price. Also, it illustrates the principle involved - that a mandated wage effectively outlaws employment for those who cannot produce $100, or $10, per hour as the case may be.

Hogeye> Marginal employers are forced out of business,...

Darrel> Good, who wants to work for a marginal employer?

That's pretty callous. Are you saying that all those people deserve to lose their jobs by political decree? BTW, a marginal employer is not about number of employees; it's about costs vs. revenue. If you raise costs for these, they will not be able to make a profit and will go out of business. That's bad for the employees, of course.

Darrel wrote:Put the machines to work, increase productivity and get these people doing things the machines can't do.

If you think that people's lives are up to you (and politicians) to dictate, that your social engineering that would lay off masses and mechanize whether rational or not, should be imposed by force of State, then that makes sense. However, if you believe in liberty, and would allow people to act in their own interests, then you oppose such coercive social engineering.

Hogeye> Whenever a minimum productivity raise occurs, unemployment increases.

Darrel> This is false of course.

There may be some limited exceptions in special circumstances, but generally when a minimum productivity mandate occurs, unemployment and worse employment results. There have been many, many studies on this. Thanks to Byick for the Milton Friedman article; he gives several classic examples and explains the issue articulately. Friedman also gives the original political motivation - an attempt by big unions to outlaw wage competition. They want to use govt coercion to help their members, at the expense of consumers and competing workers. Nowadays, since unions don't matter anymore, minimum productivity laws are more a matter of economic ignorance and blind faith in the power of the State.

The current minimum wage is below poverty level. What keeping at its current 10-year level does is put people on welfare. Increasing the minimum wage gets people off welfare. It also improves the local economy since the money pretty much stays in the local area, and some of it goes into the local tax base. Foodstamps are sales tax exempt. Money, of course, is not.

The strawman argument about increasing it to $100/hour totally ignores the fact that it is a MINIMUM wage - a floor below which society says anybody working will not fall. Friedman, I suspect, never tried to live off minimum wage. (I have.) Of course, professors aren't paid minimum wage, which could explain it. For one thing, he apparently was pushing that tired old bromide of "teenagers, especially black teenagers" are hurt by minimum wage - most people working on minimum wage are adults. Many of them are parents, some of them are single parents. But even if most of the people on minimum wage were teenagers, the idea would be nonsense. The sorts of places that pay minimum wage are not feather-bedders. They don't hire more people than they need to produce whatever it is they produce. They aren't going to cut back on labor because the price goes up. What they usually find once minimum wage goes up is they get more production. Minimum wage is a win-win - just not in the first financial quarter.

Too bad Friedman instituted a value system based on quarterly report stock values. Taking the long view plans for the future, and planning brings profits. Taking the short view ends up with massive layoffs because that's the only thing that looks good on a quarterly report. But then, you have to value people (labor) for more than a "compassionate conservative" sound bite to truly consider the future. Hank Ford knew the best way to grow a business is for your labor to also be your customers.

Barbara wrote:Increasing the minimum wage gets people off welfare.

You repeat this, but this is an urban legend. Science shows the opposite to be the case. Here's a typical study:

Does the Minimum Wage Affect Welfare Caseloads?

Author Info
Marianne E. Page
Joanne Spetz
Jane Millar

Abstract

The degree to which minimum wages affect employment has been of interest to economists and policy makers for many years. This interest has stemmed largely from a potential inconsistency between the intent of minimum wage laws and their theoretical effects: the goal of minimum wages is to improve individuals' abilities to support their families and avoid welfare but the textbook model of supply and demand predicts that such wage gains come at the expense of lower employment levels. In order for minimum wages to improve the well-being of families overall, the demand curve for low-skilled workers must be relatively inelastic.

Most of the empirical research on minimum wages has focused on the relationship between minimum wage increases and employment rates, especially among teenagers. To date there have been no studies that estimate the impact of minimum wage legislation on potential welfare recipients, but recent passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) intensifies the need to understand the relationship between work and welfare.

In this study, we use variation in minimum wages across states and over time to identify their effect on the size of the state welfare caseload. Our empirical results indicate that, once state trends and a variety of other factors are accounted for, the elasticity of the welfare caseload with respect to the minimum wage is between 0.1 and 0.2. In other words, a 35 percent increase in the minimum wage like that recently implemented in California could lead to a 3 to 7 percent increase in the size of the welfare caseload, holding all else equal. These results are remarkably stable to the inclusion of other variables that influence the evolution of caseloads over time, such as state-specific welfare reforms and changing political preferences.

Our estimates suggest that minimum wages are not an efficient means of improving the financial independence of low-skilled single mothers, since the wage gains experienced by those who keep their jobs are counteracted by an increase in the welfare rolls. ... (link)

Here's something from the US Congress "Joint Economic Committee Report":

The impact of raising the minimum wage has been studied since its inception. All credible research has come to the same conclusion: raising the minimum wage hurts the poor. It takes away jobs, keeps people on welfare, and encourages high-school students to drop out. Policy makers should be clear on the consequence of higher minimum wages.

Jobs and the Minimum Wage

      Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. ... (link)

Here's something from Cato:

No serious economist doubts that the minimum wage destroys jobs. The only question is how many. Economists Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch and David Wittenberg estimate that every 10 percent increase in the minimum reduces employment by between 2 percent and 6 percent. They figure Congress' 1996 minimum wage hike cost between 153,000 and 457,000 teens their jobs.

These ill consequences have been moderated by America's booming economy. But those with the least education, experience and training would be most harmed by any new increase. Particularly vulnerable are welfare recipients attempting to become self-sufficient. ... (link)

Your claim is just dead wrong.

Barbara, you make a big deal out of the difficulty of living on minimum wage. No argument there. But by promoting it, you simply assure that even fewer people make even that much - you're driving up unemployment.

Barbara wrote:He [Milton Friedman] apparently was pushing that tired old bromide of "teenagers, especially black teenagers" are hurt by minimum wage - most people working on minimum wage are adults. Many of them are parents, some of them are single parents. But even if most of the people on minimum wage were teenagers ...

He didn't say that most people on minimum wage were teenagers; he said that they were hurt most, since they aren't allowed into the job market or to improve their skills.

Barbara wrote:The sorts of places that pay minimum wage are not feather-bedders. They don't hire more people than they need to produce whatever it is they produce.

Right, now you're getting it. If these employers are forced to raise wages, then many lay people off rather than pay more than what these people produce. They find a less labor-intensive way to go or change businesses. We've seem how minimum productivity laws have eliminated seamstress assistants, elevator operators, gas station attendents, and many forms of informal apprenticeships.

Hogeye wrote:

Barbara wrote:Increasing the minimum wage gets people off welfare.

You repeat this, but this is an urban legend. Science shows the opposite to be the case. Here's a typical study.

DOUG
Your statistics are vague. Let's get specific.

Washington state increased its minimum wage to $7.93/hr., if I remember correctly. PBS's The News Hour had a report on it. There were NO known adverse effects on the state as a whole, despite the fact that its neighbor, Idaho, remained far lower with its minimum wage.

See here.

LEE HOCHBERG: As the Washington state wage jumped eight times in eight years, critics predicted jobs would disappear and consumer prices would soar. But unemployment in this growing corridor along Interstate 90 is the same on both sides of the border, a small 4 percent to 5 percent. In fact, many employers on the Idaho side have matched Washington's rate in order to keep employees.

SCOTT BAILEY, Regional Economist, Washington: We can't find any smoking gun to say that there's been a negative impact on jobs. It's a nice theory, but in the real world, the impact is small.

LEE HOCHBERG: State of Washington economist Scott Bailey says the state's nearly $8-an-hour minimum wage is exactly where it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation. He says even industries with lots of minimum wage jobs are doing fine.

SCOTT BAILEY: In the restaurant industry, no impact that I can find. In the retail industry, no impact that we can find. In agriculture, when there's a big freeze in Southern California and wipes out the orange crop, that's a much bigger impact on prices than the minimum wage.

LEE HOCHBERG: Economic modeling done at Washington State University suggests, "Minimum wage increases are absorbed by the Washington economy with very little overall damage." The report adds, "Such increases are beneficial to minimum wage workers."

Doug wrote:Your statistics are vague. Let's get specific.

I gave an abstract of a scientific paper which concluded, "Our empirical results indicate that, once state trends and a variety of other factors are accounted for, the elasticity of the welfare caseload with respect to the minimum wage is between 0.1 and 0.2. In other words, a 35 percent increase in the minimum wage like that recently implemented in California could lead to a 3 to 7 percent increase in the size of the welfare caseload, holding all else equal. These results are remarkably stable to the inclusion of other variables that influence the evolution of caseloads over time, such as state-specific welfare reforms and changing political preferences."

A summary of studies says: "No serious economist doubts that the minimum wage destroys jobs. The only question is how many. Economists Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch and David Wittenberg estimate that every 10 percent increase in the minimum reduces employment by between 2 percent and 6 percent."

This seems pretty specific to me. To counter this, you offer a fluff article full of anecdotes! (The interviewed restauranteur says the minimum wage raise didn't effect his biz; the child care provider said she had to lay off and reduce hours.) The WA state-employed economist you quote, Scott Bailey, gives his opinion, but has no studies at all to back up his belief that minimum wage laws cause no harm. He is careful about what he says - he doesn't really claim no harm, he simply says that he can't prove harm ("can't find any smoking gun to say that there's been a negative impact on jobs.") Which isn't surprising since no scientific study has been done yet on the effects of recent WA state raises in minimum wage. When/if such a study is done, I've no doubt it will show worse employment.

Note the two red herrings in the interview quoted. Bailey per Hochberg says that "industries with lots of minimum wage jobs are doing fine." Of course, this says nothing about job losses in those industries. Also, note that the claim "Minimum wage increases are absorbed by the Washington economy with very little overall damage" is made on the basis of ecomomic models and not historical data from the actual raise in minimum wage.

Hogeye wrote:I gave an abstract of a scientific paper which concluded, "Our empirical results indicate that, once state trends and a variety of other factors are accounted for, the elasticity of the welfare caseload with respect to the minimum wage is between 0.1 and 0.2. In other words, a 35 percent increase in the minimum wage like that recently implemented in California could lead to a 3 to 7 percent increase in the size of the welfare caseload, holding all else equal. These results are remarkably stable to the inclusion of other variables that influence the evolution of caseloads over time, such as state-specific welfare reforms and changing political preferences."

...This seems pretty specific to me. To counter this, you offer a fluff article full of anecdotes!

What crap. I offer an analysis of what HAS happened, and you respond with economic forcasts of what COULD happen. Economists are notorious for having poor forcasts. Specific guesses are not anywhere near as reliable as known facts.

You have it backwards. The estimates I cited of how minimum productivity laws cause unemployment are based on actual past historical data. Your only example is of a recent Washington state raise for which there is no data available yet and no studies done - only an unsupported forecast by one guy. I offered empirical results; you offered heresay.

Hogeye wrote:You have it backwards. The estimates I cited of how minimum productivity laws cause unemployment are based on actual past historical data.

DOUG
Your study concludes, AS YOU NOTED, that "a 35 percent increase in the minimum wage like that recently implemented in California could lead to a 3 to 7 percent increase in the size of the welfare caseload, holding all else equal."

That is speculation. I don't see the supposed hard data about past raises in minimum wages.

Hogeye wrote:Your only example is of a recent Washington state raise for which there is no data available yet and no studies done - only an unsupported forecast by one guy. I offered empirical results; you offered heresay.

No studies done? Read my source, which I cited at length:

SCOTT BAILEY, Regional Economist, Washington: We can't find any smoking gun to say that there's been a negative impact on jobs. It's a nice theory, but in the real world, the impact is small.

LEE HOCHBERG: State of Washington economist Scott Bailey says the state's nearly $8-an-hour minimum wage is exactly where it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation. He says even industries with lots of minimum wage jobs are doing fine.

SCOTT BAILEY: In the restaurant industry, no impact that I can find. In the retail industry, no impact that we can find. In agriculture, when there's a big freeze in Southern California and wipes out the orange crop, that's a much bigger impact on prices than the minimum wage.

LEE HOCHBERG: Economic modeling done at Washington State University suggests, "Minimum wage increases are absorbed by the Washington economy with very little overall damage." The report adds, "Such increases are beneficial to minimum wage workers."

That's not hearsay. This is the economist who did a statewide study. It is not a forecast, unlike what you cited. I cited a study of past FACTS. YOU cited the forecast.

29 states have raised their minimum wages above the federal level. Show that this has had an adverse effect on any of them. Show real impact, not economic projections.

Washington state has the highest minimum wage at $7.93. But it was already high before that, compared to federal levels:

January 1, 2007 $7.93
January 1, 2006 $7.63
January 1, 2005 $7.35

OK, so you have two years of very high minimum wage in Washington. Show me evidence that this has impacted Washington state negatively. Let's see it.

Hogeye wrote:

Barbara wrote:Increasing the minimum wage gets people off welfare.

You repeat this, but this is an urban legend. Science shows the opposite to be the case. Here's a typical study:

Does the Minimum Wage Affect Welfare Caseloads? SNIP...

DAR
Here is a good roast of that idea. First one I looked at.

HOG
But those with the least education, experience and training would be most harmed by any new increase. Particularly vulnerable are welfare recipients attempting to become self-sufficient. ...

DAR
Bah. It comes down to the value judgement of having people work and still wallow in poverty OR up grade their jobs skills (so they aren't working some stupid job that isn't needed or can be done by a machine).

Barbara, you make a big deal out of the difficulty of living on minimum wage. No argument there. But by promoting it, you simply assure that even fewer people make even that much - you're driving up unemployment.

DAR
From my above link:

"Critics of minimum wage increases argue that while some families see higher wages, many workers suffer a job loss, presumably because employers trim payroll in response to the increase. A systematic study of the employment impacts of Oregon's minimum wage increase has not been conducted. Several available indicators, however, provide no evidence of job loss. First, the overall unemployment rate in Oregon fell in both 1997 and 1998. Second, the proportion of welfare recipients moving into employment actually rose from 1996 to 1997 following the initial stage of the state's minimum wage hike, and then rose again in 1998 after the second stage of the increase. Third, the Oregon Employment Department and the Oregon Center for Public Policy, a research organization, found that the employment trend in retail trade, the industry most likely to be affected by the increase, was similar to the state's overall employment trend following the minimum wage increase. The overall employment growth rate (i.e, the rate of growth among all workers) in Oregon has been lower since 1996, but the slowdown was no greater in retail trade than in other industries. If the minimum wage increases had been a significant factor, it would be expected that retail trade employment would have suffered more than employment in other industries.

These findings on job loss from Oregon are consistent with other research on recent increases in the minimum wage nationally and in other states, which show little or no job loss.(2)

Some critics have argued that welfare recipients are particularly disadvantaged in terms of job skills and employability — and thus that welfare recipients would be particularly harmed by raising the minimum wage. I think it is worth noting that a tremendous number of women have recently left the welfare rolls for employment and that the shares of former welfare recipients and of single mothers generally that are working are at all-time highs — and these increases occurred just as the federal minimum was rising from $4.25 to $5.15 in 1996 and 1997. While there is some research that suggests that increasing the minimum wage leads women to stay on welfare longer, there also is recent research which shows that minimum wage increases have led to reduced welfare caseloads, presumably because they have made work pay better.(3)"

See here for the footnotes for #2 and #3.

HOGEYE
We've seem how minimum productivity laws have eliminated seamstress assistants, elevator operators, gas station attendents,...

DAR
Good! Instead of doing mindless unnecessary jobs let these people get on to doing something useful.

From EPI:

"The minimum wage and welfare reform
While the federal minimum wage is set at $5.15, some states have experimented with higher minimum wage levels. Oregon was one of those states, raising its state minimum to $6.50 in 1999. This increase coincides with a period wherein many women were leaving the welfare rolls for the low-wage labor market, as mandated by welfare reform. The figure shows how complementary these two policies have been.



The top line tracks the average inflation-adjusted wages of former welfare recipients who became full-time workers. Between 1993 and 1996, their average wages trended down, along with the real value of the minimum. But starting in 1996, the increase in the state's minimum wage clearly lifted their earnings. In fact, the graph shows that each time Oregon's minimum wage was raised, the average wage of the state's welfare leavers also went up."

What I said was that minimum-wage employers can't lay off people - they don't hire enough people to be able to lay off anybody (to change total numbers of bodies working). It's apples and oranges to talk about entire categories no longer in existance due to improved technology (or outsourcing if we're talking about seamstresses, much less seamstress assistants) - Hogeye forgot to mention buggy whip manufacterers - and supposed loss of jobs due to an increase in minimum wage.

As to getting people off welfare - for single mothers it's a no-brainer. The $110 a week for preschool child care is impossible on $5.15/hour, even with a 40-hour work week. That puts a single mom on welfare. On $7.15/hour it's not easy, but it's possible. That gets a single mom off welfare.