The Lion Roars

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) goes off on Senate Republicans as they once again try to block the first minimum wage increase in 10 years.

What is the PRICE that you want from these working men and women!
WHEN DOES THE GREED STOP!!
WHAT IS IT? ...that drives you Republicans crazy!!
Something!! Something!!
What is about working men and women that you find so offensive?
This is, filibuster by delay.
I've been around here long enough to know it, when I see it, and smell it!!
That's what it looks like and that's what it is, make no mistake about it.

11 comments:

J said... / Aug 26, 2009, 10:31:00 PM  

Why couldn't he just advocate making the minimum wage 25 an hour, Cody? Why doesn't he really want to help the poor?

"Two important surveys of academic economists were reported in two issues of the American Economic Review, May 1979 and May 1992. In one survey, 90 percent, and in the other 80 percent, of economists agreed that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment among youth and low-skilled workers."

-Walter Williams, Phd economist and columnist

Just My 2 Cents said... / Aug 26, 2009, 10:46:00 PM  

He's going to be awful hard to replace. Hopefully someone, or more than one actually, steps up to the challenge.

Codester said... / Aug 27, 2009, 5:04:00 AM  

J said... "Why couldn't he just advocate making the minimum wage 25 an hour, Cody?"

The issue being illustrated here was not the policy itself, but the process. Being able to get a Dem vote in edgewise... while Republicans were playing their typical "pee-pants" obstructionism dance.

Once it was finally brought to the floor... the amendment was voted in.

But since you brought it up, I'm sure you'd be happy if people in the USA were still getting by on $3.10/hr while employers added the rest to their bottom line... am I right? There's probably no damn reason at all to ever consider cost of living for low wage earners, correct?

J said... / Aug 27, 2009, 7:22:00 AM  

It's usually voted in because raising it is usually politically popular due to people not understanding economic cause and effect. Politically popular doesn't make it necessarily right due to widespread economic illiteracy.

"But since you brought it up, I'm sure you'd be happy if people in the USA were still getting by on $3.10/hr while employers added the rest to their bottom line... am I right? There's probably no damn reason at all to ever consider cost of living for low wage earners, correct?"

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4639

I'd rather have a low skilled worker/teenager making 3.10 an hour part-time than unemployed, which always more likely to happen when the Feds increase the minimum wage. You didn't answer my question, I answered yours. Furthermore:

"The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15."

Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents."

Broadway Carl said... / Aug 27, 2009, 11:02:00 AM  

I remember seeing this live and was pumping my fist at the time. He had his failings, but over the course of his life, I think the good outweighed the bad.

Codester said... / Aug 27, 2009, 12:40:00 PM  

By your statistics, it's clear that raising the minimum wage allows those earners to advance out of those lower paying jobs into more skilled positions quickly. Otherwise, to use them in a manner that supports keeping wages low... it sounds like a nice way to "statistically" screw people into poverty while business benefits from 3rd world level labor costs. I'm not convinced on your connection with lower wages as an increased incentive to gain employment or stay employed longer. If businesses want Mexico wage earning employees... let them operate in Mexico. I'd rather see my 17yr-old unwed mother neighbor not have to work double shifts at Sonic doing back-breaking work all day, and struggle to pay for night school, while her child suffers as a result. That's hardly the only example, but I'm sure you'll isolate her situation as self-defeating.
Your "statistical" argument for keeping people (who ARE willing to work) in a cycle of poverty is shameful.

Incidentally, are you the same "J" that I effectively shut down and stomped into a mudhole on the "who wants to defend Nazi rhetoric" blog? Stop being such a chickenshit and identify yourself a bit more. Then I'll know not to travel down and endless road of weak logic for days.

Codester said... / Aug 27, 2009, 12:42:00 PM  

Again, this post topic was an example of a politician with balls.

Not minimum wage issue.

J said... / Aug 27, 2009, 6:52:00 PM  

"By your statistics, it's clear that raising the minimum wage allows those earners to advance out of those lower paying jobs into more skilled positions quickly."

How can you even come to that conclusion? Raising the minimum wage decreases employment among those you claim to care about, the poor girl you describe who is a single mom at Sonics. Raising the minimum wage decreases employment opportunities for single unwed mothers with kids and no marketable job skills.

"I'm not convinced on your connection with lower wages as an increased incentive to gain employment or stay employed longer."

No, the connection I'm making is if you raise the minimum wage, you will decrease employment among the low skilled and teenagers, who are likely to be unskilled. Most economists agree with me.




"Your "statistical" argument for keeping people (who ARE willing to work) in a cycle of poverty is shameful."

You're emotional argument for decreasing opportunities for the poor and low skilled is shameful. It's not a "statistical" argument, it's just to throw facts at the typical wag-the- dog "You hate single moms working two jobs" line that lefties throw at you when you confront them with the fact that raising it makes it harder for said single moms to find employment. I want as many of them who want to work to be able to work, raising the minimum wage is a barrier to that. And working for an employer is a contractual agreement and I doubt that with the cost of things today that "third world wages" would make an employer viable in the US. You simply would not attract employees if you aren't offering much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

You still haven't even answered my original question, Ms Cutie Pie.

"Why couldn't he just advocate making the minimum wage 25 an hour, Cody? Why doesn't he really want to help the poor?"

J said... / Aug 27, 2009, 7:03:00 PM  

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/minimum_wage/

"Suzanne Clain, professor and living wage expert at the Villanova School of Business in Pennsylvania, said that increasing the minimum wage would create additional financial hardships for employers, driving the nationwide unemployment rate above its current 9.5%.

"My feeling is that increasing the minimum wage is going to put additional strain on the economy," she said. "Additional jobs will be lost as a result. It puts stress on employers who are currently having very small profit margins."

Clain conducted an analysis showing that the 13 states with the highest minimum wage -- exceeding the upcoming federal minimum of $7.25 an hour -- experienced higher unemployment levels than the other 37 states. She said the unemployment rates were higher by an average of between 1.75% and 2% in those 13 states during the three-month period ending in May.

"Raising minimum wage rates will generally discourage businesses from employing people," Clain said. "We're already suffering from a downturn phase."

Codester said... / Aug 28, 2009, 3:41:00 AM  

Emotional "wag the dog"...? MY ASS!!

You actually said it very concisely yourself...
"You simply would not attract employees if you aren't offering much."

But the rest...
"...raising the minimum wage decreases employment..."
All you did is repeat that exact same phrase 5 different times. That was a bit over-simplified and doesn't explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Then to just try to follow it up with
"...Most economists agree with me..."
Really? Based on what, because you said they do? WEAK!!

Now. Let's get a little deeper into cause and effect of increased wages and buying power.

You're are using a simple model for a wage floor... assuming the very basics of supply and demand for labor. I'm glad you brought in the nation's overall economy issues because that also has larger implications of consumer spending.

Businesses and communities benefit as lower wage workers spend their pay raises at businesses in the neighborhoods where they live and work. Once employees have increased spending power as a result of higher wages, they buy more goods, which translates to employer's ability to pass on the cost of higher wages to consumers (which in turn allows them to either hire more employees, or lay off less). Your basic wage floor model doesn't take this into account.

"Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation. In a recent National Consumers League survey, for example, 76 percent of American consumers said how well a company treats/pays employees influences what they buy.

States that raised their minimum wages above the decade-long $5.15 federal level had better employment and small business trends than the other states. Studies by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others show that in states with minimum wages above $5.15, the number of small businesses and the number of small business employees grew more than the other states -- contrary to what critics predicted. Likewise, after the last federal minimum wage increases in 1996 and 1997, the nation experienced lower unemployment, low inflation, robust growth and declining poverty rates.

Today's minimum wage workers still have less buying power than minimum wage workers had half a century ago. We cannot build a strong 21st century economy on a 1950s' wage floor. We cannot build a strong 21st century economy when more and more hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet."

http://is.gd/2DrWq

"Raising minimum wage will help economy, say national business leaders and small business owners from states affected by July 24 increase

July 21, 2009, Boston, MA - Business owners across the nation are welcoming the July 24 increase in the federal minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25. National business leaders and small business owners in states where workers are getting a raise say the increase will boost consumer buying power and promote economic recovery."

http://is.gd/2Du8E

Goll Dang!! Looks like another shut out for the simpleton.

Oh... your $25 argument WOULD have the the dramatic effect you're describing. It's an extreme and ludicrous assertion.

And for the third time, this post was an example of political prowess. Try to stay on topic with you comments to my blog, ok? Seriously, does my first comment on all my posts need to be an explanation of what the topic is?

You know, with so much to say, you should start your own blog and flim-flam the kind of people that are easier to flim-flam... conservatives.

J said... / Aug 28, 2009, 1:25:00 PM  

Your Sexiness,

"But the rest...
"...raising the minimum wage decreases employment..."
All you did is repeat that exact same phrase 5 different times. That was a bit over-simplified and doesn't explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Then to just try to follow it up with
"...Most economists agree with me..."
Really? Based on what, because you said they do? WEAK!!"

All you have to do is look at my first post. Here, let's type it again for you.


"Two important surveys of academic economists were reported in two issues of the American Economic Review, May 1979 and May 1992. In one survey, 90 percent, and in the other 80 percent, of economists agreed that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment among youth and low-skilled workers."

Then you post some advocacy group's site like that's going to change my mind from a simple cause and effect scenario? It boils down to this, what do you prefer..one person employed at Sonics at 8 an hour or two people employed at Sonics at 6 an hour?

"Oh... your $25 argument WOULD have the the dramatic effect you're describing. It's an extreme and ludicrous assertion."

You haven't answered the question yet, Codester.

"Goll Dang!! Looks like another shut out for the simpleton.

..

ou know, with so much to say, you should start your own blog and flim-flam the kind of people that are easier to flim-flam... conservatives."

Goll Dang? Flim-flam? And I'm the simpleton? You're the one who sounds like a Hick, not me.

Buying power is a separate issue, I'm talking employment versus unemployment. Of course, raising wages increases buying power for anybody, but mandating wage increases via congressional mandates doesn't take into account business balance sheets. If you make it unprofitable to operate, businesses shut down. So you're left with higher wage jobs with less people working overall and less choices for consumers to choose from.

Here's a little PBS for you, an oldie but goodie. Just maybe you'll stop using terms such as 'Goll Dang' after this 9 minutes of pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI

And no, I'm not starting my own blog. Harassing you is the cause of my life

Post a Comment