AUSTIN, Texas -- 2006 makes the ninth year in a row the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour. It's bad economics, it's bad policy, it's stupid, it's unfair, and it's high damn time to do something about it. It is also, as Sen. Edward Kennedy says, a moral issue.

The Democrats have a new strategy that may finally get the Republicans off the pot. They're working to get a minimum wage increase on state ballots, including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas and Montana. The theory is that putting a minimum-wage increase on the ballot does for Democrats what putting on an anti-gay marriage proposition does for Republicans -- it gets out the base.

Of the seven states with the best chance to have minimum wage ballot initiatives, five were decided by less that 10 percentage points in the most recent presidential election. In theory, this should scare the happy pappy out of the Republicans, who will then vote to increase the minimum wage the first chance they get in Congress, thus assuring an increase either way. Clever, eh?

The last minimum wage increase dates to September 1997, and inflation has since eroded the wage's buying power to its second-lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Republican opposition to an increase is based entirely on ideological grounds. Many Republicans keep saying increasing the minimum wage will hurt small business, for which there is no evidence, and cause people making the minimum wage to be laid off. But again, there is no evidence. Time after time, round after round, these same arguments, which are demonstrably false, keep getting repeated. It is really quite painful, since the economic effects of a minimum wage increase have been documented so often.

If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since 1968, when it was $1.60 an hour, it would be $7.60 an hour today, according to the AFL-CIO. A year-round, full-time worker would have to make $7.74 an hour just to be at the poverty level for a family of three -- $2.59 above the current minimum wage. The gap between middle-class workers and those making the minimum wage is the largest on record.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14023943p-14856266c.html

I live in Seattle, WA state has the highest minimum wage in the nation, $7.35, and cost of living is definitely not the highest. It's still not enough, but at least it's possible for someone to barely survive, unlike other places with lower wage and higher living costs where they have to get 6 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment just to make rent.

AUSTIN, Texas -- 2006 makes the ninth year in a row the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour. It's bad economics, it's bad policy, it's stupid, it's unfair, and it's high damn time to do something about it. It is also, as Sen. Edward Kennedy says, a moral issue.

The Democrats have a new strategy that may finally get the Republicans off the pot. They're working to get a minimum wage increase on state ballots, including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas and Montana. The theory is that putting a minimum-wage increase on the ballot does for Democrats what putting on an anti-gay marriage proposition does for Republicans -- it gets out the base.

Of the seven states with the best chance to have minimum wage ballot initiatives, five were decided by less that 10 percentage points in the most recent presidential election. In theory, this should scare the happy pappy out of the Republicans, who will then vote to increase the minimum wage the first chance they get in Congress, thus assuring an increase either way. Clever, eh?

The last minimum wage increase dates to September 1997, and inflation has since eroded the wage's buying power to its second-lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Republican opposition to an increase is based entirely on ideological grounds. Many Republicans keep saying increasing the minimum wage will hurt small business, for which there is no evidence, and cause people making the minimum wage to be laid off. But again, there is no evidence. Time after time, round after round, these same arguments, which are demonstrably false, keep getting repeated. It is really quite painful, since the economic effects of a minimum wage increase have been documented so often.

If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since 1968, when it was $1.60 an hour, it would be $7.60 an hour today, according to the AFL-CIO. A year-round, full-time worker would have to make $7.74 an hour just to be at the poverty level for a family of three -- $2.59 above the current minimum wage. The gap between middle-class workers and those making the minimum wage is the largest on record.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14023943p-14856266c.html

Oh, no. We can't have this. Democrats actually working at the state level? Unheard of!

It's still not enough, but at least it's possible for someone to barely survive, unlike other places with lower wage and higher living costs where they have to get 6 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment just to make rent.

A cheap Real World.:D

Oh, no. We can't have this. Democrats actually working at the state level? Unheard of!

I live in the Democratic Republic of MD, and everything they've gotten their hands on is an absolute disaster. Crime is terrible, education, etc. Our last governer (A Democrat) turned a billion dollar surplus into a several billion dollar deficit, and was found to have paid his cronies millions of dollars. he also cheated on his wife and knocked up his girlfriend.

Finally, we elected Bob Erlich, a Republican who's a regular guy, and he's brought the surplus back. He's succeeded mainly due to his veto power, because he's outnumbered almost 4 to 1 in the legislature.

On the minimum wage question, it almost always causes job loss at the entry level when it's raised. I don't know too many folks over the age of 19 or 20 who are still working for minimum wage, although lots of them started out that way. This idea that people work for minimum wage for 40 years is awfully misleading.

It would be wiser to promote entrepenuership in our education sytem, and actually TELL people that they don't even HAVE to work for someone else in this country. There are other alternatives. Only 1-2% of the population is taking advantage of this great oppurtunity to create their own job, and name their own price.

A job will pay the highest wage the market will bear. When I had my business, I was charging 80.00 per hour for my personal labor alone, which was just one step of the process, and had to turn away work regularly. If I can earn 80.00 and hour, anyone can. The people who worked for me earned 10.00 an hour, and what they did required almost no skill. Their pay was factored into every quote and bid.

When I worked as a salesman, one of the products I sold earned 2800.00 per sale. The only skill required was the power of persuasion, and the ability to read and write.

Anyone can earn whatever the market will bear doing lots of different things. I know a guy who's become very rich by doing just one thing; hanging wallpaper. He's done it for over 40 years. It doesn't take a college education, or a genuis.

The tragedy is that we're taught to OBEY our parents, our teachers, and to "get a good job" and OBEY our boss. Then, people feel undepaid when they get a job that isn't in high demand, it isn't unique in many ways, so it just doesn't pay well.

I know lots of jobs have been outsourced, etc., but jobs like being a cashier, or working in a car wash have NEVER paid well. The ones that did were usually union jobs, and many grocery chains, and companies in other industries have gone under, because of union demands. Certian jobs can only bear a certian wage in order for the business to compete in the open market. If a company doesn't turn a profit, and the bottom line isn't where it needs to be, it WILL fail. That's economics 101, and it should be taught in our schools from day one.

Our last governer (A Democrat) turned a billion dollar surplus into a several billion dollar deficit, and was found to have paid his cronies millions of dollars.
So what do you say about a president (A Republican) who turned a surpluses of hundreds of billions into deficits of several hundred billion dollars?

So what do you say about a president (A Republican) who turned a surpluses of hundreds of billions into deficits of several hundred billion dollars?


Haha..:nice:

So what do you say about a president (A Republican) who turned a surpluses of hundreds of billions into deficits of several hundred billion dollars?

Would have been nice if we had actually seen that huge surplus. Also would be nice if the president intiated spending bills. All he can do is sign or veto. Congress controls the spending, and that's what's out of control.

Would have been nice if we had actually seen that huge surplus. Also would be nice if the president intiated spending bills. All he can do is sign or veto. Congress controls the spending, and that's what's out of control.

Which party has the majority in Congress?

Which party has the majority in Congress?

The one that needs to remember why people voted for them.

The one that needs to remember why people voted for them.

Or, more importantly, who gave them millions in campaign contributions.

Lets Review:

Republicans--

Oil
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

Tobacco
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A02

Big Business Medicine
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

Democrats--

County & Municipal Employees
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000061

Teachers
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000064

THE Labor Union of America
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000074


Hmmm.....

Or, more importantly, who gave them millions in campaign contributions.

Lets Review:

Republicans--

Oil
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

Tobacco
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A02

Big Business Medicine
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

Democrats--

County & Municipal Employees
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000061

Teachers
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000064

THE Labor Union of America
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000074


Hmmm.....

Demonstrating that a handful of powerful people that control large amounts of money give large amounts of money to political parties does not address the topic on hand, namely the minimum wage. You also forgot to mention that the democrats get most of their money from a few very wealthy interests, while the Republicans get most of theirs from the middle class. Raising the minimum wage hurts those it's supposed to help.

Demonstrating that a handful of powerful people that control large amounts of money give large amounts of money to political parties does not address the topic on hand

However, your response makes it very clear that you have no clue how labor unions in general work. I have no clue what you believe, but if you truly believe that the labor union represents anything similar to big tobacco or the oil industry, you need to go back to economics 101. Labor Unions, or at least the major ones, work on a representive vote. The people giving the money in the labor unions are the coalition of those who have been elected to represent the middle to lower class working classes in their fields. Nearly all fields blatently favor Democrat policys.

You also forgot to mention that the democrats get most of their money from a few very wealthy interests,

I backed up mine, you back up yours. Show me these wealthy interests, as compared to republican top donors. Because facts seem to point out that the largest donations to Democrats and any party come from the working class unions.

Raising the minimum wage hurts those it's supposed to help.

No. It doesnt. Unless you consider being able to afford mittens for your children hurting people, because that CEO can only get the 04 model jet instead of the 06, I think your very wrong.

However, your response makes it very clear that you have no clue how labor unions in general work. I have no clue what you believe, but if you truly believe that the labor union represents anything similar to big tobacco or the oil industry, you need to go back to economics 101. Labor Unions, or at least the major ones, work on a representive vote. The people giving the money in the labor unions are the coalition of those who have been elected to represent the middle to lower class working classes in their fields. Nearly all fields blatently favor Democrat policys.


You do not truly believe that the union big wigs actually represent the membership, do you? The political affiliation of union membership roughly matches that of the population at large. That means that roughly 40% of the union workers whose dues are being given to democrats without consultation or permission vote Republican. That's not representation.


I backed up mine, you back up yours. Show me these wealthy interests, as compared to republican top donors. Because facts seem to point out that the largest donations to Democrats and any party come from the working class unions.


I've already done so several times on this board. The facts show that the democrats get most of their money from wealthy interests, while the Republicans get most of the middle class's donations.


No. It doesnt. Unless you consider being able to afford mittens for your children hurting people, because that CEO can only get the 04 model jet instead of the 06, I think your very wrong.

I consider an unskilled worker unable to even get a job because he doesn't have a skill valuable enough to justify an artificially high wage hurting people. I consider a teenager trying to get some work experience who is unable to for the same reason hurting people. Most of the people in minimum wage jobs don't stay there very long, and most are not sole breadwinners for a family of 4. Raising the minimum wage shuts them out of the market and hurts the very people it's supposed to help. You know who it helps? It helps the people who already have a job at minimum wage, and it helps union members whose much larger salaries are pegged to the minimum wage.

Edit - it doesn't help everyone who is currently working at minimum wage, because some of them will lose their jobs when they become too expensive to employ.

So what do you say about a president (A Republican) who turned a surpluses of hundreds of billions into deficits of several hundred billion dollars?


A phony surplus, bub. If the government used proper GAAP accounting, the financial reporting for the Clinton years would have shown a spending binge as well. Also, Clinton gutted the military, which has caused ongoing problems.

Would have been nice if we had actually seen that huge surplus.
From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0):
1998 - $69.2 billion
1999 - $125.5 billion
2000 - $236.2 billion
2001 - $128.2 billion

Also would be nice if the president intiated spending bills. All he can do is sign or veto. Congress controls the spending, and that's what's out of control.
You even pointed out in your post that Maryland's legislature is 4 to 1 Democratic (i.e., enough to override a veto). So, why do you give credit for Republicans for the surpluses during Clinton years and not Democrats for the surpluses during the Ehrlich years?

And as Myrddin points out, why do you let the Republicans off the hook for record budget deficits when they control both the executive branch and the legislative branch?
Which party has the majority in Congress?

From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0):
1998 - $69.2 billion
1999 - $125.5 billion
2000 - $236.2 billion
2001 - $128.2 billion

You even pointed out in your post that Maryland's legislature is 4 to 1 Democratic (i.e., enough to override a veto). So, why do you give credit for Republicans for the surpluses during Clinton years and not Democrats for the surpluses during the Ehrlich years?


I didn't write about Maryland. Not sure where you got that from.


And as Myrddin points out, why do you let the Republicans off the hook for record budget deficits when they control both the executive branch and the legislative branch?

See my post. The current crop of Republicans are not the fiscal conservatives of Newt Gingrich.

A phony surplus, bub. If the government used proper GAAP accounting, the financial reporting for the Clinton years would have shown a spending binge as well. Also, Clinton gutted the military, which has caused ongoing problems.
Make sure you judge the budget deficits in the Clinton era the same way you do for Mr. Bush. Under your rules, Bush's $377.6 billion deficit in 2003 was actually $538.4 billion, and the $412.1 billion deficit in 2004 was actually $567.4 billion.

Keep trying.

From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0):
1998 - $69.2 billion
1999 - $125.5 billion
2000 - $236.2 billion
2001 - $128.2 billion




And you believe these numbers? The government doesn't use proper accrual accounting (the GAAP method which, if corporations don't follow, executives can be thrown in jail). The figures you quote do not include staggering future unfunded liabilities.

Get Edu-Ma-Cated:

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/2002/06/27/0627simons.html

I didn't write about Maryland. Not sure where you got that from.
Sorry, I confused you with Betrade. But you still have some questions to answer.

And you believe these numbers?
Your tinfoil-hat article is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting that the accounting was worse under Clinton than under Bush.

Whatever. Persist in your delusion that the official government numbers actually tell you anything about the real financial state of the government spending and liabilities.

You do not truly believe that the union big wigs actually represent the membership, do you? The political affiliation of union membership roughly matches that of the population at large. That means that roughly 40% of the union workers whose dues are being given to democrats without consultation or permission vote Republican. That's not representation.

If they didnt like the way the union is run, and how the union provides for them, they are perfectly free to leave. However, they of course recognize that Democrat policys are by far better for the worker then republican policys.



I've already done so several times on this board. The facts show that the democrats get most of their money from wealthy interests, while the Republicans get most of the middle class's donations.

Actually, I do believe your only example was that the Democrats get the top donors. Which happend to be the worker unions, which I use as an argument against you.

If they didnt like the way the union is run, and how the union provides for them, they are perfectly free to leave. However, they of course recognize that Democrat policys are by far better for the worker then republican policys.


That's bogus. Workers are not usually free to leave the union unless they are willing to also leave their job. They are not represented by the union leadership. If they were, the donations to the political parties would be more even. Your statement makes no sense. If a worker votes Republican yet approves of his union slavishly donating to democrats, that's stupid.


Actually, I do believe your only example was that the Democrats get the top donors. Which happend to be the worker unions, which I use as an argument against you.

Which I have debunked again in this thread.

Whatever. Persist in your delusion that the official government numbers actually tell you anything about the real financial state of the government spending and liabilities.
Again, that's not even relevant to this thread. You'd have to make a case that Clinton's #s were more off than Bush's are to make a legitimate point.