Speaker Pelosi? here's her plan

[Mavdog]

very interesting "platform" that she discusses. not all that radical (as some would claim) with most positions in the mainstream.
most see a better than 50/50 chance Pelosi will be the next speaker..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelosi says she would drain GOP 'swamp'
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Fri Oct 6, 1:58 AM ET

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore.

Now, her political base is about as liberal as it gets, San Francisco. It's a fact that Republicans love to emphasize to voters who might want to visit, but not feel comfortable living there.

Republicans find her an attractive political target, and recently said she would try to "cut-and-run" from Iraq while "launching bitter partisan investigations" of the Bush administration, possibly including impeachment hearings.

A grandmother five times over, Pelosi pops chocolates, shuns coffee and flashes her wit. Asked what offices should would occupy if in the Capitol if she becomes speaker, she laughed. "I'll have any suite I want."

She would, too.

"If the election were held today we'd be successful," Pelosi predicted, claiming that her party's prospects are expanding as the campaign enters its final month. "So many other races are emerging right now," she said.

Democrats must gain 15 seats to regain the majority they lost in 1994, and have candidates in competitive races for 30 or so Republican-held seats, according to strategists in both parties. By contrast, only about a handful of Democratic-controlled seats appear ripe for possible Republican takeover.

Democrats have a pamphlet that lists all their promises and have run through several slogans in the past year or so as they test campaign messages. In recent days, Pelosi said, their prospects have improved by the discovery that former Republican Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) of Florida had sent sexually explicit computer messages to teenage male pages.

Not long before sitting down for a lunchtime interview, she turned down a suggestion from Speaker Dennis Hastert that they jointly appoint former FBI Director Louie Freeh to recommend improvements in the page program.

"That was about protecting their majority" rather than the pages, she said dismissively.

Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.

The potential for political gain is clear to her.

"It's an opportunity for growth among women" for the Democrats, she said. "They don't always vote and this could be a motivation."

With married women, in particular, it's a huge issue, she added.

Among older voters, too.

"If there's an ethical issue, seniors take a hike" and abandon politicians they blame, she said.

"If we hold onto seniors we win the election."

[Rhylan]

Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour

Obscene and economically ignorant.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Obscene and economically ignorant.

Most accurate description of Pelosi that I have ever seen.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Obscene and economically ignorant.

what prompts you to label the minimum wage proposal as "obscene"?

as far as "economically ignorant", that would depend on what she believes to be the affects.

fwiw, several states already have a 7.25 minimum wage and they're doing fine....

[chumdawg]

It's a pretty impressive piece of work. Something along the lines of this decade's Contract with America. I'm not even sure it matters a whole lot what the details of the plan are (I disagree with some, particularly the slashing of interest on student loans), but just that they HAVE a plan.

This is good work by the Democrats. It will sell well. I've still yet to see anything that suggests that Republicans aren't up against it in these elections.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what prompts you to label the minimum wage proposal as "obscene"?

as far as "economically ignorant", that would depend on what she believes to be the affects.

fwiw, several states already have a 7.25 minimum wage and they're doing fine....

$7.25 is ridiculous, that's like a 30% increase over the current minimum wage.

I personally don't believe in a minimum wage at all. It ought to be set by the labor market. If we have to have a minimum wage, it needs to be low enough that it roughly equates to what someone would be worth to you on the first day on the job with no skill whatsoever. You have to have room to pay people *above* minimum without suddenly having them be making $30k a year for doing something one step above minimum wage.

Dems love to cry about the "elimination" of the middle class, but all raising the minimum wage does is slowly erode whatever middle-range of earning that exists. And no, I don't think $7.25/hr is anything close to being middle class. But the point is, you have to have differentiation. Especially in rural areas where the ceiling is much, much lower.

I'm curious if these states have any semblance of commerce in towns with populations of less than 10,000 - of which Texas has TONS.

Imagine running a business in Hamilton, TX with 9 employees, and 6 of them get a mandatory 30% raise. How are you going to deal with that? Their skills didn't increase by 30%. Their value to your company didn't increase by 30%. What abou those other three, your three main people, who make $8.25/hr? Now, they are asking themselves, "why am I working here when the people with no skill only make a dollar less?"

Raising minimum wage inflates everything.

But, Democrats feel sorry for them, so that's what you have to do.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's a pretty impressive piece of work. Something along the lines of this decade's Contract with America. I'm not even sure it matters a whole lot what the details of the plan are (I disagree with some, particularly the slashing of interest on student loans), but just that they HAVE a plan.

This is good work by the Democrats. It will sell well. I've still yet to see anything that suggests that Republicans aren't up against it in these elections.

I agree with you. It's really smart for the Democrats to finally lay out some specifics rather than a bunch of generalities that sound like a Miss America pageant answer.

Having said that, most of her proposals are a bunch of crap.

[kg_veteran]

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

I think everybody would like to see this, but what rules does she propose, exactly? And are Democrats going to play by these rules, too?

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Most of the recommendations of the commission were nebulous, vague, and confusing. I'm not sure how you would know if you were enacting them or not.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.

Gotta agree with Rhylan here. I think there is a valid argument for raising it some, but by over $2 per hour? I think more harm than good is done by such a move.

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.

What's the point of this? If the government is going to invest in the higher education of its citizens by offering student loans, why shouldn't it get a decent rate of return?

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Sounds good to me.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

Yeah, let's broaden it to add types of stem cell research that are controversial and have never proven effective.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

This definitely needs to happen.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

Translation: We're not going to reduce spending.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

Wow, talk about a bunch of socialist class-warfare demagoguery.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wow, talk about a bunch of socialist class-warfare demagoguery.

Right on... you can't believe in the marketplace and believe in sharing wealth through government.

If Nancy wants to share her personal wealth, good for her. Problem is, she and her pals know what's best for all of us, so they want to share everyone else's wealth, too. Including my middle class wealth. They're coming for your wallet!!!

Sorry Mavdog.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

$7.25 is ridiculous, that's like a 30% increase over the current minimum wage.

I personally don't believe in a minimum wage at all. It ought to be set by the labor market. If we have to have a minimum wage, it needs to be low enough that it roughly equates to what someone would be worth to you on the first day on the job with no skill whatsoever. You have to have room to pay people *above* minimum without suddenly having them be making $30k a year for doing something one step above minimum wage.

at the current minimum wage the worker gets $10,712 annually ($5.15x40 hrs=206/wkx52 wks=$10,712)
with the proposed bump to $7.25 it's $15,080 annually, or about half of the current "poverty line".

The vast majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers.

Dems love to cry about the "elimination" of the middle class, but all raising the minimum wage does is slowly erode whatever middle-range of earning that exists. And no, I don't think $7.25/hr is anything close to being middle class. But the point is, you have to have differentiation. Especially in rural areas where the ceiling is much, much lower.

I'm curious if these states have any semblance of commerce in towns with populations of less than 10,000 - of which Texas has TONS.

I agree, those who earn the minimum wage are nowhere near middle class.

there are many, many exclusions to the minimum wage.

I also agree that the areas that currently have the $7.25 wage are predominately in urban markets where the cost of living is substantially different than say mexia, tx.

Imagine running a business in Hamilton, TX with 9 employees, and 6 of them get a mandatory 30% raise. How are you going to deal with that? Their skills didn't increase by 30%. Their value to your company didn't increase by 30%. What abou those other three, your three main people, who make $8.25/hr? Now, they are asking themselves, "why am I working here when the people with no skill only make a dollar less?"

Raising minimum wage inflates everything.

But, Democrats feel sorry for them, so that's what you have to do.

I'd suggest that is is very, very unusual to have a business, even in Hamilton, TX, where 2/3 of the employees are being paid minimum wage.

actually from what I've read the inflationary affects are not that immediate. the increases in the minimum wage tend to not push up the end price, but rather the rise in the minimum wage reduces employee counts. this seems to indicate that the market pressure on prices will not allow the increased costs to the employer to be passed through.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think everybody would like to see this, but what rules does she propose, exactly? And are Democrats going to play by these rules, too?

I'd expect that the rules will appply to everyone. dem repub or independent.

Most of the recommendations of the commission were nebulous, vague, and confusing. I'm not sure how you would know if you were enacting them or not.

really? it seemed that the recommendations were fairly straightforward.

Gotta agree with Rhylan here. I think there is a valid argument for raising it some, but by over $2 per hour? I think more harm than good is done by such a move.

it makes for good soundbites. most of those making the minimum wage aren't voters, but the idea that the dem party is looking out for the most vulnerable is good populism.

What's the point of this? If the government is going to invest in the higher education of its citizens by offering student loans, why shouldn't it get a decent rate of return?

the "rate of return" is much more than simple interest on the loan. the government gets a return from the increased earning capacity of the worker, as well as benefits of a more productive, stable worker. society is more stable as well with a bterr educated workforce.

frankly, the rates are pretty low as it is, but as we see the cost of capital increase this will certainly affect the interest rate on student loans.

I'd much rather see a larger amount of money available to students to compensate for the increased tuitions they are paying.

Yeah, let's broaden it to add types of stem cell research that are controversial and have never proven effective.

how do we know how effective they can be when the research on them is limited (or in most cases not allowed) by the fiat of the current administration?

Translation: We're not going to reduce spending.

to be effective in removing the deficits there MUST be a reduction in spending. however, the reduction in federal spending will not by itself stop the deficits, so yes taxes MUST be increased...on the highest 2% of incomes according to the proposal above.

Wow, talk about a bunch of socialist class-warfare demagoguery.

"socialist"??? just where is the socialism in the plan?

having the highest incomes tax breaks rescinded is not socialism. are you of the opinion there should not be a progressive tax structure?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really? it seemed that the recommendations were fairly straightforward.

I don't want to take this thread too far off course, but I don't think they were. They were generalizations like this:

"The U.S. government must attack terrorists and their organizations by identifying and prioritizing actual or potential sanctuaries for terrorists, and have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. The U.S. should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help in this regard."

Sounds like what we're already doing, but you wouldn't know unless you knew what they meant by "a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure", "using all elements of national power", "work with other countries", etc.

it makes for good soundbites. most of those making the minimum wage aren't voters, but the idea that the dem party is looking out for the most vulnerable is good populism.

At least you admit that it's populism.

If, as you say, most minimum wage workers are teenagers, that militates even further against raising the minimum wage, IMO.

the "rate of return" is much more than simple interest on the loan. the government gets a return from the increased earning capacity of the worker, as well as benefits of a more productive, stable worker. society is more stable as well with a bterr educated workforce.

frankly, the rates are pretty low as it is, but as we see the cost of capital increase this will certainly affect the interest rate on student loans.

So are you saying you're for slashing the interest rates?

how do we know how effective they can be when the research on them is limited (or in most cases not allowed) by the fiat of the current administration?

Fiat's not an accurate term, but we know it because there are other countries where such research is permitted, and so far it has been completely ineffective.

to be effective in removing the deficits there MUST be a reduction in spending. however, the reduction in federal spending will not by itself stop the deficits, so yes taxes MUST be increased...on the highest 2% of incomes according to the proposal above.

Yeah, but she's saying she won't reduce spending. Do you agree or disagree with her?

"socialist"??? just where is the socialism in the plan?

having the highest incomes tax breaks rescinded is not socialism. are you of the opinion there should not be a progressive tax structure?

She said, "We must share the benefits of our wealth beyond the privileged few." That's called redistribution of wealth.

Whining about rewarding wealth and not work is intended to create envy by the lower/middle classes toward the wealthy, and it implies that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth and therefore should be stripped of it, so that it can be given to those that "work".

Socialism, or perhaps you prefer the term communism.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't want to take this thread too far off course, but I don't think they were. They were generalizations like this:

"The U.S. government must attack terrorists and their organizations by identifying and prioritizing actual or potential sanctuaries for terrorists, and have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. The U.S. should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help in this regard."

Sounds like what we're already doing, but you wouldn't know unless you knew what they meant by "a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure", "using all elements of national power", "work with other countries", etc.

there is more than the piece you posted...is your point that we have done enough and don't need to do more?

If, as you say, most minimum wage workers are teenagers, that militates even further against raising the minimum wage, IMO.

why is that the case? do teens not deserve a fair wage?

So are you saying you're for slashing the interest rates?

I'm for any initiative that provides funds to prospective students for their pursuit of higher education. if a reduced interest rate helps, and frankly a program of zero interest would make sense to me (if paid in a short time frame post graduation), then yes I'm all for it.

Fiat's not an accurate term, but we know it because there are other countries where such research is permitted, and so far it has been completely ineffective.

an executive order is not a fiat? yeah, it sure is...

there have been successes of using embryotic stem cells:
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundatio...er_2006.html#2

Yeah, but she's saying she won't reduce spending. Do you agree or disagree with her?

when does she say "she won't reduce spending"??? she DOES include reduced spending, to wit: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority

She said, "We must share the benefits of our wealth beyond the privileged few." That's called redistribution of wealth.

Whining about rewarding wealth and not work is intended to create envy by the lower/middle classes toward the wealthy, and it implies that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth and therefore should be stripped of it, so that it can be given to those that "work".

Socialism, or perhaps you prefer the term communism.

those economic models (socialism/communism) are reflective of private property vs public ownership btw

where is the connection of rescinding the tax cuts for the top 2% of incomes a "redistribution of wealth" when the rescision will generate money to reduce the national debt? answer: it doesn't. the other income groups will NOT receive the tax monies. so there is NO "redistribution".

the proposal says that the tax cuts have exacerbated the deficits, and the income strata that can increase their portion of tax collections (without negative economic affects) is the top 2% of incomes. the data supports the premise as this strata has experienced a greater increase in net worth since the tax cuts were enacted than any other strata.

not only did this income group benefit from lowered income tax rates, they also benefitted from the decrease in capital gains and dividend taxes.

you didn't answer my question about the structure of a progressive tax program btw...

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what prompts you to label the minimum wage proposal as "obscene"?

as far as "economically ignorant", that would depend on what she believes to be the affects.

fwiw, several states already have a 7.25 minimum wage and they're doing fine....

In Washington it's 7.36

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is more than the piece you posted...is your point that we have done enough and don't need to do more?

Of course there is more, which is why I said that was one example. Most of the rest are equally ambiguous.

No, my point is that it's difficult to follow recommendations that aren't specific and don't involve more than general goals.

If I say we need to "protect our borders", I could get a large majority of people to agree with me. If I say I want to accomplish that goal by shooting people who try to cross illegally, I might not get a large majority of people to agree with me.

(NOTE: I'm not saying I want to shoot illegal aliens, I'm just giving an example of a general goal vs. a specific plan of action to accomplish the goal.)

why is that the case? do teens not deserve a fair wage?

The argument to raise minimum wage is a bit more compelling when you're talking about people who are trying to support a family on the wage than when you are talking about kids who want money to buy clothes and CDs and video iPods. Or somesuch.

I'm for any initiative that provides funds to prospective students for their pursuit of higher education. if a reduced interest rate helps, and frankly a program of zero interest would make sense to me (if paid in a short time frame post graduation), then yes I'm all for it.

I guess I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I agree with you that rates are already pretty low. I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make to cut the interest rate in half.

an executive order is not a fiat? yeah, it sure is...

I thought you were referring to his veto.

there have been successes of using embryotic stem cells:
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundatio...er_2006.html#2

I stand corrected. I hadn't heard about that.

Then I guess that's another solid populist position for Pelosi to take. I haven't seen the latest polls, but I believe a majority in America favor some federal funding of such research.

when does she say "she won't reduce spending"??? she DOES include reduced spending, to wit: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority

No, she's saying she won't increase spending on "health care or some other priority" if she can't "pay as she goes," not that she will decrease spending.

those economic models (socialism/communism) are reflective of private property vs public ownership btw

Yes, I know that.

where is the connection of rescinding the tax cuts for the top 2% of incomes a "redistribution of wealth" when the rescision will generate money to reduce the national debt? answer: it doesn't. the other income groups will NOT receive the tax monies. so there is NO "redistribution".

You're changing the quote to something she didn't say. However, if that's what she meant, then I agree with you. There's no redistribution of weath involved. But now you're talking about reducing the national debt. I didn't hear that in what she said at all. She's not talking about taking any extra tax revenues and applying them to the national debt. She's talking about using them to cover current Congressional spending (instead of borrowing to spend).

the proposal says that the tax cuts have exacerbated the deficits, and the income strata that can increase their portion of tax collections (without negative economic affects) is the top 2% of incomes. the data supports the premise as this strata has experienced a greater increase in net worth since the tax cuts were enacted than any other strata.

You and I have talked about this before. While I think that the Bush tax cuts did what they were supposed to do, for them to be effective, Bush needed to have coupled them with spending cuts. Without spending cuts, tax cuts only worsen the problem. I agree with that.

you didn't answer my question about the structure of a progressive tax program btw...

Oh. No, I'm not saying I'm opposed to a progressive tax program, per se.

[Ninkobei]

I cant believe how many people are "for" keeping the minimum wage so low. Why wouldn't we want the poorest people to get a pay raise? seems like people are afraid that if some guy gets a 2$ pay raise they might be able to afford that big 40inch HDTV before someone classified as "middleclass" gets theirs. its ignorant says I

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, she's saying she won't increase spending on "health care or some other priority" if she can't "pay as she goes," not that she will decrease spending.

your interpertation might be correct, however I read her to say that those programs might be reduced if the money wasn't available to pay for them.

You're changing the quote to something she didn't say. However, if that's what she meant, then I agree with you. There's no redistribution of weath involved. But now you're talking about reducing the national debt. I didn't hear that in what she said at all. She's not talking about taking any extra tax revenues and applying them to the national debt. She's talking about using them to cover current Congressional spending (instead of borrowing to spend).

yes, she is saying that the plan is to balance the budget. as it goes into entitlement programs, that may be more fuzzy, yet if the past democratic budgets are representitive of the plan those did generate money for debt retirement.

novel idea, having a surplus..

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your interpertation might be correct, however I read her to say that those programs might be reduced if the money wasn't available to pay for them.

Fair enough. I suppose either interpretation could be correct.

Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.

yes, she is saying that the plan is to balance the budget. as it goes into entitlement programs, that may be more fuzzy, yet if the past democratic budgets are representitive of the plan those did generate money for debt retirement.

novel idea, having a surplus..

I'll bet money with you that we don't have a surplus at any time in the foreseeable future (say the next 5 years).

Unless we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, roll back the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement, back off of our commitments to repair after Katrina (which would probably violate federal law), and increase taxes substantially, that is.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

I cant believe how many people are "for" keeping the minimum wage so low. Why wouldn't we want the poorest people to get a pay raise? seems like people are afraid that if some guy gets a 2$ pay raise they might be able to afford that big 40inch HDTV before someone classified as "middleclass" gets theirs. its ignorant says I

Would you rather them have a $2.00 pay raise or a job. That is the debate that is going on.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Would you rather them have a $2.00 pay raise or a job. That is the debate that is going on.

Bingo.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Would you rather them have a $2.00 pay raise or a job. That is the debate that is going on.

Ding!!!! We have a winner.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Would you rather them have a $2.00 pay raise or a job. That is the debate that is going on.

really?

here's the stats...they show your assertion is incorrect.

state/minimum wage/state unemployment rate

CT $7.49 4.5%
FL $6.40 3.3%
IL $6.50 4.7%
MD $6.15 4.1%
MA $6.75 4.9%
NJ $6.15 5.3%
NY $6.75 4.7%
OR $7.50 5.5%
RI $7.10 5.6%
VT $7.25 3.7%
WA $7.63 5.2%


hmm, who has the highest unemployment rates, and what is the minimum wage?
MI 7.1% $5.15 minimum wage
MS 7.1% no minimum wage
SC 6.5% no minimum wage
AK 6.5% $7.15 minimum wage
WV 5.9% $5.15 minimum wage

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really?

here's the stats...they show your assertion is incorrect.

state/minimum wage/state unemployment rate

CT $7.49 4.5%
FL $6.40 3.3%
IL $6.50 4.7%
MD $6.15 4.1%
MA $6.75 4.9%
NJ $6.15 5.3%
NY $6.75 4.7%
OR $7.50 5.5%
RI $7.10 5.6%
VT $7.25 3.7%
WA $7.63 5.2%


hmm, who has the highest unemployment rates, and what is the minimum wage?
MI 7.1% $5.15 minimum wage
MS 7.1% no minimum wage
SC 6.5% no minimum wage
AK 6.5% $7.15 minimum wage
WV 5.9% $5.15 minimum wage

Those stats can be used however you want. I could certainly use those stats to argue that if you raised the minimum wage, unemployment would rise even further in states like Mississippi and South Carolina.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Those stats can be used however you want. I could certainly use those stats to argue that if you raised the minimum wage, unemployment would rise even further in states like Mississippi and South Carolina.

the statistics are what they are....there is NO correlation of a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment.

it is NOT a debate of "a $2.00 pay raise or a job".

you could conjecture that MS and SC could see a rise in unemployment, but the data doesn't say.

btw the correlation is higher employment and higher educated workforce. states with higher average education acheived generally have the lowest unemployment numbers.

[kg_veteran]

You're assuming that there is a correlation between a higher minimum wage and lower unemployment.

[Drbio]

Nice that mavclueless uses stats to assert that dude was incorrect but quickly falls back on the "data doesn't say" retreat when pressed on alternative interpretations.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Nice that mavclueless uses stats to assert that dude was incorrect but quickly falls back on the "data doesn't say" retreat when pressed on alternative interpretations.

"alternate interpretations"???

clueless is a person who doesn't understand words such as "would rise"....

here, I'll help you. that is a prediction, a "forecast".

go back to english class.

[Usually Lurkin]

Mavdog, what did you mean earlier when you said:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the increases in the minimum wage tend to not push up the end price, but rather the rise in the minimum wage reduces employee counts.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Mavdog, what did you mean earlier when you said:

studies have concluded that market forces prevent individual enterprises from passing onto the consumer an increase in employee costs.

[Usually Lurkin]

by "reducing employee counts" do you mean that when minimum wage goes up, people lose their jobs?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

by "reducing employee counts" do you mean that when minimum wage goes up, people lose their jobs?

I've not seen any research that says that employees are let go.it's new hiring that is reduced.

generally the employer will try and utilize the employees they have to be more productive, and the employer tends to pull back on additional hires. in the long run limiting growth in additional employees, and job growth will be reduced...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're assuming that there is a correlation between a higher minimum wage and lower unemployment.

no kg, I'm showing the current stats contradict a correlation that was made between a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've not seen any research that says that employees are let go.it's new hiring that is reduced.

generally the employer will try and utilize the employees they have to be more productive, and the employer tends to pull back on additional hires. in the long run limiting growth in additional employees, and job growth will be reduced...

so it becomes harder for people without jobs to get jobs? (I don't know why economics can't be spoken in plain english )

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no kg, I'm showing the current stats contradict a correlation that was made between a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment.

Not the stats that you provided.

The argument is that if you raise the minimum wage by over $2.00 per hour, unemployment will rise among those minimum wage workers. The data you're using is not helpful for a couple of reasons.

First, your data encompasses ALL workers, not just lower income or minimum wage workers. If you're trying to determine the impact of a minimum wage increase on minimum wage workers, data regarding middle and upper class workers is irrelevant.

Second, it compares different states rather than comparing the changes in employment levels in the same state after a minimum wage increase. Your assumption is that a higher minimum wage is what caused lower unemployment. I think there are too many other potential factors for you to make such an assumption. Such as, what is the economy of the particular state like? What is the population level of that state? I don't think the fact that Connecticut has a low level of unemployment with a higher minimum wage has any bearing on whether raising the minimum wage in Mississippi would reduce or increase unemployment of minimum wage workers. None at all.

Surely you're not suggesting this data means that if the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $7.25 in Texas that unemployment would suddenly DIP (or even stay the same), are you?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

so it becomes harder for people without jobs to get jobs? (I don't know why economics can't be spoken in plain english )

if the worker doesn't have a good set of skills, yes, it will be harder for them. that is what I was referring to above when I mentioned the correlation of education acheivement to unemployment. it is not coincidence that the states with the highest unemployment numbers tend to be the states with the lower average education attainment.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Not the stats that you provided.

The argument is that if you raise the minimum wage by over $2.00 per hour, unemployment will rise among those minimum wage workers. The data you're using is not helpful for a couple of reasons.

First, your data encompasses ALL workers, not just lower income or minimum wage workers. If you're trying to determine the impact of a minimum wage increase on minimum wage workers, data regarding middle and upper class workers is irrelevant.

Second, it compares different states rather than comparing the changes in employment levels in the same state after a minimum wage increase. Your assumption is that a higher minimum wage is what caused lower unemployment. I think there are too many other potential factors for you to make such an assumption. Such as, what is the economy of the particular state like? What is the population level of that state? I don't think the fact that Connecticut has a low level of unemployment with a higher minimum wage has any bearing on whether raising the minimum wage in Mississippi would reduce or increase unemployment of minimum wage workers. None at all.

no, my assertion is NOT "that a higher minimum wage is what caused lower unemployment", my assertion is that a higher minimum wage did not cause HIGHER unemployment.

the data that you want to see is a very detailed study.

Surely you're not suggesting this data means that if the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $7.25 in Texas that unemployment would suddenly DIP (or even stay the same), are you?

no, the point is that a rise in the minimum wage does not automatically result in higher unemployment. in TX it may not affect the unemployment numbers, especially with an expanding job market like we've experienced.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if the worker doesn't have a good set of skills, yes, it will be harder for them.

. . . For the people likely to be looking for a minimum wage job, raising the minimum wage will make it harder for them to get any job at all?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"alternate interpretations"???

clueless is a person who doesn't understand words such as "would rise"....

here, I'll help you. that is a prediction, a "forecast".

go back to english class.

You can take the dumbf*ck out of the ....well no...actually you can't. Mavdogs dumbf*ck gene is just stuck on overdrive......again.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, my assertion is NOT "that a higher minimum wage is what caused lower unemployment", my assertion is that a higher minimum wage did not cause HIGHER unemployment.

the data that you want to see is a very detailed study.

Yes, but the data that I want to see is what would be required in order to draw the conclusion that a higher minimum wage doesn't cause higher unemployment. The data you used to draw that conclusion is completely insufficient.

no, the point is that a rise in the minimum wage does not automatically result in higher unemployment. in TX it may not affect the unemployment numbers, especially with an expanding job market like we've experienced.

I can't believe you're saying that. If we raised the minimum wage to $7.25, a hamburger flipper now costs McDonalds over $4,300 extra per year. That's per minimum wage employee. So either some hamburger flippers are losing their jobs, or the price of the Big Mac goes up.

EDIT: I just read your response to UL. Are you serious, talking about "a good set of skills" and "education achievement"? Do you know who works minimum wage jobs? Here's a hint: It isn't people who have a "good set of skills" or who have attained any degree of "education achievement." Those things are completely irrelevant when discussing the unemployment rate for minimum wage workers. We're talking about people who may or may not have graduated high school, whose only additional training is "on the job", and who are what is referred to in the vernacular as "unskilled laborers".

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Yes, but the data that I want to see is what would be required in order to draw the conclusion that a higher minimum wage doesn't cause higher unemployment. The data you used to draw that conclusion is completely insufficient.

I agree the study you're describing would be much more definitive.

however, the snapshot data posted above is clear- those states with a higher minimum wage than the current figure do NOT (except for one state,AK) have a higer unemployment rate. many in fact have a lower rate than the natl avg.

I can't believe you're saying that. If we raised the minimum wage to $7.25, a hamburger flipper now costs McDonalds over $4,300 extra per year. That's per minimum wage employee. So either some hamburger flippers are losing their jobs, or the price of the Big Mac goes up.

the mcd still needs to serve the same number or greater of hamburgers, and the staff will be sized to put out that much product. if they don't have enough flippers they won't sell the same number of hamburgers.

studies I've read show the firms don't lay off employees when the minimum wage is increased unless their sales go down. the firms generally either a) find other ways to reduce expenses, b) accept a short term decrease in net unless they can c) raise their prices as the market allows.

EDIT: I just read your response to UL. Are you serious, talking about "a good set of skills" and "education achievement"? Do you know who works minimum wage jobs? Here's a hint: It isn't people who have a "good set of skills" or who have attained any degree of "education achievement." Those things are completely irrelevant when discussing the unemployment rate for minimum wage workers. We're talking about people who may or may not have graduated high school, whose only additional training is "on the job", and who are what is referred to in the vernacular as "unskilled laborers".

the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are held by teens. the productivity of teens is one of the most variable among all worker groups. they are also transitory, they will (for the most part) only occupy that minimum wage job untill they complete their education. that's about 40% of all minimum wage workers.

another third are those who are drop outs in HS. they will fracture in work track, half will be stuck in the jobs (the unskilled you mention), half will find a trade/skill that allows them to become higher paid.

so kg they are very relevant.