Nothing either of them has said about Bush goes below anything that came out of the mouths of Republicans about President Clinton. And it is certainly no worse than what the President has said about them!

Mark,

No minimum wage hike? Shouldn't the minimum wage at least keep up with inflation?

I've always pegged you for a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of guy, but this is proof in my mind that you don't have any problem with the idea of the poor in this country getting poorer.

If anything, shouldn't a just society expect to REDUCE the number of poor people who live there, or AT LEAST keep it the same?

I have been giving you more credit than I should have, Mark. You really are the exact worst example of injustice in this world. You are a poster boy for what liberals think of as everything wrong with this world. You will probably take that as a badge of honor...so be it.

But the idea that poor people SHOULD be poor, and SHOULD get poorer, is why you and your ilk will eventually be driven from the face of this earth. We Libs, Moderates, Centrists and others don't agree with you, and we will not rest until you are gone. We may periodically give you power, but in the long run the march of civilization will conquer the forces of oppression; and you will eventually find youself looking up from out of a bootprint made by ordinary people around this world who will not be swayed in their demand for justice and the end to your tyranical rule. So feel free to believe the way you do; but do not expect many political victories in the next few centuries. Your occasional triumphs will not stop the clock on progress, and we will eventually overcome you and the very existance of oppression and injustice you propose for this world.

(now THERE's a liberal rant for you!)

Matt,

Why do you distrust the will & wisdom of the American people?

In every state (6 of them with a 'Minimum Wage Increase' initiative on the ballot, it passed overwhelmingly!

The people voted for a change- let American Democracy work! And you can help by stopping your negativity and pledging to work together to move this GREAT NATION forward!!!

I also want to take an opportunity to comment on the President's press conference yesterday. I thought he handled it with grace, and he came off just great overall. What my hope is, is that the Democrats will take the high road and not make this personal. What we do need is a series of rigorous investigations that go after the reckless spending in Iraq, the Katrina disaster, and the energy meetings. That last one is the only circumstance where I would approve of a subpoena for Cheney. Otherwise, the Dems need to go after the people who carried out the wrongdoing, if any is found to be done.

I thought the choice of Gates could be the first step to fixing the quagmire in Iraq. He's a smart, qualified man, and he has ties to Scowcroft which makes me very happy.

I think Bush has a chance here, as do the Dems, to actually compromise for the first time in years and do good things for America. When he does things I agree with, I will be the first one to commend him for it.

Letting go of negativity is healthy. You should try a hate-purge sometime, Mark.

Gee Matt,

Not even in power yet and you've already declared the Democrats liars and failures.

I am impresses that you actually restrained yourself for two whole days however.

Wade

The lefties comments here must lead one to believe that once again, they prove themselves completely oblivious to economics.

Did anyone ever come to the realization that the very presence of an arbitrary minimum wage can actually serve to depress wages? That the upping of minimum wages will increase costs, thus forcing businesses to cut employees, thus increasing the labor pool, thus decreasing the amount of jobs available?

When there is a corresponding surfeit of available people to hire, companies don't have to pay as much to attract candidates.

People are out of work, buy less, and create less of a demand on goods and services, which lead to even more layoffs, and so-on down the line...

But, of course it's been long demonstrated that liberals can't link, and live by politically-advaantageous sound-bites vs. what is sound economic policy.

But that's okay... they'll just blame it on Bush.

GOD Help us for the next two years.

Well the states that voted for a raise in the minimum wage have every right to screw up their economy. That is just it though, it should be a states rights issue. What is so wrong with that?

Hasn't Congress voted to give themselves $35,000 raises over the past 6 years?

Do you really want to eliminate minimum wage, child worker protection, overtime, OSHA, etc? Do you want to go back to slave-like worker exploitation?

Couldn't a wage increase actually help working people afford more products and services? This would lead to an invigoration of our economy from the bottom up (rather than the top down).

Wasn't this Henry Ford's idea? To pay his workers enough so that they could actually afford to buy the products that they made?

Why do you not trust American Democracy and the 'Will of the People'?

leo,

Your 'logic' sounds so correct, expect for one point- Its wrong!!! Just for your own education, please look at the actual outcomes on employment figures, income, spending, etc in the 6 months- 18 months after each time the minimum has been rasied.

Leo,

In fact that "liberal hated" employeer Wal-Mart has come out in favor of rasing the minimum wage, since they already pay their employees more and hence look forward to their customers have more disposable income to spend at their stores!!

WORK TOGETHER? That phrase was not understood by the Repugs or Dubya when they had control of every branch of goverment. Now they want to work with democrats? Dubyas version of working together is to do everything his way or no way.
Too late Repugs.....YOU LOST...

Wasn't the Clinton 1993 'Deficit Reduction Act', according to Republicans, supposed to lead to a "economic recession"?

What happened for the next 8 years?

Geesh, it's obvious that Republicans don't understand economics!

I'm concerned that the Dems so hate Bush that they will block everything he tries. Just look at Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. The Dems have told so many lies I wonder if they remember all of them. I think by the 2008 election the Dems will show their true colors and another Republican will be elected for Pres and the Reps will retake the Congress!

Hey, if you guys hate worker protection laws so much. . .

Why don't you move to China, Seipan, or India?

I'm concerned that the Dems so hate Bush that they will block everything he tries.

Better look again! The Dems control Congress and the agenda. . .

Now the question is whether Bush 'so hates the Dems that he will block everything they try'?

Redistributing wealth to artificially fatten the pockets of people won't be good. The last time the minimum wage was raised, the resturant I was working at let 4 out of 20 people go to keep paying the bills and to cover the increased cost. The people making minimum wage didn't contribute any more to produce greater income to cover costs, but their wage increased those costs of the company. The people that were left learned skills to help raise the company's bottom line which helped get more money into their pockets. It wasn't as quick as the minimum wage raise, and it was a little more work, but those skills led to better jobs down the road with even more money.

But then again, this is the age of instant coffee, instant oatmeal, fast food, and all around instant gratification. Why not just an instant raise as well? A few lost employees due to the increased cost with no increased production will only suck for them right?

Matt and Mark, one question for you....

Have you EVER had to work a minimum wage job?

Or were Mommy and Daddy always there to bail you out?

Do you even REMOTELY know what it is like to live poor?

If you do, then why do you want to condemn millions of others to live poor?

PEOPLE CANNOT LIVE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE AS IT IS NOW!

It MUST be raised.

If you don't believe this, go to work at Mickey D's or Wal-Mart for a while as a lowly grunt and see if you can make it without help. Try living without a car cause you can't afford one - walk to work in subzero temperatures, and see how YOU like minimum wage....

I think by the 2008 election the Dems will show their true colors and another Republican will be elected for Pres and the Reps will retake the Congress!

This is inane! 2/3 of the Senate seats up in 2008 are Republican, do you really think they will 'run the table'?

Who's your choice for 2008 presidential nominee? Allen?? McCain?? Or, socially liberal candidates like Giuliani, Pataki, Romney, etc (all pro-choice and pro-gay rights)?

How much power did the Democrats really get? Correct me if I am wrong on anything.

Republicans can filibuster and the Democrats can't stop that on their own.

Plus even if something does get to President Bush, he can still veto and tell them to put together something better. Democrats don't have the power to overturn a veto on their own.

In short, anything they want will not be easy and the most ridiculous items can be stopped. I sort of expect the next two years to be like the last two years. Little will get done.

As far as the future, if Republicans can stand their ground, remain conservative and not cave on issues, then things will turn around in 2008.

They talk about bipartisanship, but we've seen what their version of bipartisanship is: our way or the highway.

This is a classic example that Bushie complete lack of self awareness that makes you guys so funny.

Increasing minimum wages to keep up with inflation rates and insuring the minimum wage is in line with living wages does not lead to higher unemployment. That's a myth from the eighties.

Actually, in many cases where minimum wages were introduced or increased, the opposite happened. Because of increased minimum wages, consumption increases (consumption drives the economy, not production); production increases with a higher demand for labour (both lower and higher skilled labour); higher tax revenues for government through income-taxes; lesser government spending on social benefits like food stamps etc. This benefit for the goverment can be used to give tax cuts for the lower middle class like small business owners etc.

Sure, you will find examples of employers who will be forced to lay of some employees because they can't afford them anymore. These are generally small business with only a few employees. This can be prevented by giving tax cuts for this segment of employers. Other employers try to lower labor costs by increasing efficiency, this is also countered by higher consumption plus higher production.

Another argument usually is that because of higher labor costs, prices will also increase. Not necessarily though. Because of the higher consumption, producers will be able to accept lower margins of profit per product. You can make profit by selling a few products with high margins of profits ór you can make the same profit by selling lots of products with low margins of profit.

The only problems that I can foresee in the US that have real influences on unemployment when increasing the minimum wage are employers who hire illegal aliens below the minimum wage plus outsourcing. Both problems should be tackled at the same time when increasing the minimum wage.

Andy, I thought Republicans were for eliminating the filibuster?

You haven't changed your mind now that you're the minority party, have you?

The politicans raise their salaries...w no loss of jobs.

In fact, most folks I know routinely receive raises.

I don't buy the argument.

A reasonable min wage hike is overdue.

The arguments to raise the Federal Minimum wage are predictably convoluted. They always go something like this;

1) Raising the minimum wage doesn’t cause job loss. Wrong, according to studies done by the Small Business Administration; the majority of minimum wage jobs in the United States are paid by small business not large companies or corporations. Because each raise has occurred during times of job creation raising the minimum hasn’t caused job contraction but has slowed the job growth.

2) Raising minimum wage keeps wage earners ahead of poverty by keeping pace with inflation. Wrong, minimum wage earners are second, or third wage earners in a household or are entry level positions for those just entering the job market; raising the minimum wage has never increased income to a household significantly to change the status from or to poverty levels. It simply hasn’t happened, ever!

3) Raising minimum wage adds to consumption by giving these wage earners more disposable income. Wrong, at minimum wage disposable income is calculated at 0% that’s the whole reason for the minimum! If you increase the minimum wage consistent with the cost of living (tie it to inflation) the disposable portion is still 0%.

4) Minimum wage guarantees a “livable wage” to those at or below the poverty line. Wrong, to remain at the poverty line a single wage earner would have to bring in $9.62 just to remain poor. To make this work the minimum wage would have to be at least $12.03 in the middle part of America; higher on each coast and Alaska and Hawaii.

5) Poor people of color make minimum wage. Wrong, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are white males under the age of 25. Raising the minimum wage benefits rich and middle class white college age kids named Brent and Muffy.

This is just another “style over substance” liberal trick to make us “feel good” while not doing a damn thing to actually help the working poor. You want to actually help working poor? Get rid of Federal Minimum Wage laws and let the market decide what a job is worth.

‘Andy, I thought Republicans were for eliminating the filibuster? You haven't changed your mind now that you're the minority party, have you?” coulterfan

Why do you insist on repeating the same nonsense that has already been looked at, discussed, dissected and laid out on the table to show what has and hasn’t happened? By making statements like that you show ignorance, an inability to comprehend or a deliberate intent to lie.

There are 2 very different and distinct areas that the filibuster has been used; one for policy and the other for judicial nominations or appointments such as cabinet members or ambassador appointments. Both parties have used the filibuster for policy matters and the Republicans have never had a beef with the Democrats using it in that respect.

For judicial nominations, as far as I know the Republicans have NEVER used the filibuster and have respected an up or down vote on any nomination by any President. The judicial filibuster is a rather new ploy used by the Democrats to block a nomination they believe they couldn’t otherwise stop and that is what prompted the recent talk about the “nuclear option”. Republicans have asked for (on their nominations) or respected (on opposition’s nominations) an up or down vote on all nominations once they got to the point where a vote was the next logical step. There are ways to prevent a nomination from even getting to the point of a vote but once there the Republicans have never filibustered.

Talk of a filibuster even now is rather stupid and childish as the Democrats do NOT hold the Presidency and are not currently in the position to make judicial nominations or appointments for which the Republicans need to concern themselves with using the filibuster. All you’ve done with that statement is show where the mindset of a liberal lies. The filibuster of "policy" has never been an issue, but somehow I think the sheep on the left will attempt to make a problem where one doesn’t exist and blame the right – typical.

Matt, I appreciate your comments regarding a minimum wage increase but I have to disagree with the overall impact that an increase would bring. In reality the idea behind a minimum wage increase is as shallow as a pie pan. First of all, our economy has been relatively robust over the last twenty three years that has created employment opportunities where employers are competing for the services of prospective employee’s. Place’s like McDonald’s and many other food industry companies are now paying their employee’s $7.50 per hour to start. That’s $2.15 higher than the national minimum wage standard of $5.15 per hour. Companies like Wal-Mart pay on average a starting pay of $8.00 per hour. That is very competitive to any other big box store in the country. BTW, the above wages that I have mentioned are even from states that have not enacted their own minimum wage standard.

The want over the need to raise minimum wage is another way for the democrats to play on the heart strings of the economically ignorant. No matter what people like Pelosi want you to believe, there are no Mom’s and Dad’s trying to raise a family on $5.15 per hour.

Coulterfan,

Good points all around. I am just amazed at the Repubs currenly seeking compromise with the Dems.

This reminds me of the end of Pirates of the Caribbean (the first one.) When Pintel the pirate realizes he is now mortal, and in danger of immediate death, he meekly asks for "parley" of his British captors. If Pintel isn't the spitting image of George Bush I don't know what is.

And you know what? We SHOULD compromise with them. We SHOULD allow the republicans to introduce bills in the House. We SHOULD work with them to make this country stronger. And, yes, we SHOULD allow them to fillibuster judges that are totally unacceptable to a big chunk of our society (besides it will be LOADS of fun watching them do this.)

By compromise I mean do the things that the average American wants, including raising the minimum wage.

We SHOULD be the better party. Working with the Repubs demonstrates that we are.

Willem de Orange -

All great points you make.

"Sure, you will find examples of employers who will be forced to lay of some employees because they can't afford them anymore. These are generally small business with only a few employees. This can be prevented by giving tax cuts for this segment of employers. Other employers try to lower labor costs by increasing efficiency, this is also countered by higher consumption plus higher production."

And perhaps the best way to do this is to simultaneously introduce a cut in payroll taxes along with the hike in minimum wage. This would compound the economic stimulus of having lower wage earners with more money in their pockets, and at the same time would relieve small businesses of the extra burden of the higher wage.

I for one am very excited now that we can actually talk about solutions with our Republican friends. Too bad the Repubs would never let us talk with them when they had control over all areas of government. They locked us out, attempted to establish a "permanent majority" (read: scary shades of fascism), and demonized their political opponents. In their divide and conquer propaganda, to vote democrat was to hand victory to the terrorists! What Bush and the Repubs did was the most shameful, power-hungry exploitation of fear ever seen in American politics.

Fortunately, we will treat them better than they treated us - which is much better than they deserve! That doesn't mean we will cave on their every wingnut fantasy - but we will at least speak with them about solutions. Alas, we are all Americans.

We need to raise minimum wage..It is too low.

Right on Aarontime. We will treat the Republicans with respect and dignity and let them participate in Government. WE are the better party.

Bane,

You want to actually help working poor? Get rid of Federal Minimum Wage laws and let the market decide what a job is worth.

The market CAN decide if a wage is worth more than minimum. It is FREE TO DO SO!

You're argument that by letting the market LOWER some wages helps workers, right or wrong, is simply not cutting it in America.

You GO RIGHT ON AHEAD saying that Republicans believe that workers benefit by lowering wages. PLEASE shout this from the rooftops! PLEASE post this on web sites! PLEASE take out campaign issue ads in swing districts with this!

Anybody reading this: Those Republicans that did win yesterday want to lower minimum wage. Bane says so. Vote accordingly in 2008.

How many Americans have you convinced of this? Come on, name names. Name one FRICKING PERSON who beleives this.

The comments about bipartisanship I find absurd. For Democrats it's my way or the highway?...coming from a Republican who wants minority bigotry and minority social control made into law? As I said, absurd. Maybe your confusing the minority's role in democracy. But bigotry is bound to fail, even if it claims to be a political ideology, or the devil disguising himself as "moral values".

Right on Aarontime. We will treat the Republicans with respect and dignity and let them participate in Government. WE are the better party.

So any day now we can expect Reid to hold a press conference to apologize for calling Bush a "loser"?

Right behind him in line will be Pelosi, waiting her turn to publicly apologize for saying that Bush is "mentally ill"?

And of course Rangel is going to withdraw his plan for taking over the office used by Cheney, the same office that, by tradition, has always belonged to the VP?

If thats the 'better party' at work, Id hate to see you guys when youre being vindictive. Better party, thats a laugh.

Nice straw man, Oliver.

Perhaps if I write monosyllabic you can keep up. What’s the problem? You don’t understand? You can’t find anything in what I wrote to take exception with so you make something up? Shout this from the rooftops; Jim Oliver is intellectually dishonest! Wait, Oliver is a liberal, that’s redundant.

I got two sentences in and stopped reading. Why read an article with a selective premise.

The rhetoric has been below the belt on both sides. W ran around the country for two months saying that anybody who voted for the Dems was a terrorist sympathizer and crap like that. (Good luck winning back thhe insulted swing voters).

There is election year rhetoric on both sides. Happens every election. When the campaign is over, you put away the insults and get back to work. The only difference has been that since 1996 the GOP has been in campaign mode almost non-stop.

Perhaps we can now get back to a form of politics where bi-partisanship does not mean one side kneeling to kiss the ring of the other.

Alas, the Democrat-controlled Illinos General Assembly already passed a minimum wage increase in 2004, taking it to $6.50 per hour. The General Assembly, now with an even larger Democratic majority, is set to increase it to $7.50 an hour while indexing it to inflation as early as next week. I'm surrounded in a sea of deep blue and it looks like it will remain that way for some time.

Bane,

Did you READ my post? You say I didn't take exception with anything in your post...I QUOTED YOU, numb nuts!

When I quoted you,

You want to actually help working poor? Get rid of Federal Minimum Wage laws and let the market decide what a job is worth.

I take exception to this.

Why do you accuse me of creating a straw man when it is YOUR OWN QUOTE that I object to?

In case you missed it in logic 101, a straw man is created by the innacurate portrayal of someone else's position.

I QUOTED YOU! You ACTUALLY SAID:

You want to actually help working poor? Get rid of Federal Minimum Wage laws and let the market decide what a job is worth.

So now (I hope) you understand that I quoted to you, and I object to what you said.

Now about my argument...you don't get that advocating the elimination of the minimum wage is a politically inviable position?

I words you ought to understand, here goes:

If U kill da minimum wage, da peeple will pis on yu and vote fer peeple like Jon Cary. Jon Cary n his partie hav wun da elecshun. Liberuls r sposed 2 loooz elecshuns. maybey dere are some numb nuts named bayne of liberus eggistince or somfin like dat whoo wantz to not pay da minimum wage. I jus dont unnerstan how Jon Cary can win elecshuns. maybey dum peeple like bayne of liberus eggistince shood stopp tryin to kill da minimum wage as dat makes liberuls win elecshuns. O, it iz goode iff numb nuts like bayne of liberus eggistince aktuallie reed da posts befour repliin n uze hard to unnerstan conseps like staw man argyooments witch rakwire made-upp week argyooments insted uv actually kwoting peeple. maybee peeple like bayne of liberus eggistince shood theenk beefore dey post dum koments to bloggs ur udder plases like dat.

I hope that wasn't too monosyllabic for you.

You can all stuff your theories. Here's the reality. I have a fair number of no-experience, high school kids that work for me for around $6/hr. They voted to raise the min wage here in AZ on Jan 1 and I will either lay off those workers or reduce their hours. The fact is, their value will not increase in the next month.

This effort may FEEL GOOD but it hurts those that it tries to help. Any economist will tell you that.

It does not distinguish between a teenager in Beverly Hills from his first job for some spending money from a single mother raising kids in Harlem. They BOTH will meet the same fate.

For example, I will no longer hire anyone without experience. I cannot afford to train someone at the new minimum wage.

There is a SOLUTION, an easy one. It should be done on the other end. Those with low incomes that are supporting families should receive the EIC and other assistance based on their income AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. The minimum wage increases ALWAYS hurts those that it intends to help.

BUT IT SURE FEELS GOOD.

Doug,

You're not reading the articles again - Matt wrote this piece, not me.

As for me, raising the minimum wage - or even having a minimum wage - is about the most mind-bogglingly stupid thing a country can do...at best it just inflates all incomes and prices, and thus has no actual affect, at worst it prices entry-level workers out of the market.

I've issued this challenge before, and I'll issue it again:

Please find for me a single person, more than 18 years old, who has worked for at least 366 straight days at his full time job who is earning minimum wage.

There is no such person in all of the United States.

The Democrat meme that we need to give the working poor a raise via a minimum wage increase is just a dishonest play for class warfare envy...and, it works like a charm, because the American people are wonderfully generous as well as being rather uninterested in macro-economic principles.

Given that we can't stop these periodic raises in the minimum wage, our job as GOPers is to ensure that the economy grows fast enough to make it a moot point - and that requires another round of tax cuts for business owners (you call them "the rich", even though you never think of actually taxing the wealth of a Kennedy or a Rockefeller)...the best means of doing this is a tax deduction for each minimum wage employee as well as making permanent the capital gains tax cuts and the repeal of the "death tax".

LaMano,

Your business will reduce jobs. A few others will also, but many, many others won't. Neither you nor anybody else here has given any valid statistics to show that the total hours worked will go down by at least as much as the total amount paid. If the total amount of hours worked is reduced by exactly the same percentage as the increase, there will be no net gain in wages for the poor, but there will be more free time. I doubt the workers will object to this. The actual effect would most likely be a combination of less time and more total pay. Who would object to this?

If anybody out there has statistics correlating the total hours worked vs. the rate in crease in any recent minimum wage hike, I'd love to see them.

Lamano, I sure sympathize with your situation. The political trick of raising minimum wage will do nothing more than benefit high school kids with after school part time jobs when the only benefits they should be seeking are the virtues of hard work and the value of a dollar. This falls in line with the typical democrat playbook, more entitlements to the “disenfranchised” equals more votes.

Lamano, I sure sympathize with your situation. The political trick of raising minimum wage will do nothing more than benefit high school kids with after school part time jobs when the only benefits they should be seeking are the virtues of hard work and the value of a dollar. This falls in line with the typical democrat playbook, more entitlements to the “disenfranchised” equals more votes.

“Neither you nor anybody else here has given any valid statistics to show that the total hours worked will go down by at least as much as the total amount paid.”

This statement makes no sense. Do you dispute that raising minimum wage will reduce the labor force, specifically of those who the wage increase is supposed to help? Someone else may work additional hours to get the work done but I rather doubt that will be of any comfort to the people just laid off due to the new financial burden incurred by the employer.

“If the total amount of hours worked is reduced by exactly the same percentage as the increase, there will be no net gain in wages for the poor, but there will be more free time. I doubt the workers will object to this. The actual effect would most likely be a combination of less time and more total pay. Who would object to this?”

Am I to understand you’re suggesting that everything will be alright because with wage increases the employee will now work less hours, get paid more for doing it and everything will be fine? Is that really the mindset of the liberals? If it is we’re in a heap of trouble. Does the word “PRODUCTIVITY” mean anything to you? You see, it’s directly related to product availability and cost. Less work = less product = greater product cost. Does supply and demand ring a bell? Perhaps that concept escaped you.

Also, isn’t the whole purpose of wage increases to INCREASE the paycheck at the end of the week? How will working less hours but making the same pay help a financially struggling person? Talk about contradictions!

Now add fewer products being created to the increase in production cost (wages). Do you honestly think the employer is going to settle for a reduced bottom line, i.e. less profits and do nothing about it? Almost always, the things that happen when cost increase and profit is lost are: A.) Lay off work force, B.) Require longer hours from retained workers, C.) Push harder for greater productivity (employees always enjoy being asked to do more with less), D.) Reduce perks – things such as pay raises, vacation time, holiday pay, 401k contributions, bonuses as well as things like company picnics and Christmas parties etc., E.) A slew of additional steps (not likely to be viewed favorably by remaining employees) deemed necessary to bring the company back to projected profitability.

Perhaps your solution needs a little more work. *sarcasm off*

If you want to make more money, why not make yourself more valuable? Increase you worth and you will reap the benefits of a better job, higher wages and better perks. See, the problem is not the employer. S/he has a job that needs to be done and will fill the position with the least common denominator. In other words, employers will pay the least amount of money necessary while utilizing the available pool of perspective employees who can do the job. There is a balance though where the cost to bring in a new employee or retain an existing employee is just not worth it.

You want more? Take responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable. I remember a movie about a teacher in a poor section of LA who told her students who were always complaining about “things” THERE ARE NO VICTIMS (as related to our day-to-day life happenings). You’re not poor because someone else made you poor. You’re poor because YOU didn’t take the necessary steps to be otherwise. If you’re earning minimum wage it’s because YOU haven’t provided yourself with reason for someone to pay you more. Why do some people always blame others for THEIR problems? The person you should be most upset with can be found looking in a piece of reflective glass. If you don’t like where you are in life, change it. If you are always waiting for someone else to make your life better you are a fool and a lazy one at that.

Unfortunately there will always be people willing to play the game of taking something for nothing. That places the burden to provide that “something” on those who EARN IT. And worse than that is, we end up creating a sub-class society which leads to an untold number of other problems. It has been shown many times before that most people strive to the level of expectation. By giving an employee a minimum wage increase and getting nothing in return from them, you kill their incentive necessary to do more than bare minimum. Any wonder why people at the bottom of the pile have such low self esteem? You can't give self esteem, it has to be earned.

People aren’t poor because someone else made them poor – take responsibility.

DM,

The idea that "Someone else may work additional hours to get the work done" is a bit contradictory, no? Presumably you mean some salalried person working overtime--not likely. How many salaried people work in mimimum wage industries?

And the whole idea that businesses won't stand for a loss in bottom line is bogus. That is exactly what was said 100 years ago before TR ripped the entrials out of the trusts. Even a huge minimum wage increase is nothing compared to that.

So the businesses are going to take a hit from the bottom line. The idea that a business owner will simply throw up his hands, close his business and join the ranks of the poor is just not going to happen. The business owner will take a hit--that's all there is to it.

The reduction in productivity is also a non-issue. Productivity gains have outstripped inflation for many years--losing some won't hurt as much as you claim.

Put simply, business has made huge gains in the last 10 years. Minimum wage earners have made no gains. We are going to re-distribute this wealth.

YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

The restaurant business is the perfect example of what happens if there is an increase in the minimum wage. Data directly from the Indiana Restaurant and Hospitality Association for full service restaurants indicates that on average the cost of labor is 33%. The average profit is 4%.

Most restaurants in Indiana begin hiring at the minimum wage and do not offer significant fringe benefits. If the minimum wage is increased it affects not only those at the minimum wage but also the rest of the staff. You have to maintain a wage differential in order to hold the more skilled labor therefore everyone gets a raise of some kind.

For a $10.00 meal there is 40 cents in profit, and $3.33 in labor. If you increase the minimum wage by 50%, there is an additional $1.67 in labor costs on the meal. That puts the owner $1.63 in the hole for every meal. There has to be a price increase. Initially for reasons that would take more room than available in this kind of post, the average increase in price for a 50% increase in the minimum wage would be about 10%.

Raising prices drives away customers. Restaurants do not operate in a vacuum. They compete with take out food from the grocery, and with food prepared at home Operators try to reduce staffing to cut costs, but probably over the short haul cannot reduce things much but some jobs will be lost immediately. More jobs will be lost as some customers opt for alternatives to the restaurant at least part of the time.

The effect of raising prices in the restaurants and other industries with minimum wage employees will be to cause everyone to experience price inflation. Industries who hire employees away from the restaurant business will have to bid higher than they do now to hire away the most productive restaurant employees. Over time these wage increases work their way upward, raising the price of everything that the higher wage employees produce.

If a Toyota employee is earning $25.00 per hour today, a lawyer is charging $250.00 per hour today and a doctor is charging $1,500.00 for surgery today, the only thing that will happen when everything settles down is that the minimum wage will be $7.50, Toyota will pay $37.50, the lawyer will charge $375.00 and the doctor will charge $2,250.00. The problem is that the disruption caused as this works its way through the system actually will result in lost production.

It has been almost ten years since the last increase in the minimum wage. There are two things in place today that could make the consequences of this worse than it has been in the past. First is the availability of a shadow work force available to work “off the books” for less than a minimum wage. More work for that work force will increase the incentive to illegally enter the country.

The second is that there is almost nothing that cannot be outsourced. Even in the restaurant business increasing labor costs could result in the purchase of more prepared products from outside the country. Other industries who hire minimum wage may be far more susceptible to outsourcing.

All in all this is going to be interesting. Hang onto your hat and reconsider any investments and debts you have. We are likely to be entering in inflation period.

"We are going to re-distribute this wealth".

Mr. Oliver, if that's not the tennants of socialism I don't know it is. The only problem is look at every socialist nation in the world and tell me where you find a successful one. I must admit, you guys have the nice catchphrases such as free health care or "re-distribution" of wealth but what you don't realize is that people like myself know where those beliefs stem from. They come from people like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and the other new socialist leaders born of their ilk.

I pray for this nation because I know those now in the majority share your beliefs.

"Given that we can't stop these periodic raises in the minimum wage..."

...which is so unfair, right? I mean, *of course* inflation should totally be allowed to outstrip the minimum wage, decreasing its real value year after year. Go sell that to the American people.

Oh wait. You did. You lost.

“Presumably you mean some salalried person working overtime--not likely.”

Increasing overtime for salaried workers would only be part of it. Minimum wage earners are usually “UNSKILLED”. A skilled hourly worker (making more than minimum wage) working overtime would often be preferable to paying an unskilled hourly worker more money as the end result would ultimately be greater productivity and thereby less cost to the employer but of course you probably won’t be able to grasp that.

“We are going to re-distribute this wealth.”

And why would unskilled workers deserve this wealth distribution?

“The reduction in productivity is also a non-issue. Productivity gains have outstripped inflation for many years--losing some won't hurt as much as you claim.”

I didn’t make any claim as to “how much” it would hurt but I’m glad to see you understand it will. Or when you state it’s a “non-issue” are you trying to fool people into believing lost productivity will have absolutely no impact on the cost of goods? Dream on. You go ahead and try to sell that bag of goods to the public.

“The business owner will take a hit--that's all there is to it.”

That’s all there is to it because you said so? How funny. A large percentage of minimum wage earners work for small businesses. Due to competition and other influences small businesses usually work with a rather narrow range in bottom line flexibility. They need to make enough to pay their expenses and generate a profit. If they overcharge they will be out of business as everyone will use the competition. They may not close their doors but they WILL make adjustments and one of those adjustments is to lay off employees. I’ve seen it happen many times and you’ll have a really hard time convincing those who’ve already been laid off that it doesn’t.

Business owners generally spend quite a bit more time than the standard 40 hour week growing their business and handling whatever problem that gets thrown their way. Running a business requires a great deal of attention to many things and owners take a lot of risk to survive and hopefully achieve their success. Wages are usually the largest business expense. I’ve seen many businesses go under for a variety of reasons but wages are one of the top concerns. It seems rather obvious that you’ve never owned a business. Try it some time, I’ll bet you’ll have a very different perspective.

"Please find for me a single person, more than 18 years old, who has worked for at least 366 straight days at his full time job who is earning minimum wage.

There is no such person in all of the United States."

This is a lie. And you know it's a lie.

For instance, earlier this year I was on jury duty in Bridgeport, CT. One lady I was speaking with, probably mid-40's, single, was there and we were discussing the CT primaries, the 2004 election and other things. She works for the minimum wage at a convenience store by day, and can't pay the bills with that. She lives in a one-bedroom apartment with her two kids. So she basically never sees them because she has to work nights. And this is a commom case in America, and you know it, Mark. How shocking of you to lie so blatantly. Ban me if you want, but come on...

As for the minimum wage hike, why don't you oppose the wage increase for Congress? And if the GOP filibusters the minimum wage bill, it will benefit the Democrats. We will just increase our majority in 08 and take the White House by running ads reminding America that the GOP doesn't want to raise the minimum wage.

And you are also dishonest about us wanting to tax the Kennedys and the Rockafellars. We believe in the Paris Hilton tax on estates over 1 million dollars. You people call it the "death tax" and want to eliminate it. Lack of honesty won't advance your agenda.

npfl,

As I debated before on this blog (against someone who never refuted it), the idea of "socialism" is alive and well in the, uh, REPUBLICAN party.

It was the Republicans that gave us the perscription drug plan. This is FREE DRUGS paid for by the government. This is socialism.

It is not only the majority that share my beleifs, but the VAST majority. The sum total of the Democrats, Republicans, and few others like the Greens. That's about 98% of the population.

You may pray if you like, just don't vote Republican. They are socialists. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would NEVER have voted for the Republican FREE DRUG plan.

And if you think that the Republicans are going to be able to put the FREE DRUG genie back in the bottle you are just bananas.

Sorry folks. If socialism is supported by 98% of the electorate it is here to stay.

"She works for the minimum wage at a convenience store by day, and can't pay the bills with that. She lives in a one-bedroom apartment with her two kids".

Call me insensitive if you wish but does this woman not have the ability to look for another job?

Remember the parable, "catch a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime".

You people not only want to catch the fish for these people but you also want to drive them to the lake. Raising minimum wage one dollar(which is what is being proposed) will do nothing for these people. The only thing that will help is to allow these people to stand on their own two feet and get them off of these cripling liberal entitlement programs.

“As for the minimum wage hike, why don't you oppose the wage increase for Congress?”

Other than current politicians, potential politicians or judges looking for a raise themselves I don’t know of ANYONE who favors wage increases for Congress. Your phrase very incorrectly suggests we do. More deceptions - why am I not surprised.

“And if the GOP filibusters the minimum wage bill, it will benefit the Democrats.”

Gee, if I remember correctly the Republicans tried to pass a minimum wage increase recently and the Democrats voted against it. Guess they didn’t want the Republicans to get credit for the initiative. But when the Democrats bring it up for vote as THEIR bill, the wrath of the people will be on them should the Republicans hold it up. How funny.

Mr. Oliver,

Once again you have your facts wrong. You say “It was the Republicans that gave us the perscription drug plan. This is FREE DRUGS paid for by the government. This is socialism”.

I assume your talking about the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. The enrollee of this program is required to pay an initial
$250 deductible, they are then required to pay 25% of the cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to a limit of $2200. I believe if drug coverage goes beyond $2200 they then have to pay a co-pay with each prescription.

Is this another entitlement program that I wasn’t in favor of? Yes. Is the program free? No. Is it Socialist? Borderline/No. Is it universal healthcare that you see in Europe? No. Did President Bush lose some credibility with me on this issue? Yes. Did Republicans have an overwhelming majority in the house to have this pass? No. The Republican side of the House has been much more conservative than their Senate counterparts. That Part D passed due to a collection of Republicans in the House and a majority of Democrats that voted for it.

The minimum wage should be raised. it is too low.

It is good for the worker and our GDP..

Raise the thing....

What pathetic arguments. Comparing minimum wage increases to Congressional salaries.

First, it's NOT THE JOB of government to tell private business how much to pay employees. It IS THE JOB of government to determine what to pay government employees. It's tax payer money.

Geeessh, what silliness. It's not worth discussing when some don't even have a basic understanding in order to have a reasoned debate.

Mark,

You and Matt’s opposing the minimum wage is another example of the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement. Conservative anti-abortionists claim they are against abortion because they are concerned about the baby. However, it seems that those same people who say they are so concerned about the baby before it’s born don’t have any concern about what happens to the baby after its birth. You are both opposed to paying workers a decent minimum wage. In previous posts, Matt has come out very strongly against providing health insurance to poor people. If a single woman working at a minimum wage job were to end up with an unintended pregnancy, do you really think she could support herself and the baby on $5.15 an hour? The hospital bills for giving birth can be expensive, especially if there are any complications. Do you really think someone making $5.15 can afford the hospital bills for giving birth? How do you propose a single woman making $5.15 an hour, pay for giving birth to a baby and then supporting it? Part of the Republicans’ plan for cutting spending was to require Medicaid patients have a co-payment for any medical costs. Do you really think that a single women making $5.15 an hour is going to have excess money for hospital co-payments, especially considering she will have to take time off from work?

How are capital gains tax cuts and elimination of the inheritance tax cuts going to help business owners? What is eliminating the inheritance tax going to do for business owners that don’t have rich relatives dying? Why should people who get money without working, by selling property for a profit or inheriting money, have to pay less taxes than people who actually work for their money? It seems that conservatives think that people who don’t earn their money, but inherit it should not have to pay taxes, but people who work hard to earn their money should have to pay taxes on the money they earn.

"Let's face it, the anti-Bush rhetoric we've heard come out from the mouths of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been so below the level of appropriate discourse that for us to believe that they've suddenly grown up and matured now that they will control the agenda is absurd."

Oh, the irony of getting lectured on "appropriate discourse" by someone who's President says that Democrats want the terrorists to win. Mark you are so transparently hypocritical it's not even funny.

For a $10.00 meal there is 40 cents in profit, and $3.33 in labor. If you increase the minimum wage by 50%, there is an additional $1.67 in labor costs on the meal.

Well, that's an incredible inefficient restaurant: a whole regiment of workers (management, cooks, waiters and kitchenhelp) is only able to produce 1 meal per hour? From that entire regiment, only a few are minimum wage earners. Theire raise will have minimal impact on labourcosts per meal because this entire team will be able to produce much more meals per hour than just one, dividing the total amount of laborcosts with the total amount of production units.
I would advise the owner of this $10.- per meal restaurant to expand his business. He will get a lot more patrons (provided the restaurant serves good food and good value for money) because all the minimum-wage earners in his region will definitely want to come to this restaurant too.
The business-owner could even be able to maintain the same price per meal, lower the 4% profit margin to 3% and still be making the same profit as the year before, because he can serve more meals.

Brian,
Your response shows that you’re very young and very naive. Half of what you said was so inaccurate that it would be a waste of time to give it any kind of response. Your lack of understand of how things work and what the government does or does not do, what happens or does not happen related to tax inheritance or other tax matters makes it somewhat worthless to even have a intelligent debate. Get some real education and stop relying on the baseless feel good syndrome.

In April 1999, the UK introduced a national minimum wage. The rate was set after the Low Pay Commission, an independent body the Government appointed in July 1997 to advise it on low pay, recommended the rate. The LPC board consists of nine members - three trade unionists, three employers, and three labour market relations experts. The LPC exists to this day to maintain the national minimum wages and frequently issues reports which analyse the impact of the significant upratings. Here is a snippet from their latest report (2005):

The National Minimum Wage has been a great success. It has brought higher wages to many low-paid workers. In combination with the tax and benefits system it has significantly improved the incomes of many low income families. As Chapter 4 describes, it has played a major role in reducing the gender pay gap. And it has achieved these benefits without any significant adverse effects on business or employment creation.

www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/report/pdf/DTi-Min_Wage.pdf

Brian-
Inherited money has ALREADY been taxed. Death should not be a taxable event.

Laughable - Oranje - as a business advisor.

LaMano,

Not all inherited property has been taxed. Appreciation of property has not been taxed. If a relative were to leave you property that he bought for $100,000 and is worth a million dollars when he dies, the $900,000 appreciation would not have been taxed.