This is precisely why the minimum wage meme of the dems is politically motivated rather than real. Reduce government subsidies and people will seek work. Increase government subsitance (which is tax exempt) and (some) people will choose not to work.

Let the market determine what the going rate is. In this case maybe its more than $10 an hour. Perhaps that will convince some of the unemployed in the inner cities to migrate. But don't not holding your breath.

We have been experiencing the same thing here in Wyoming. It has resulted in higher wages across the board, and almost full employment. It's great, a lot of my former students are able to save enough money for college.

Why aren't some of those welfare, subsidy, and handout recipients in the big cities being required to move to where the jobs so they can contribute to the economy, pay taxes, get off the government welfare roles, and afford to pay for their own healthcare?

Why do we need more illegal immigrants when we have Americans who could work... if they were forced to work!

It would be cheaper for the government to pay their moving expenses than keep them on the welfare roles the rest of their lives!

If we can't get some volunteers, then start cutting payments until we do!

AAR

Oh no, poor people are being paid high wages and buisness are being forced to impliment more efficient practices, quick we need a quasi-legal un-unionizable and ignorant of American buisness practices and protections exploitable workforce.

BTW, almost any economist will tell you that free market labor will makes society as a whole more wealthy(though it can hurt individuals), but not if you have a welfare state.

unemployment in 2000 : 3.9%
current unemployment rate: 4.6%

indeed during the Clinton years it was 0.5% lower than during under Bush. Further, if you look at the trend from Clinton it monotonically (within statistical fluctuations) decreased during the Clinton years. Just take a look :
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/images/unemployment-graph.gif

note that unemployment spikes when ever there is a Republican president. i am sure that you guys will think of some complicated set of reasons as to why it wasn't their fault. But the truth shall set us free

Liberlal T

The inner city rates of unemployment are higher than average. Why? Because government subsidies like welfare, food stamp, child support, rent subsidies, free childcare, etc. encourage the unemployed to remain in the inner cities where there are no jobs becasue the companies have all left due to high crime and high taxes thanks to leftists like you.

The history of the world have always been people relocating to find work, better living conditions, etc. That is what has caused the illegal immigrant problem. These people have migrated far from home, risking everything to find work.

In the meantime, we have a huge number of citizens of this country who are unwilling to move out of their city much less out of their state to find work and a better life. Why? why should they? They know the system well enough to quloaify for government handouts, and at the same time the can work for cash under the table to earn even more tax free. It is "well intentioned" but ill advise liberal social laws which have destroyed the work ethic of a large section of our country. Thanks Dems.

Illegal immigration only compounds the problem by lowering the entry level job rates.

If you want "a liveable wage" you will stop illegal immigration, repatriate (deport) illegals and encourage our own citizens to migrate from the cities to where the jobs are.

I think I'll move to Montana--plenty of fishin' and plenty of work. And very few liberals...

Oh, and plenty of huntin', too...

A fence between the US and Mexico btw is perhaps the stupidest thing i have ever heard of. It will cost a huge amount of money, it will be impossible to patrol the whole fence so it illegal immigration will still be a huge problem, and it borders on mid-evil in its mentality...

liberalT,

It might be cheaper and more effective to install automated, computer controlled and aimed -- and FIRED -- machine guns!

So you would just open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come to America -- no checks, no limits, no anything!

Why bother to check passports, passengers, or luggage arriving in the U.S. anywhere or by any means?

If we aren't going to stop or check people coming into the country, we might just as well tear down all border crossings and immigration check points, and fire those people who staff them, along with our border patrol.

If we aren't going to stop or check people coming or going across our borders, why don't we just make everyone in the world -- all 6.5 billion of them -- American citizens? After all, by your rules, they can come and go as they please -- just like an American citizen. And since they can come and go as the please, they can certainly stay as long as they want, right?

Why even bother claiming we are a nation, since we would essentially have no "recognized" borders?

Oh, but that's exactly what you liberals want. America reduced to a third rate nation under the control of the U.N.! ! !

Why don't you just remove the front door to your house or apartment?

AAR

Liberal,

Yep, unemployment usually ticks up when a GOPer takes over - because it does take some time for GOP policies to cure Democratic policies.

Right. The economy was in a downturn when Bush took over which was made worse by the economic impact of 9/11. Now granted, there were some good years under Clinton. But it was really over before the end of his administration.

But here's the thing. Neither of them really have or had that much influence. The Federal Reserve has the most power and is fiercely independent.

"But here's the thing. Neither of them really have or had that much influence. The Federal Reserve has the most power and is fiercely independent."

Presidents have always received more credit for the economy than they deserve.

Mark - did you even bother to look at the graph. It starts at some rate - then after a few years of Regan spikes and then continues to rise into the Bush years. Then it progressively goes down from 92 to 2000 at which point it rises again. How in gods name does that follow from your "analysis". As always Mark - when you are trapped - just ignore it...

Sorry for the OT post, but being the attack dog that I am, I wanted to make sure that stevomoron got the chance to read this. I posted it in the thread about the polls, and stevopukeface probably doesn't revisit old threads.

For you, stevopussface:

You are all talk and no action (I suspect you have heard that from the women in your life.)

Not from your sister, stevosissy.

Funny, after you found out the FBI was interested in your statements about killing politicians, I havent heard a peep from you..... not one peep.

No, stevogirly-man, it got old, reading your misrepresentations of my statement, which read, and I paraphrase, "AlGore deserves to hang for poisoning young minds." Now, stevod*cklick, tell me how that was a statement about killing politicians. And no, the FBI is not interested in me--my neighbor's cousin is FBI, and I asked him. In fact, when I told him what I said about AlGore, he laughed and said "Ain't that the truth."

Here's my revised list of those I feel deserve to swing from a gallows for treason, stevonumbnuts. Your name ain't on the list, because it's virtually impossible to get the sh*t smell out of rope, and that's all you are.

The following politicians are, IMHO, traitors, and should be tried for treason and, once found guilty, hanged, drugged, shot, or electrocuted, for their disservice to America, and to the men and women fighting to keep us free:

Jack Murtha
John Kerry
Jim McDermott
Chuck Schumer
Henry Waxman
Ted Kennedy
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Now comes the fun part:

Disclaimer:

By stating that the above named politicians, and others not named, deserve to be hanged, shot, drugged, or electrocuted for treason, I was in no way, shape, or form threatening to hang, shoot, drug, or electrocute any of them. That's for the Justice Department to decide, not me, as I am a peace-lovin', stevomoron-hatin' hillbilly who loves his God, his wife, his daughter, his dogs, his cats, and his guns. And if I had my way, stevomoron would be eliminated...from this blog, of course!

Now don't go gettin' all paranoid, stevoliverlips, and take navydad's advice. I ain't backin' off from you, jerk. You're just an angry old idiot who can't comprehend. Maybe you need to start doing Sodoku; I hear it keeps your mind active. Oops, too late for you...

Now, stevodillhole, if you don't stop lying about my "threat," I'm gonna hafta report you to your ISP. Jerk...

Just think how lower unemployment would be if we didn't have those 12 to 20 million illegals (and more everyday) taking American jobs -- they aren't all working as farm laborers!!!

Just think how much lower still unemployment would be if DEMOCRATS weren't blocking drilling in ANWR which estimates say would have created 1 million jobs, many billions in taxes, and cut trillions off our national balance of payments. Even more jobs would have been created if DEMOCRATS had not also blocked drilling off our coasts and the building of new refineries!

Just think how much lower still unemployment would be if DEMOCRATS had not blocked efforts to stop those ridiculous lawsuits which are helping to drive American jobs overseas, running up the cost of health and medical care, and increasing prices on all products and services in America!

And if all that money spent on welfare were left in the economy, even more jobs would have been created to employ those who shouldn't be on welfare!

Who knows, if it weren't for DEMOCRATS, the unemployment rate might be 2% or less!

AAR

AAR,

Actually, The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families accountfor even more--one out of four.

"Actually, The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families accountfor even more--one out of four." Paul

This is a perfect illustration of a leftist quoting statistics not understanding HOW they are derived or WHAT they mean.

The census bureau applies a specific dollar figure per category across the nation without accounting for cost of living differences based on geography.

For example according to the Census Bureau, the poverty level in 2006 for a family of 4 with 2 children was $20,444. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES LIKE FOOD STAMPS, WELFARE PAYMENTS, RENT SUBSIDIES, ETC!!! Also not included in the statistics are assets, nor does it include captial gains from invetments. So a elderly female retiree who never worked would be considered to be living in poverty even though she was living in her Palm Beach mansion, on the investment portfolio of her dear departed husband.

News flash, its more expensive to live in the city than in either rural aeas or suburbs. The black population is highly concentrated in cities. So its logical that rural whites would also be swept up in the poverty raking even though $20,ooo per year for a family of four is sufficent if they own their own home, and have their own garden.

The US is the only country in the world where those in poverty are fat, have color tvs, cellphones, refrigerators, airconditioning, stoves washers, dryers, cars, and the ammenities that most in the world would die for.

It's really getting tiresome explaining these things to our leftist dimwits.

You guys are definitely overestimating the effect of government on unemployment. A 1% change involves over a million people. A small marginal tax increase or cut, or throwing money down a different governemnt rat hole isn't going to employ or put millions out of work. Welfare can keep people out of work, but welfare payments haven't increased massively in a while.

"But here's the thing. Neither of them really have or had that much influence. The Federal Reserve has the most power and is fiercely independent. " - Kahn

Maybe by pushing down the minimum wage, but I think that most of that Keynesian bullshit got proved wrong after about 10 inflationary recessions. Maybe they can create a little bubble, and get some people employedm being payed out of the value lost in inflation, but that's hardly a good thing.

Then it progressively goes down from 92 to 2000 at which point it rises again.

This is correct. However, in 2000, Clinton was still the president. Unemployment actually increased from its minimum of 3.8% to 4.2% while Clinton was still in office. On 1/20/2001, Bush the Younger then inherited low, but rising, unemployment.

Oh ouch, unemployment began rising while Clinton was still president. Facts and truths are a bitch eh libtard?

and it borders on mid-evil in its mentality...

Folks, the above comment was posted by an idiot who, in another thread, slammed Mark by asserting that Mark never finished college.

Mid-evil, liberalTHC? What the hell is "mid-evil?" Do you mean medieval?

You are one stupid loser, and you're starting to piss me off more than stevomoron and Zerobrains do. I guess I'll just call you three Moe, Larry, and Curly.