Obama, the Minimum Wage, and Democratic Politics as Usual

Minimum Wage“Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.” President Obama said that earlier this year in his State of the Union address.

Sounds good to me. Who doesn’t want hard-working Americans who put in at least 40 hours a week to make enough to live on and support their families?

And a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as the president proposes, would lift 900,000 families out of poverty, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  That’s the good news.  But CBO also says, it could reduce the number of jobs the economy creates by  500,000 positions.  That’s the bad news.

“Some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly,” according to the CBO.

The White House says the CBO has it all wrong.

“Zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment,” according to Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman.

But the Republicans don’t agree.   They say instead of reducing poverty, a higher minimum wage would increase poverty – because of all the jobs that would be lost.

“This report confirms what we’ve long known: while helping some, mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working,” says John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House.  “With unemployment Americans’ top concern, our focus should be creating — not destroying — jobs for those who need them most.”

Here’s something else we’ve long known.  The president proposed the hike in the minimum wage at least in part because polls show the American people like it.  Do they know that mandatory higher wages could cost their fellow Americans half a million jobs?  That would require following the news, which is asking way too much of way too many Americans.

As for President Obama:  Maybe he believes the CBO is wrong, maybe not.  Maybe politics is all that matter to him.  After all, he knows Republicans won’t vote for a big increase in the minimum wage.  Not now, anyway.  He knows it won’t become law before the November midterm elections.  He knows he won’t have to answer if half a million jobs disappear and the unemployment rate starts to head north again.

And so Mr. Obama can portray Republicans as cold-blooded and heartless in the midterm elections, as out-of-touch fat cats who don’t care about the little guy, while at the same time portraying himself and his fellow Democrats as saviors of the downtrodden, especially of women, a group Democrats always need to win elections.

Not a bad strategy:  Say what the voters want to hear – and don’t worry about the downside because there won’t be any.

Too bad Mr. Obama isn’t nearly as cunning when it comes to dealing with Vladimir Putin.

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • badluckz

    No one is telling the whole truth about this issue. Republicans who claim raising the minimum wage will cost jobs are correct, but only in the short term. The jobs will come back. They always have. Democrats who claim that raising the minimum wage will help workers are correct, but only in the short term. Even companies that do not employ minimum wage workers have to do business with those that do, so eventually all companies will have to adjust their prices or business practices to pay for the increase. Eventually the economy will find a new equilibrium. One in which those making minimum wage will have the same buying power as those who made minimum wage before the raise.
    Which is the real problem with raising the minimum wage: it is a cause of inflation.

    • George Williams

      “No one is telling the whole truth about this issue. Republicans who claim raising the minimum wage will cost jobs are correct, but only in the short term. The jobs will come back. ”

      Really, just because you say so? Tell that to those who are fired. I only hope that you or one of your relatives are one of them. When prices go up, demand has a tendency to go down. Part of how we lose jobs is the cost curve reaches the point where consumers eschew purchasing a product. And that’s not because I say so. It’s Economics 101.

      • badluckz

        Not because I say so. Because it’s always happened before. Why would this hike be any different than the previous ones? Somebody has to do the work. Not purchasing the product means the company goes out of business. Yet even with the previous raises, there are still companies that make ladders, storm windows, etc. Granted there would be a lot more jobs (and our money would be worth a lot more) if there were no minimum wage.

        • George Williams

          Actually, what happens on many occasions is that industry reacts with introducing efficiencies if the cost curve dictates that automating becomes more acceptable. Machines don’t take vacations, don’t ask for wage increases and don’t get sick.

  • Joe Adams

    1-2 years ago, I was against increasing minimum wage because I thought our fragile economy couldn’t support it. Now that we are rebuilding a little, I think $10/hr would be good for for everybody and might even boost our economy. Pshaw to the job killer crowd! Walmart & McDonalds can certainly afford it. And Lord knows that those on the bottom rung could use it.

  • 633

    Pure politics. Wedge issue. If the goal is to address working impoverishment i.e. householder income ) the EITC is a vastly more effective alternative. But not one that has a major political constituency.

    • legal eagle

      I would agree about the EITC…but in the current world of right wing ideology EITC is evil, very evil….LOL

      • 633

        The EITC was passed by a GOP President and a majority of GOP reps. I don’t think it is regarded negatively as a policy:its increase was a component of the welfare reform compromise which a GOP Congress agreed to in the Clinton era. Currently its deficit impact would be an issue, but it could be sold as a mechanism to increase the workforce participation rate. None of this has an electoral appeal however. And its that appeal that is the administration’s energizing interest here, not “inequality”.

        • George Williams

          Really, not viewed negatively. The EITC is a blatant transfer of unearned wealth from one part of society to another. In fact, it is welfare. Anything not earned is welfare.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    “Some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the
    income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and
    the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall
    slightly,” according to the CBO.
    ———————————————————-
    In our country, there is little or no sign of progress toward eliminating the illegal aliens from our work force. Nothing for example, about fines for employers who do the back stabbing and hire underpaid, non-English speaking workers who then turn and collect welfare on the side from the States to enable them to live. (Yes they can.. and do.. and the funding for that welfare is from the Federal Government which means denying welfare to illegal aliens receiving welfare is circumvented. {Much to the pain of the American Worker}).

    In the full light of all that can be said about this business, I suspect it will all pretty much be gibberish.

  • veeper

    obama has done nothing to help the present economy or jobs situation…

    he has worked steadily to ensure america continues to decline after he leaves office….

    american will NEVER recover from the damage obama has done….

    millions will die without ever regaining the life they had before obama…..

    • legal eagle

      Wow…did you come up wit these economic “facts” all by yourself?

      • Drew Page

        As a legal eagle, you should know that often perception is reality, not only in a court room, but in the court of public opinion. A statement by a person to a judge may not have been made contemptuously, but if the judge perceives it to be contemptuous, you know what happens.
        If the president’s actions and non-actions are perceived as good or bad by people, they become “facts” to those people. Is a half a glass of water half-full or half-empty? I say it depends on the perception of the person answering the question.

        • legal eagle

          Well said…perception is often reality…the difference between the court of public opinion and a legal forum is basically something called “cross-examination:…Can you imagine how interesting it would be to watch someone like O’Reilly be cross examined?

          • floridahank

            Not only O’Reilly, but all important officials at major levels. I would not permit taking the 5th, regardless of its legality. I believe that is a fundamental flaw in our judicial system. I think it’s just a copout for 90% of the people being questioned — sometimes it’s obvious that a person is guilty even when they can’t provide the “smoking gun.” I believe in equality, but one has to say in many cases, justice is truly blind.

          • legal eagle

            So you would eliminate one of the basic constitutional protections provided under the US Constitution? Any other rights you’d like to eliminate? How about the right to counsel? How about the right to a fair trial? How about freedom of speech?

          • floridahank

            I’m saying that there are too many dishonest lawyers, judges, etc. misinterpreting, misusing, biased meaning, mistranslation, etc. goes on and on where the Constitution is nothing like the Founding Fathers intended and wrote it. Today, our legal system is totally biased against the common American citizen — too many politicians, moneymakers, etc. involved to get honesty for honest, hardworking, taxpaying citizens — we need a total overall.“““““““““

          • legal eagle

            With all due respect, your cynicism is causing you to ignore reality or the facts….pure hyperbole on your part..

          • Joe Adams

            Nah, floridahank is right on target. Beagles, your continuous, inane defense of fed gov’t actions leads me to believe that you are nothing more than a Democrap schill. Fair disclosure, how much $ you get paid?

          • legal eagle

            I’m not paid, but if you’d like to send me a check let me know….

          • floridahank

            From my book, The Heritage of World Civilization, I take some things out of context to make my points that mankind is basically depraved, despotic, and selfish.

            Human beings, unlike other animals, are cultureal beings, and can be understood throughout history by archeological findings regarding their tools and languages and we can see that they were hunters, fishers and gatherers — but not producers of food.

            When “civilization” finally appeared , when mankind began of get settled in a more organized way of life, and people began to moving to different territories, competition began to appear regarding the food available and the complexities required living with laws and regulations to make life smoother.

            But then conflicts began, and mankind showed they could be troublesome and defiant. The powerful built empires, and conquered and when wronged and fought back. Since the day we threw our first spear, we’ve been looking for new ways to project power at a distance. and that started a new type of warfare which has “improved and progressed to this day.”

            Worldwide, blillions of people are near starvation, while some parts of world live in luxary.

            Waste of all kinds is a way of life and still mankind is materialsistic, selfish and hoards all that he can. Where is altruism and love for fellow man?

            I stand by with my comments that mankind has only changed for the worse, and the USA shows how bad a “civilized” country can be towards its fellow citizens and the world in general.

          • Joe Adams

            Beagle, what a crappy answer! That is a false argument and we all know it. Your statement suggests that citizens should expect much less from our gov’t officials than than gov’t expects from us. Typical liberal/gov’t BS.

          • legal eagle

            I hate to break it to you but the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens….Are you advocating that the Constitution should only apply in certain circumstances and not in others?

          • Mikal Gastpipe

            How about Obama ORDERING a DRONE STRIKE on, and KILLING, an American and his 16 year old SON overseas! Me thinks THEIR rights were VIOLATED. What say YOU?

          • Joe Adams

            O’Reilly goes up against ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives frequently and still manages to hold onto his #1 rating in news for at least the past 5 years. I think that you and fellow socialists are jealous that a neoconservative like O’Reilly continues to enthrall the mass of independent news watchers.

          • legal eagle

            O’Reilly is the #1 “cable news” show…The network news shows such as NBC News with Brian Williams have much larger viewership than Fox News…
            The highest rated cable entertainment show has traditionally been WWE wrestling…Do you really believe ratings have much to do with quality?
            If you like watching an arrogant blowhard like O’Reilly good for you…I like watching it also occasionally…It’s entertainment, not news..

          • Mikal Gastpipe

            “PERCEPTIONS are MORE IMPORTANT than FACTS and REASON.”-Celinda Lake, Democratic pollster and Obama CONFIDANTE, 3/24/2014

  • EdWalton

    Union contracts are often multiples of the minimum wage; the primary goal is lining the pockets of the union bosses, the rest are just perks.

    • legal eagle

      and you know this how?

      • Mark W.

        “The fine print can be found in union contracts. Each year, the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) releases a number of union collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
        “Unsurprisingly, many CBAs available in the OLMS database link union salaries and wage rates to the federal minimum wage. There are a number of methods that unions use to accomplish this end. The two most popular appear to be setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the minimum wage, and mandating a flat wage at a set level above the minimum wage.”

        –The full text is available at:
        http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/082613-668781-unions-seek-minimum-wage-hike-because-it-would-also-boost-union-pay.htm

    • legal eagle

      Union contracts are rarely multiples of minimum wage laws….That’s an opinion not a fact….

  • D Parri

    Reality. One of the most difficult perspectives to identify. That is why the seemingly unencumbered success of Obama and the Democratic Party in deceiving the American people.

    How many American taxpayers are aware of the frauds committed by recipients of government benefits each day? Very few. How likely is it that those frauds will ever be reported by neighbors, friends, or family? Very unlikely.

    What is the impact of those frauds upon the American economy? Extremely.

    When the people who are willing to accept government assistance are also willing to work for wages that are never reported, then a way of life becomes entrenched in our society that cannot be reversed without some very harsh measures. There is no question that welfare fraud is unmitigated theft of taxpayer resources, but the stomach to prosecute is not yet developed to a necessary threshold for action.

    I watch as my neighbors apply for food stamps (SNAP), supplemental income, housing, Medicaid, and a host of other government programs, and at the same time they work at jobs which pay–when combined with the benefits they receive–a greater income level than my own take-home salary. And this is due to the taxes which I and many other taxpayers contribute to support the corrupt welfare beneficiaries living both next door and all across our nation.

    It stinks!

    • legal eagle

      So your bitter and jealous of your neighbors? How touching…

      • D Parri

        So you’re still spouting out crap. Fuck off, jerk.

      • floridahank

        From a great scene in A Few Good Men, legal eagle, “you can’t handle the truth.”

      • Joe Adams

        D Parri posts a very sensible, articulate complaint near and dear to all taxpayers and that is your response? I have no further use for ya Beagles. You are too stupid to take seriously.

      • Mikal Gastpipe

        Let me guess…SPELLING wasn’t your STRONG SUIT in school, was it?

  • VermontAmerican

    “As for President Obama: Maybe he believes the CBO is wrong, maybe not.” He doesn’t really care. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment which creates more government-dependent people which is just the way Democrats like it: Making more and more people dependent on them.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      I understand your position, but I don’t think you have it right. Bring all of the factors together, and I think we would find a point where there is a need to sustain people on welfare to maintain the consumer industry which then prevents even greater movement to pure welfare (as apposed to unemployment and a mobile workforce). I think that is clear which then makes this idea very instructive: the economy juggler has 18 balls in the air and has broken a major and ugly sweat.

      The U.S. Government is only partially controlling our economy with welfare. But what they are doing is putting band-aids on major gashes for people with almost no options in the near term unless we have a good ground war like the Cold War. 18 balls in the air? Maybe it would be better to say 18 balls of burning coal in the air.

  • gbandy

    I enjoy the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Now consider this; Under Obama gas prices have doubled, Utility rates have “skyrocketed” as he promised. Food Prices higher, Now one thing for sure Heath care costs have really gone up. Yet the Democrats say they are for the poor. My question is they trying to push the middleclass into poverty with all their regulations, cost increases, and insanity? Instead of raising costs on business the Democrats should push for moves that create jobs instead of destroying jobs.

    • JMax

      ” Under Obama gas prices have doubled”

      Yet another oft-told misstatement from the GOP. When Obama took office, the US was at the height of the recession and gasoline prices were at historical lows due to the lack of demand in a crashing economy. Never in the five years of Obama’s administration have gasoline prices been as high as they were in May of 2008 during the Bush administration.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Well, the statement is actually true. It’s not a misstatement. However it is indeed misleading, as you said, due to the recession’s impact.

        The big difference is that the media was flipping out over high gas prices under Bush, regularly calling on him to do something about it. Obama’s feet, on high gas prices, have NEVER been held to the fire by the media.

        • JMax

          “The big difference is that the media was flipping out over high gas
          prices under Bush, regularly calling on him to do something about it.”

          I don’t think so. Anybody with understanding of the world oil markets understood that there was little if anything the president could do about it. (Although Bill O’Reilly was claiming it was collusion by the oil companies).

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The media may have understood it, but you wouldn’t have known that by their coverage.

          • legal eagle

            That’s because people in the media are obviously not as smart as a genius like yourself?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Nah. Just biased.

          • legal eagle

            You’re not educated enough to understand what bias is…
            Do you ever read anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived ideology? Hopefully your kids won’t be a narrow minded as you are..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>You’re not educated enough to understand what bias is

            Ah, because it’s such an incredibly difficult concept to understand, isn’t it? lol.

            If only I had gone for my Masters after earning my Bachelors of Science degree, I’d be able to figure out what happens when people let their prejudices dilute their objectivity. You’re so cute when you pretend to be an intellectual, Legal. It makes me want to pinch those cheeks of yours!

            >>Do you ever read anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived ideology?

            I read your asinine comments, don’t I? You know, the ones you recycle from your DNC emails which I also read.

            >>Hopefully your kids won’t be a narrow minded as you are

            My kids already have far more sense than you, legal. I know that sounds like a cheap put-down at your expense… but I assure you that it’s very much true.

          • allen goldberg

            Legal Eagle is only a moniker for an individual was loves to counter anything conservative..with the usual libtard responses….do not waste you time with this troll.

          • floridahank

            Are you implying that people in the media are actually smart?

          • Joe Adams

            Seems not, idiot! Bias is an easy thing for sycophants, or didn’t you know?

          • Mark W.

            What many people don’t realize, in listening to or reading media reports, is that what is left out of news stories is just as important as what is included. Some people on this blog don’t acknowledge this simple fact… and the result is bias.

        • Jeff Webb

          >>Obama’s feet, on high gas prices, have NEVER been held to the fire by the media.<

          I’m reminded of the half-truth about “more oil-drilling under the current administration,” which didn’t get widely exposed until Governor Romney directly refuted BO at one of the debates. It’s a shame (though predictable) that the guy was still comfortable telling that lie even as the end of his first term was approaching.

          Remember what happened right after President Bush gave the green light for more off-shore drilling?

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      Add this: the Republicans want to bring health care workers in from other countries because they work for so much less, and their education is far, far less expensive. Ah but.. they are not of the same quality as American Health Care workers which means health care declines in our country.
      Per the utility rates: electrical power is the basis of a modern industrial state and the American People want green power rather than nuclear generation, coal fired plants or gas fired plants. Green power just doesn’t have the ability to provide what we need. A VERY interesting process is moving forward as microwaves are being transmitted from space to ground based receivers which would be fabulous, but even so, expensive. The problems we have in every element of our infrastructure are enormous and they …are… game changers. In my opinion, the middle class of the United States is no longer viable and in my opinion, the economy juggler STILL has 18 balls of fire in the air and something has to go.

  • firststater

    Its high time for a paradigm shift in this thinking. Getting 900,000 out of poverty is profoundly worth its pursuit. Why must the lower paid folks have to foot the bill. How about program knocking off some of the many fat cats sitting on the top rungs of the Fortune 500 each hauling in obscene millions per year. Apply the “bang for the buck” logic corporate used to gut the middle management layer out over the past 15-20 years. This wipeout was not productivity! This was pushing work and responsibilities lower in chart. Corporate America won’t make this change; CBO can only analyze; shareholders need to step up.

  • Mark W.

    I’m always skeptical of the jobs reports, from both federal and state sources. They always come out with a number, but never say how many are full time and how many are part time or seasonal. Stating a composite number only enhances the administration’s contention that things are better than they probably are. A part time, minimum wage job is not comparable to a full time, well paid job with benefits, but they seem to be given the same weight in those reports. Without more information, these statistics have very limited value.

    • floridahank

      Mark, you said, “I’m always skeptical of the jobs reports.'” Well I’m always in total disbelief of anything the Govt. makes public. Everybody is “covering their as…” and will say, do and write whatever is to their benefit. Unfortunately, there is almost total dishonor, corruption and lying as part of their job description. You name it, the military, education, health, judicial system, — anything where people are involved, and it’s best to give it a totally negative grade. Hate to sound so negative, but I’ve yet to see any positive results from any agency or department.

      • Mark W.

        It is always a fine line between maintaining a healthy skepticism and avoiding total cynicism. I am also distrusting of government reports… and of news stories that quote unnamed sources, or “experts,” “(many) (most) economists, environmentalists, Democrats, Republicans, etc.” In short, I want to know, “What’s your source?”

        • legal eagle

          But you do believe the amount you receive in government benefits?

        • floridahank

          Mark I don’t have any particular favorite sites for my information — I look at maybe 20+ that seem to have intelligence behind them, and surprisingly some of the comments give me great leads for follow up for more details which turn out to be “goldmines” of facts that have been ignored by the media and commentators — sort of serendipity you could say. I’ve found many fantastic sources from comments.. So, after that I do my own follow up and see what comes up. Very informative.

          • legal eagle

            Are all of these right wing sites? Read anything that’s not right wing?

          • floridahank

            I read anything that presents a cogent point of view for their case. I have very little respect for all Presidents who took us to wars after WW2 — I can tell you that none of them had any basic feeling for the good of our nation — they all had selfish, ulterior materialistic motives — not one military person should have died since WW2. Worldwide, nations are crazy, selfish, evil and love killing their citizens. We cannot and should not try to peacemakers and try to police the world — that’s a stupid, unrealistic idea that is ruining our country with wasted $$$$ and lives. In fact I would call our behavior insanity.

          • legal eagle

            So what was Harry Truman’s motive for getting the U.S involved in Korea?

          • floridahank

            His motive was to show how stupid he was trying to act as if he had a military mind.

            Here’s some facts to prove my point about being against wars unless we’re attacked.

            “If the best minds in the world had set out to find us the worst possible location in the world to fight this damnable war,” U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1893-1971) once said, “the unanimous choice would have been Korea.”

            The Korean War was relatively short but exceptionally bloody. Nearly 5 million people died. More than half of these–about 10 percent of Korea’s prewar population–were civilians. (This rate of civilian casualties was higher than World War II’s and Vietnam’s.) Almost 40,000 Americans died in action in Korea, and more than 100,000 were wounded.
            Truman was as stupid as the other Presidents.

          • legal eagle

            Stupid? In hindsight, based upon the timing and the circumstances, the Korean War was not as bad a decision as Vietnam…
            Would you like to read some quotes of Dean Acheson’s which, in hindsight, proved to be wrong?

          • floridahank

            I agree that nobody has perfect solutions, but his projection about Korean War was right on! Can you tell me somethings that were honorable and workings towards peace in any of our wars?
            Korea Vietnam, Iraq, Afgan — you name it — they were all done for selfish, monetary reasons — not for an honorable effort to help those innocent citizens or for creating peace worldwide. You live in some Pollyanna, unreal world — get real! The world is driven by evilness not goodness!

          • legal eagle

            Excuse me? What did I say that prompted your response?

            “You live in some Pollyanna, unreal world — get real! The world is driven by evilness not goodness!”

          • mike strieker

            You are so right, unfortunately. We have not gained a long-termed benifit from any of the conflicts/wars since ww2. Its sickening to ponder the loss in american lives, all in the name of u.n. political correctness……nothing more than fighting to a tie

          • mike strieker

            No army has ever gained anything meaningful without vanquishing the enemy and demanding an unconditional surrender…then have the will to force change, pacify and control the population until it behaves. If we are not willing to do that, we get vietnam, iraq, afghanistan.

    • legal eagle

      The reports are available for you to read…However, the statistics are probably beyond your comprehension as they require some intelligence to decipher..

      • Mark W.

        tsk, tsk. I know your permanent record says “does not play well with others,” but we always have hope for your social development.

        • legal eagle

          Better than my record stating “plays too much with himself’? LMAO

      • Mikal Gastpipe

        So, WHO did YOU have to explain it to you?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          I think it’s cute when legal eagle pretends to be intellectual superior to others. He’s like that little kid from Jerry MacGuire.

  • loupgarous

    Rudyard Kipling foresaw the Democrats’ fetish for equalizing outcomes (no matter what the cost), and the havoc it would play in American society in his science-fiction short story “As Easy as A.B.C… ” Eventually Americans (and the rest of the world) got tired of omnipotent (but not omnicompetent) idiots trying to manage economies and people’s lives by consensus, and threw off their chains.

    As this excerpt from the story shows, it wasn’t a pretty process:

    “MacDonough’s Song

    Whether the State can loose and bind In Heaven as well as on Earth:
    If it be wiser to kill mankind
    Before or after the birth–
    These are matters of high concern
    Where State-kept schoolmen are;
    But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
    Endeth in Holy War.

    Whether The People be led by the Lord,
    Or lured by the loudest throat:
    If it be quicker to die by the sword
    Or cheaper to die by vote–

    These are the things we have dealt with once,
    (And they will not rise from their grave)

    For Holy People, however it runs,
    Endeth in wholly Slave.

    Whatsoever, for any cause,
    Seeketh to take or give,
    Power above or beyond the Laws,
    Suffer it not to live!

    Holy State or Holy King–
    Or Holy People’s Will–
    Have no truck with the senseless thing.
    Order the guns and kill!

    Saying–after–me:–

    Once there was The People–
    Terror gave it birth;
    Once there was The People
    and it made a Hell of Earth.

    Earth arose and crushed it.
    Listen, O ye slain!
    Once there was The People–
    it shall never be again!”

    If God is good to us, this will be the Democratic Party’s epitaph.

    • JMax

      “Democrats’ fetish for equalizing outcomes”

      An oft-told straw man by the GOP. Democrats are for equal access and equal opportunity. They have never been for equal outcomes.

      • legal eagle

        Are you allowed to use the word “fetish” on this site?…..LOL

      • loupgarous

        Yeah, I forgot the Chrysler bailout, in which investors in the company got a major “haircut” on the value of their interest in Chrysler, while a group of Obama-backed investment banks got much more back, much sooner, and the UAW was cut in for a big slice of Chrysler equity. The Democrats sure weren’t interested in anything resembling equity then. Not to mention Obama swiping several hundred million dollars from the Medicare Fund to give to his friends on Expanded Medicaid.

        • JMax

          Do you have a source for any of this stuff? After that, explain how it has anything to do with this thread.

        • JMax

          Typically in a bankruptcy investors get nothing. The company reported at the time of the bankruptcy that the book value of the company was zero, ergo no haircut to take.

          After the bankruptcy Chrysler was owned by the union pension fund (because they invested in the restructured company) with 55% ownership, by Fiat with 35%, by the US government with 8%, and by the Canadian government with 2%. Where were the investment banks in this?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_bailout#Chapter_11_reorganization

  • lark2

    It’s ALL about “buying” VOTES … it always is. The MINIMUM WAGE is not and never was intended to be .. a living wage you could raise a family on. Obama is an expert politician who excells at taking advantage of the uneducated. The phenomenon is that he succeeds at fooling many EDUCATED do-gooders who think they are better people than all the rest.

    • firststater

      I believe he’s getting it from the ever popular CBO.

    • legal eagle

      As opposed to the uneducated Southern voters who automatically vote Republican?

      • lark2

        Sir, I assume you are one of the PAID operatives the White House positions to post crap on sites they view as “unfriendly”. I hope they pay you very well because I hate to think you actually spout your nonsense for free.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          During the last election, I subscribed to an Obama campaign newsletter through an email account I rarely use. I thought it could make for some good material for columns.

          I’m still subscribed to it, and it is absolutely amazing how often legal eagle’s talking points are pulled directly from it.

          I have no idea if he’s being paid, but he’s undoubtedly a stooge for the administration.

          • Jeff Webb

            Let me know when you’re done with the newsletters; I’m trying to break in a new shredder.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Luckily, it’s a digital newsletter. Otherwise, I think they’d warrant being turned into toilet paper over a shredder.

          • Jeff Webb

            It’s all right, the shredder’s also digital.

          • lark2

            The “employment” of these stooges is not something I imagined. I actually know someone who attended a meeting of prospective standins. The presentation focused on the importance of disseminating the administration’s position on alternative media. These OBAMA operatives are diabolical. I remind you of the recent White House meeting of “Journalists” perceived to be friendly to OBAMA … openly attended by Juan Williams, Ed Schutz, Rachel Maddow and others who blindly mimic the OBAMA B.S. … These are the big time mimics … Juan Williams is actally paid TWO MILLION DOLLARS by the “evil” Fox News. There are “small time” paid mimics everywhere. I suppose there are small timers out there who are unpaid but do it for the “jazz”.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh, I don’t doubt it. We’ve had others like legal eagle in the past who came here to do nothing but spread DNC propaganda, and insult whoever criticized Obama. For each one that eventually got themselves suspended when they crossed the line, they were quickly replaced by someone saying the exact same things and using the exact same tactics. Whether legal’s part of a coordinated effort, I don’t know. But I’m convinced that we’ve had some who are.

          • legal eagle

            Dear Mr. Daly,
            GFY

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Awwww. Is that how your DNC emails told you to respond in situations like this? Poor fellow. Not an original thought inside that head of yours, is there?

          • legal eagle

            No, I learned that on the streets New York..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Sure, Sipowicz.

          • legal eagle

            Sipowicz? Is that your wife’s name?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You must be tired. You’re dishing out some of the lamest comebacks ever tonight. lol.

          • legal eagle

            You can suspend me anytime you want…I understand that anyone who disagrees with you or your fellow cult members is not welcome…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal, We both know that you’ve been trying to get suspended for some time, just so you can affirm your painfully unoriginal assertion that we boot people for disagreements and not for the vile content they post.

            The truth is that we’ve let you skate by on some pretty offensive stuff precisely because we want opposing viewpoints for discussion, even if they’re not actually your viewpoints (but ones you’ve copied from emails).

            So, we’re fine with keeping you around, Tiger. We just hope you’ll eventually start thinking for yourself and not the Obama collective.

          • legal eagle

            I’m honored…Who is “we”? The committee? LOL

          • lark2

            “We” are the thoughtful people who read your crap. It is actually good that people get an opportunity to hear your thoughts. I am never offended by people who share alternative opinions. I don’t think you will ever hear people on this site say that you should be jailed or silenced in any way. The thoughts you express are tiresome and often thoughtless but you are from NEW YORK CITY …. for some reason, Many of you suffer from Liberal group think. Look at the people you elect …. NADLER, HILLARY, NANNIES BLOOMBERG & deBLASIO, DINKINS, the idiot Weiner who was so proud of his privates, CUOMO, & SPITZER . The list is long and distinguished. Occasionally, things get so bad you have to bring in a Giuliani to clean up the bilge. I lived in NYC for more than 30 years. I know who you guys are and I think it’s great when you guys get in power because everyone gets an opportunity to see and hear who you really are. One day, the BLACK FOLKS will realize where the Democrats really stood in the struggle for Civil Rights.

          • legal eagle

            I hope them COLORED FOLKS never figure out that the Dems have been screwing them for the past 50+ years….LOL

        • legal eagle

          And I assume you are suffering from dementia…

  • buckrodgers

    If the Democrats really wanted to increase the minimum wage,pass comprehensive immigration reform or egual pay for women, they could of passed any legislation they wanted,with no Republican support, when they controlled both Houses of Congress with a veto proof majority and a Democratic President to sign it into laws, so why didn’t they when they had a once in a lifetime chance to do what to do exactly that or maybe they really don’t want to, the problems is that Republicans stand on principle, while the Democrats win election by telling people exactly what they want to hear, then with the help of a corrupt media blame Republicans and they fall for this bait and switch scheme every single day, on;y in liberal land can Warren Buffet run around the country saying he wants to pay more in taxes,at the same time the company he founded Berkshire Hathaway was negotiating with the IRS to pay the back taxes they owe the government, or maybe Americans really think that Bill Mahr wants to give more of his income to the government, Americans seem to love to walk into a business and think there smarter then the merchant who made a profit by advertising on sale everything must go, feeling good about yourself for five minutes only to realize that you were cheated a month ago can’t boost your ego, Obamacare was one of those rare moments when you feel the pain before you purchase the goods ands that’s the only reason people are taking notice, because health care is a life and death proposition for every American.

    • legal eagle

      Amazing how you’ve bought the Republican myth hook line and sinker… I think you’re watching too much Fox News…Republicans stand for whatever their corporate masters tell them to stand for..

      • Jeff Webb

        Still pretending your side isn’t THE party of rich corporate fat-cats? So, so cute.

        • legal eagle

          Far less so than the Republican Party… Ever see groveling like Chris Christie did yesterday with Shelly
          Adel son?

    • legal eagle

      How long did the Dems have control of Congress?

  • Anthony Pacicca

    Minimum wage goes up–Prices go up—-A vicious circle—back to where we started.

    • loupgarous

      And it took the Republican Party’s most activist liberal, Richard M. Nixon, to make a reductio ad absurdum by pushing a law through to freeze wages and prices in order to limit inflation, and thus demonstrating the complete impotence of government to influence an economy – all he wound up doing is deranging the economy further by not attacking the root cause of inflation – growth of the money supply beyond the size of the national product.

      Barack Obama, the Democrats’ Nixon, is attacking the problem just as simple-mindedly by forcing employers to pay out more per worker, which (if the unemployment figures hadn’t been cooked by White House fiat since 2009) will predictably increase unemployment by decreasing the number of people who can be employed.

      Passing grades in sophomore macroeconomics ought to be a prerequisite for election to Federal office or employment anywhere near a policy-making post.

    • firststater

      The real viciousness is the ever increasing disparity between the haves and have nots.

  • Florida Jim

    The fools making these rules have been blood suckers off the taxpayer for years and decades in many instances. Because they get raises whenever they wish quietly in the darkness and hire family members as lobbyists or silent partners in their schemes to defraud the taxpayer. They do not realize, or they don’t care, that every cost to a business must result in an increase to the customer or a reduction in other costs by the business. Unions want raises -where does the money come from-you and I in higher prices every time. All jobs are not to be lifetime jobs not in government nor in business some are entry level positions to see how the employees handles himself and customers the good employee moves up the poor employee moves on, mostly an Obama administration position it appears where firing has never occurred. Democrats hate business as much as they hate the military it makes them sick to have to feign love to either group.
    Please oust all in government for more than 8 years and start over demanding they do our work not theirs.

    • legal eagle

      I guess you don’t mind if Walmart’s low wage workers are subsidized by the taxpayers?
      According to a recent report, the cost of Wal-Mart’s low wages isn’t just felt by workers like Stinnett, but also transferred to American taxpayers. The report zeroes in on Wal-Mart in Wisconsin. That’s because the state releases information on how many workers are enrolled in its public health care program broken down by employer.

      At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

      Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

      • loupgarous

        Just think what the public liability would be if those people were unemployed. I’d say that 300 workers completely on the dole could run up a multi-million dollar public outlay faster than you can say “Paul Krugman.”

        • legal eagle

          So, you believe if Walmart raised their wages, they would have to lay off all their workers? Doesn’t make sense to me; does it to you?
          The fact is that Walmart profits are being subsidized by taxpayer subsidies to Walmart employees….If you wish to subsidize the richest family in America, the Waltons, be my guest… I don’t

          • loupgarous

            One of MY party’s politicians isn’t on Wal-Mart’s board the way Hillary Clinton was for years.

  • Blakely1

    IMO, It is political suicide for Republicans not to raise the minimum wage. All of our good
    sense & logic means nothing if the backlash causes us to lose in 2014

  • MacM

    Vladimir Putin is not the gullible, uniformed American public.

  • Tergent

    Democratic Party illogic is astounding. Every idea they propose raises the cost of hiring a person. It’s no wonder there is less hiring. Also the reason the public supports raising the minimum wage is that most people will see a pay increase if the bottom rung is raised. It’s like taking a poll and asking the American people…would you like more money?

    • Josh

      Throwing money on the problem — it’s some politicians’ solution to every single problem we have.

      • legal eagle

        More vague hyperbole…

        • Josh

          Boring. At least bring your alter ego back.

          Effort, man.

    • legal eagle

      I guess you’d rather have the American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees? Guess you don’t think the Walton’s $100 billion net worth is sufficient?

    • firststater

      There is no hiring lessening in the 3rd world. I am reminded of it every time I pick up a garment

    • legal eagle

      Simple thoughts for simple minded people…

  • Paul Rush

    Obama plays to his audience and tells them what they want to hear. He could care less of who he hurts. It is all about ideology and furthering democratic parties goals. He knows that the so called main stream media will not criticize him.

    • loupgarous

      And by failing to criticize ANY incumbent, regardless of party, the “mainstream media” (which is rapidly losing credibility with the American people) is doing the nation a disservice.

      The press performed an unpleasant but necessary role of public irritant – and imposed a necessary degree of public accountability – by unremittingly criticizing George W. Bush. Every politician ought to live in fear of tomorrow’s op-ed pages. So why did they stop with Obama?

      It makes you think the McClatchy Newspapers mean their motto “Speaking truth to power” with a whore’s wink.

  • R Gallik

    I believe the number is something like 2% of Head of Households now making Min Wage, so no, I don’t think it will help.

  • wally12

    Here is a thought. I think the minimum wage is around $7.50 per hour. A wage rate raised to $10.10 per hour should logically mean that all food stamps are eliminated. Do you really think that would happen? I don’t. However, it probably should. Since we are subsidizing the poor at a cost of $80 million per year, an increase to $10.10 per hour results in $122 million that the poor would receive . Plus, the wage increase amounts to $42 million more than the $80 million now being paid by the tax payer. I realize that some of those who are on food stamps now are the unemployed and that Obama refuses to find jobs for so that extra $40 million requirement of food stamps is ultimately eliminated when a conservative is elected president and the economy actually improves. One problem with this theory is that democrats would not go for it since it eliminates a large number of citizens who would not be dependent on the government and thus less votes for the democrat party. The other problem is that all wages would increase incrementally and make all US products and services more costly on the international market. Competition with foreign countries would suffer.

    • legal eagle

      In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That’s just ten cents a day! That’s less than the cost of a gumball.

      When it comes to funding the rest of America’s social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.

      But the American taxpayer is paying a lot for the billions of dollars the
      U.S. government gives to corporate America each year. The average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

      • loupgarous

        Ok, it’s my turn. Got a Google cite for that $6,000 figure? Or any of those figures? Because the average American family, from what we heard from the 2012 Obama campaign, doesn’t even pay Federal income tax.

      • wally12

        Corporation should not pay any taxes. Only tax the individuals who work for the corporation just like all other citizens. Taxing corporation means that those dollars are paid by the consumer. That means you and me pay for the product or service. Taxing corporations means that the corporate product is less competitive on the world market. Taxing corporations is only a ploy used by politicians to make tax payers feel better. The government gives deductions to corporations for the same reason that deductions are given to citizens. There isn’t any difference. When Exxon received a deduction of $40 in the purchase of oil it was because African taxes on the corporation were high or higher than the tax by this country.
        In my previous comment, I suggested that eliminating food stamps could be an answer for the raise of the minimum wage. You really didn’t address that.By not addressing that, are you suggesting that the minimum wage be raised and yet continue giving food stamps to the people who receive the increase?

        • legal eagle

          Spoken like a true Plutocrat….The Koch bros. would be proud….I agree, lets eliminate food stamps…screw those who can’t afford to feed their families…

          • wally12

            Why do liberals always bring up the Koch brothers whenever they can address the comments made by others? Did I bring up Geo. Soros? Also, you said that I am screwing the poor who can’t afford feed their families. I didn’t say that? Of course, some food stamps would be needed. I suggested that those who receive a raise in pay not get food stamps. Read it again slowly.

          • legal eagle

            Food stamp eligibility is a function of family income…If families make more, they will not be eligible…
            I assume you are aware that many military families are on food stamps…

          • wally12

            You just don’t get it. If the minimum wage is raised, the raise it many wage rates above the minimum will also raise. Your argument is flawed.

    • legal eagle

      Food stamps= $80 million? What are you talking about?

  • Brad Ghorn

    Minimum wage is purely political. This is an easy way for Dems to portray Republicans as not caring for the poor. I think it would be smart for some Republicans to go along with increasing the minimum wage just so the issue will go away for a while. Sometimes it is okay to give people what they want even if what they want is mindless, especially if the harm is small. If it is true that the bad and the good about raising the minimum wage are equal then it is harmless to raise the minimum wage.

    • firststater

      I agree. So what should be done with the CBO?

    • legal eagle

      Screw the poor those ungrateful SOB’s… LMFAO

      • Jeff Webb

        >>Screw the poor those ungrateful SOB’s… LMFAO<<

        Raise the minimum wage and you WILL be screwing them, and you'll laugh just as hard knowing that you landed more dem voters on the govt teat.

  • drhoffman

    Politics is Obama’s only concern. The masses loved the notion of the affordable health care act. Even though a Senator from Wyoming warned the nation of EVERYTHING that has taken place, the notion of getting something for nothing or having premiums reduced by $2500.00 looked great. Well, be careful of what you ask for, you may get it. The Democrats talk about income inequality, but why do they not point out all their hollywood supporters making millions upon millions for what? Yet CEO’s who are accountable to thousands of share holders, thousands of employees, and steer ships of business to make hundreds of millions are maligned when their compensation is discussed. Robin Hood economics has never worked, just look at most of Europe.

    • George Williams

      People will vote Democrats into office if they are all promised Mercedes or BMW in the driveways. They’ll vote for socialized medicine if they promise it will be free or cost free. That’s how Democrats have worked for years, promising impossible things that are unsustainable in the long run. All they really care for is the short term, but what can you say, they are all unethical opportunists. The people in this blog who support them can’t point to one thing that their champions have done that isn’t doomed to fiscal disaster in the long term, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.

    • loupgarous

      It doesn’t really cost the denizens of Hollywood much to sign up for ObamaCare – they have nice, flush checking accounts with which to pay the outrageously high deductibles for the ACA health exchange policies that working Americans can afford, and for that matter, can sign up for the more expensive policies to begin with and not have to deal with deductibles to that extent.

      When I see someone like Ellen de Generes (for whom I used to have respect) shill for the ACA and imply that it’s all good for everyone… it reminds me of Marie Antoinette, who said “Let them eat cake… ” when crowds cried they had no bread.

      Of course, that whole set of circumstances showed how irretrievably broken the French economy was at the time, and none of the correctives applied after that (including making Queen Marie and her husband a head shorter) really fixed the problem. Only the mass purging of the French populace in internecine and European warfare gave the French a manageably low population and resources which were more closely matched to the population.

      That whole precedent ought to scare the hell out of anyone who’s paying attention to OUR economy.

      • mike strieker

        Thanks for the history lesson. There is truth to your comparison

  • George Williams

    Why not maximum wages while we’re at it. Just as liberals love to tout the minimum wage, I suggest a maximum wage for lawyers. Why should we citizens be bankrupted by windfall awards of money to lawyers? The liberals talk about medical bills bankrupting citizens, so why shouldn’t we be talking about lawyer fees that do the same thing?

    • loupgarous

      George, I was thinking the very same thing last night. Medical malpractice law is one of the single most pernicious influences on the cost of healthcare in this country. How about a confiscatory tax on the lawyers’ cut of every medical malpractice award in the United States of America? It’d sure make more sense than taxing medical device manufacturers (who actually reduce the price of healthcare as they make it more efficient) by taxing their GROSS receipts!

      • legal eagle

        You don’t have a clue about medical malpractice or the Republican attempt for protect “big pharma” known as “Tort Reform”…
        Amazing how you buy Republican corporate B.S. without thinking..

        • loupgarous

          Hah. Obama protected Big Pharma much more in exchange for a few million dollars spent promoting ACA – in exchange for that, they don’t have to negotiate with Medicare for cost reductions in that very lucrative market for them – which could have cost them hundreds of millions, a huge saving for the taxpayer which could have made ACA much less painful – but ask your pal Obama why he let them off the hook for the equivalent of a bribe..

          Don’t come to ME telling me about corruption with Big Pharma – you don’t seem to know much about it – or you’re not going to discuss how the malpractice bar (exemplified by John Edwards) is a major financial supporter of the Democratic Party.

    • mike strieker

      That’s exactly why obamacare didn’t address tort reform. Lawyers and their class-action lawsuits have been bankrupting buisness for decades..everybody knows that the blood-sucking lawyers are protected by democrats, not republicans.

    • D Parri

      Or, why not, in the interest of a truly just social system, set the hourly wage for all people and adjust it as necessary to provide a living income for all people at the same time.

      Wouldn’t income equality result in social equality for all? If income were removed as the motivating factor for individual effort, then there would be a need to find another motivating factor to stimulate individual effort.

      Is that what you would call a true socialist state?

      I’m afraid that greed among the ruling classes would negate any possibility of that kind of “equality”.

  • ted

    Anyone who has read Milten Friedman knows that the MW will drive up union wages, thus other wages, and lowering job availability. But our Harvard Grad president apparently voted “present” for his econ classes.

    • loupgarous

      I’d LOVE to see his grades in macroeconomics and ConLaw. Of course, Obama has his pet economist Paul Krugman blessing every mistake they make together, thus proving that Nobel Prizes now award ignorance and stupidity quite as much as advances in human knowledge.

      • legal eagle

        Your jealousy is showing…First you hate on Obama, now you hate on Krugman…Those Ivy League educated morons….LOL.

        • Jeff Webb

          I thought people like you considered George W. Bush a moron, LE. Nice to know that ain’t the case, what with his Ivy League education and all.

          • legal eagle

            He was a legacy…and he was and still is a rich kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple….

          • Jeff Webb

            So, you’re saying one can have an Ivy League education and still be a moron?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Perhaps it came from some personal experience he had. ;)

          • mike strieker

            Bush did a lot less damage to our economy than barry is doing. And w has a lot more class. Obama has the thinnest skin ever in our oval office. Its unprecedented how petty and whining little barry is, compared to any other president. Bush was crucified in mainsteam media every hour for 8 yrs and he never cried like obama does with 90% less criticism

          • legal eagle

            Glad to hear that you know George W. Bush so well….he has much more class than that colored guy in the White House…whatever the term “class” means to simpletons like yourself….#Ignorance is Bliss

          • Jeff Webb

            Oh, LE, just can’t help your racist self, can you?

            Your choice: you can edit your comment, or it’ll be edited for you. Don’t forget to whine about it either way.

          • legal eagle

            the term “colored guy” is meant as sarcasm…It is not offensive but if you insist on censorship there is not much I can do..
            Perhaps you should pay more attention to people like D Parri who haws advised me to “F*** Off jerk”

          • Jeff Webb
          • legal eagle

            Look up D Parri’s posts…How am I supposed to describe to you where it is?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I deleted one from him earlier tonight.

          • Jeff Webb

            How? Try narrowing down the column(s). Also couldn’t hurt to estimate the date. It might require using both your hands, so don’t expect anyone to hold one of them.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            No, legal. What you’re doing is using a Stalinist-like tactic to proclaim that those who disagree with you are racists, and thus your spewing of racist rhetoric in mockery of them is somehow justified.

            I know you believe that because you’re a liberal, you somehow get a pass on using racist terms. You don’t. Not here.

          • mike strieker

            LE, you are obviously an intelligent writer and communicator. Why insult me by calling me ignorant. It reduces your argument

          • legal eagle

            You are obviously intelligent also….making comments like “And w has a lot more class.” is childish…How do you know what “class” George W Bush has? What does the term “class’ even mean? Does that mean he was born with a rich daddy?

    • legal eagle

      Milton Friedman’s book was written more than 50 years ago….I understand some people like to live in the past but what was applicable in the 40’s and 50’s is not necessarily applicable today….

      • loupgarous

        Like mathematics? When you guys want to inflict Keynes’ solutions on us, you’re not all that concerned that Keynes developed HIS theories in the 1930s – over sixty years ago.

    • mike strieker

      Good one! It seems like the only time barry did bother to vote back in corrupt chicago was when it would fundamentally change american traditions and values. We knew what we were getting when the nitwits voted him in

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    There once was a man who was lazy a bum,
    he found reading was hard and still harder to sum,
    but he lived in an age,
    where still he could rage,
    that his wage should be set at a high mini mum.

  • Josh

    Mandatory wage hikes are feel-good fodder, and that’s it.

    When the wage goes from 3 to 5, 5 to 7, that extra cash in the pocket is a good thing, for those able to keep their jobs and find new jobs. Extra loot on each paycheck. But just give it a year or two. Fuel will continue to rise. Utility bills will continue to rise. Towns and counties and states will add extra taxes to stuff. Grocery bills continue to rise. Insurance rates continue to rise. 7 is the new 5; 10 will be the new 7.

    Then what? “$13.13! It’s what Americans deserve!”

    Then what? “$20.20! It’s not just a predictable television show anymore!”

    It’s feel-good fodder for people who don’t seem to be able to judge history or predict the future. The here-and-now folks pump their fists and get on board with minimum wage increases, typically regardless of party affiliation, and, at very best, it’s a brief quasi-solution to the real problem: Government interference in the marketplace causing the rates to climb on everything from water and electricity to a gallon of milk.

    Personally, I don’t care about the CBO numbers one way or the other, or which side wants to spin them. I’ve lived through this before. We’ve all lived through this before. What in the holy hell makes anyone think that this wage increase is unlike others? What makes people so supremely confident that what businesses pay their employees is the problem? Why do folks not see that 10 is just the latest in the numbers game, and we’re going to be dealing with the exact same nonsense again in a few years?

    You can’t artificially build a market, but damn if government hasn’t been trying for an awful long time.

    Lines I hear like “this will do more good than harm” and similar lines are laughable. If by “good” people mean it will make them feel good, then I can’t begrudge that. But if by “good” people mean that it’s actually a solution to the problem, then that deserves a LOL. Earning support by essentially kicking the can down the road to avoid the real problems is par for the American political course.

  • Acu-Vue

    If Obama is for raising the minimum wage, you just gotta know it is bad for America. Unfortunately and surprisingly, Bill O’Reilly is for it also but one has to discount him on anything related to the financial markets and the economy which he knows not much about but thinks he does. The market should dictate all pricing and wages. If the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 an hour and someone is willing to work for less to avoid losing his or her job, — Then What!

    • legal eagle

      November 11, 2013

      Most Americans for Raising Minimum Wage

      Tying minimum-wage increases to inflation is slightly less popular

      by Andrew Dugan

      WASHINGTON, D.C. — With momentum building at the federal and state level to increase hourly base pay, more than three-quarters of Americans (76%) say they would vote for raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour (it is currently $7.25) in a hypothetical national referendum, a five-percentage-point increase since March. About one-fifth (22%) would vote against this.

      • George Williams

        Most Americans would favor getting $100,000 per annum as wages. Having people vote for their salaries always gets a one sided outcome that has little to do with rational thought of the unintended consequences.

      • Seattle Sam

        A majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. Tell you what. I’ll concede the minimum wage if we repeal the ACA.

  • JMax

    I believe the CBO said that raising the minimum wage could cost anywhere from ZERO to 1 million jobs and picked 500,000 because that was the middle of the range. In other words, raising the minimum wage could just as easily have NO adverse impact as having a significant adverse impact.

    And some people might think that raising as many as 3.6 million people (900,000 families of 4) out of poverty might be a good trade off.

    • legal eagle

      Much too logical for this crowd….LOL

    • George Williams

      So, you do not believe in capitalism, where the marketplace determines the wage structure. The only rational way of raising wages is expanding the economy and number of jobs so that there are more jobs than employees. Employers then bid for the services of available job seekers. This called the law of supply and demand. There are two reasons why Democrats make this a regular issue. The first is that they need to have an issue to run on in the next election. They’ve been utter failures at governing for the past 5 + years. The second is that they have no talent to expand an economy to create the jobs that would spur employment and wage growth under the natural law of supply and demand.

    • Stimpy

      Your buddy Joe Biden just announced that “in his mind” the 12 million illegals really are citizens. How much down-ward wage pressure can be ascribed to the flood of illiterate illegals? Now he is all but encouraging voter fraud (last I checked illegals don’t get a vote) to add more democrat votes for the mid-term elections. Higher minimum wage, more illegals voting. The dems are licking their chops.

      • George Williams

        Joe Biden sees voters and could care less for the American people. The Democrats have their La Raza vote machine ready to direct these people how to advocate for not only amnesty, but special treatment for consideration for citizenship. Once in their camp, the Democrats will have more votes for looting the Treasury and driving up the National Debt with increased entitlement.

        • Stimpy

          Believe it or not, they’ve already got offices set up helping illegals sign up for ObamaCare … in Mexico! Guess they need to be covered in case they slip and fall coming across the border.

      • JMax

        Joe Biden is not my buddy. I’ve never met him.

        But the fuller context of his statement is:

        “These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully,” he said. “And by that standard, 11 million
        undocumented aliens are already Americans, in my view. They just want a decent life for their kids and a chance to contribute to a free society, a chance to put down roots and help build the next great American century. I really believe that. That’s what they’re fighting for.”

        I have no problem with that. There is no flood of illiterate illegals. I believe the numbers have been relative stable of late and the president has been deporting them at record numbers.

        “Now he is all but encouraging voter fraud (last I checked illegals don’t get a vote) to add more democrat votes for the mid-term elections.”

        Horse manure! He isn’t and how do you suppose he’s going to get ANY of these people on the voter rolls by November?

        I’d be happy to read any sources you may have regarding undocumented immigrants (more than a handful) voting. This is a delusion of the ignorant.

        • Stimpy

          From IBD (another ‘right wing’ media outlet I am sure you despise): “These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to contribute fully. And by that standard, 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans in my view,” Biden said.

          Well, no. They are in fact, NOT waiting — the U.S. welfare magnet and its immigrant networks are drawing millions of the Third World’s most indigent to the U.S., a safety valve for lawless governments such as Mexico’s to dump their least-educated on the gullible gringos to educate, feed and jail as a matter of state policy.

          If that sounds strong, bear in mind that Mexican consulates from Brownsville to Los Angeles are being used to sell ObamaCare and all its subsidies to Mexican nationals with the collusion of ObamaCare organizers, despite the law’s explicit claim that illegals are ineligible.

          And that brings us back to Biden, a man who, as second to the chief executive, is charged with upholding U.S. law.

          In what American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson called a “chilling” undertone, Biden’s unilateral declaration that illegals are Americans amounts to an open invitation to voter fraud just as elections beckon.

          Just as the law says illegals can’t get ObamaCare subsidies, and yet they do, so the declaration of citizenship for non-citizens renders U.S. law meaningless.

          And that brings up what Biden’s real motive was in his nullification of U.S. law: a naked bid for the Latino vote in a tough election year for Democrats, and more to the point, his own presidential ambitions in 2016.

          Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032814-695151-biden-panders-to-latino-vote-to-make-every-illegal-alien-a-citizen.htm#ixzz2xPXuQTAH
          Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

          • JMax

            “If that sounds strong, bear in mind that Mexican consulates from Brownsville to Los Angeles are being used to sell ObamaCare and all its
            subsidies to Mexican nationals with the collusion of ObamaCare organizers, despite the law’s explicit claim that illegals are ineligible.”

            They are registering immigrants whose US presence is legal because undocumented immigrants are not eligible but legal residents are subject to the mandate.

            “Biden’s unilateral declaration that illegals are Americans amounts to an open invitation to voter fraud just as elections beckon.”

            Not the least bit. You have to prove citizenship to register to vote. I think you are confusing legal residency with citizenship. There are Mexicans who have been legal US residents for decades. Some since early childhood without any memory of any country but the US. Many of them consider themselves Americans. I would. I wouldn’t let them vote, but I’d call them Americans.

            “Just as the law says illegals can’t get ObamaCare subsidies, and yet they do”

            No they don’t. You are terribly misinformed.

            “the declaration of citizenship for non-citizens renders U.S. law meaningless.”

            Nobody declared that these people were citizens. Again, you are clearly confused.

            “a naked bid for the Latino vote in a tough election year for Democrats”

            Boo frickin’ hoo.

          • Stimpy

            I thought you’d enjoy that. Your response is that of someone who just lost the argument. By the way, that is an editorial writer for the Investor’s Business Daily describing the situation, not me. You can deny reality all you want.

          • JMax

            Can’t lose an argument against an editorial that cites no factual sources.

          • legal eagle

            People like Stimpy will believe anything the right wingers feed them….Goldberg often quotes WSJ editorial writers as if they were reporting the facts….Too much Fox News and Limbaugh indocrination has left many on the right with the inability to differentiate between fact based opinion and politically based opinion…

          • legal eagle

            Editorials are opinions not necessarily factual….but you know that?

    • loupgarous

      Statistically, your statement’s a bust. There are no figures showing equal probabilities of NO adverse impact and a SIGNIFICANT adverse impact on employment by increases in minimum wage – or if there are, they’re both counter-intuitive and well concealed.

      As to your second claim, got a source to substantiate that claim? Some people might figure out for themselves that increased minimum wages dry up money available for more jobs. Wages in a stagnant economy (such as this one) are a zero-sum game – the more that the already employed make, the less potential wages there are to hire more employees.

      There’s still another downside to increasing minimum wages by government fiat – it makes American businesses still less competitive in the world marketplace than they already are.

      If we’re not even going to pretend that our businesses have to compete for sales and profits in a global marketplace, then it’s time to go back to Fortress America, raise the tariff walls back up, and allow our businesses to compete against each other within the country – which they can do. They sure can’t compete against factories in countries with very sketchy and weak worker protection and environmental laws – and NO minimum wage!.

      • JMax

        “Statistically, your statement’s a bust.”

        No it’s not. This isn’t really statistics. The CBO said a low of zero and a high of 1,000,000. They put no weighting on either end. They picked 500,000 because it was in the middle.

        As to second claim, my source is math and the CBO estimated 900,000 families could be lifted out of poverty with the increase in the minimum wage. Assuming 4 to a family, that’s 3.6 million people lifted out of poverty.

        “Some people might figure out for themselves that increased minimum wages dry up money available for more jobs.”

        And others might figure out for themselves that when poor people earn more money, they will spend all of it which pumps more money into the economy making money available for yet more jobs.

        With businesses squirreling trillions of money overseas and with people willing to spend an extra 25 cents on a Papa John’s “pizza”, wages are not a zero sum game.

        “it makes American businesses still less competitive in the world marketplace than they already are.”

        Most of the minimum wage jobs are in the fast food industry, hotels, and agriculture, not factories. Which of those jobs are you going to ship overseas?

  • bigmoejr

    Good shot Bernie!!

  • Drew Page

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument that the minimum wage goes up to $10.10/hr. working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year would get you $20,000 a year. $20,000 a year isn’t enough for a single person to support him/herself for one year, let alone a family. Should the goal of minimum wage be to support a “family”? If it is, does that mean regardless of the size of the family? Should a minimum wage be based on the number of dependents a person has? Should a person with (2, 3, 4, 5 or more) dependents receive a higher hourly rate of pay than a person with no dependents, for doing the same job?
    It could be argued that a person with more needs than another, needs to receive a higher rate of pay than someone without all those needs. In fact, I think there was someone who made that argument so time ago. “To each according to his needs. From each according to his abilities.” There seems to be a lot interest these days in the first part of that directive, but not so much about the second part.
    It seems reasonable to me that if I have a job I want someone to do for me, that I should have the right to say how much I am willing to pay to have it done. If someone thinks what I offer isn’t fair compensation for the effort required to do the job, they are free to decline. Why should someone who doesn’t have to pay the wages have the right to dictate to me how much I should have to pay someone else? If I can’t find anyone willing to do the job I have to offer, at the wages I am willing to pay, I will either have to offer more in wages, or do the job myself, or not have the job done.

    • nickshaw

      ‘Zackly, YAAJ.

    • legal eagle

      There are numerous exemption to Federal and State minimum wage laws…Check them out…

  • Seattle Sam

    Since those priced out of a job by a minimum wage are disproportionately minorities, Democrats, by their own standard of disparate impact, are racists.

  • gold7406

    If the administration wanted to do something really monumental, try and reverse the gasp of poverty and entitlement. Millions of immigrants come here to try and make it and many do. The notion that a millions of people born here and can’t seem to get out of first gear, is horrible. Raising the minimum wage only is just a drop in a very large pool.

  • not_fooled

    Well here we going again. Mr. Obama said when he was elected the first time around he would fundamentally change American, and he has. Another 2-3 years to go. Hang in there, He ain’t done yet. It’s going to be really painful.

    • nickshaw

      Even if he loses both houses!
      That’s the really scary part!

      • not_fooled

        If that does happen, we’ll see how he uses his Pen and Phone. He won’t be a happy camper.

        • nickshaw

          Oh, I don’t know, NF.
          Do you really think he’s afraid of a Repub Senate and House?
          I don’t.
          He’ll find a way and there are enough clowns in the Repub party that he’ll get away with it.

          • not_fooled

            He’s doing everything he can so that that senate stays on his side of the board. If he loses it, he’s cooked. He needs the congress more than ever if that happens. They won’t be picking their phones.

          • legal eagle

            “He’s cooked”? How so?

          • not_fooled

            If the senate is lost and he continues to write and re-write the laws as he sees fit, I can see impeachment can’t you? The system relies on corporation on both sides. Has even attempted a debate with the right? His way or the highway is really getting boring.

          • legal eagle

            Senate Republicans are going to have 66 votes for impeachment?….You’re not serious are you?

          • not_fooled

            Look my friend. Your pal Obama is already on the ropes with the general public..Oh wait a minute you don’t believe in the current polls, Ok, let me put it another way. The senate won’t be the one to push for impeachment, it will be the the American people. Why do you continue to support the White House in it’s present form. I’d like you to preach your thoughts to Russia, China, Syria, North Korea etc and have them change their systems to accommodate your mind set. Good Luck.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>If the senate is lost and he continues to write and re-write the laws as he sees fit, I can see impeachment can’t you?<<

            There is absolutely no way Obama will be impeached for anything he has done. There are very few things Obama is above doing, but if Congress were to impeach him, it'd have to be one whopper of a crime he committed. He'd have to make Clinton's crimes look like Jesus Christ's resume.

          • not_fooled

            Hi Jeff,
            Well that might be the case. I’m surprised he still holds a 35-40% rating in support. There is still more than 2 years to go in his mandate. I see continued damage to America in that time frame.

  • Seattle Sam

    The President is denying that increasing the price of something results in a lesser quantity demanded. He would be laughed out of Econ 101.

    • legal eagle

      If Apple hasn’t dissuaded you from that economic myth then nothing ever will……

      • Seattle Sam

        Can I record your conversation with Tim Cook where you tell him he can just keep raising the price for an iPad and unit volume won’t decline a bit?

        • legal eagle

          First of all most Apple products are overpriced and they sell millions of them worldwide….If Tim Cook was worried about unit volume, he would discount prices….Increasing unit volume v. high margins? Depends what your business strategy is?

          • Seattle Sam

            First of all, that’s utter nonsense. Nothing can be “overpriced” if there is a buyer for it at the price offered (ask Miguel Cabrera).

            Secondly, how does that support your contention that quantity demanded is unaffected by the price? That an inverse relationship between price and demand was a “myth”?

          • legal eagle

            Whatever….you’re boring….

          • Seattle Sam

            Can I still be there when you tell Tim that:
            a) His products are over priced
            b) Demand for them will not decline if he raises the price even more

            I guarantee the meeting will not be boring. Short, maybe, but not boring.

          • George Williams

            Like Obama, legal eagle is a narcissist who will never admit when he’s wrong.

          • Jeff Webb

            Spoken like a child who doesn’t understand what the teacher is saying.

          • legal eagle

            So your comparing an entertainer’s compensation to the price of a consumer item? Quite an analogy?…..LMFAO

          • Seattle Sam

            If it’s a myth that price and quantity demanded are inversely related, then that would apply to any economic transaction.

          • George Williams

            I agree with MFA. You are one.

          • George Williams

            Exactly. You have to understand that this concept is impossible for as socialist who believes that prices should be dictated by his personal opinion.

          • George Williams

            Overpriced? Only the free market makes that so, not your socialist idea that the market be regulated. I’ll trust Apple’s judgment over that of a shyster lawyer any time.

    • JMax

      That might be true in a perfect market. There isn’t a perfect market. Anyone who took Econ 101 would know that.

      Workers have less and less bargaining power as corporations with the aid of GOP politicians at the state and level squash the unions. (See VW and Tennessee).

      • Seattle Sam

        Not only took it, but taught it. The demand curves for all but a few Veblen goods slope downward. If you really don’t believe that, I’ve got a proposition for you. You hire me to do some work. I’ll wash dishes, do yard work, do your taxes. Whatever you want. I’ll keep raising my hourly rate and you’ll keep hiring me for just as many hours. I’m, going to be VERY happy.

        • JMax

          Doesn’t that imply that my demand is inelastic?

          • Seattle Sam

            If the quantity demanded is unaffected by changes in the price, then, yes, it would be perfectly inelastic. The fact that you wouldn’t (I hope) accept my offer demonstrates that there is an inverse relationship between the price of my labor and the quantity of it you would demand.

          • JMax

            If I believed that you were going to spend your money in town thus stimulating the economy and making more people able to afford the goods and services I sell, there might well be a flat part of the curve of my demand for your labor.

          • Seattle Sam

            Actually, JMax, any voluntary transaction adds to the economy because both parties are better off than they were before the transaction. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

          • JMax

            There seem to be a lot of businesses and business groups who don’t think higher minimum wage will destroy them.

            http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/higher-minimum-wage-small-business-doesnt-mind

            And some economists think it’s not such a bad idea either. And I’m sure they’ve taken and taught Econ 101.

            http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-14/seven-nobel-economists-endorse-10-dot-10-minimum-wage

          • Seattle Sam

            It will “destroy” nothing (you do like hyperbole, don’t you). A wage price floor creates a wealth transfer to those whose labor value is above the threshold at the expense of those whose value is below the threshold.
            If what you do is worth $9.00 to someone, then a price floor of $10.00 results in your wages dropping to zero. Why should government prevent one individual from selling his services at market value just so that another individual can sell his at more than market value? One of the very early minimum wage actions, the Davis Bacon Act, was taken precisely for this reason — to eliminate competition from Negro labor.
            And I still don’t understand why it’s preferable to have fewer people working at higher wages than more people working at lower wages.
            But since you think that a wage price floor is a good idea economically, can you tell me how it is you know that $10.10 is the optimal minimum price? Why isn’t it $11 or $19? And why would the optimal price be the same in Omaha AND in New York City? Unless, of course, the minimum wage has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics.

          • JMax

            I didn’t say anything about destroying anything. Just the opposite.

            “If what you do is worth $9.00 to someone, then a price floor of $10.00 results in your wages dropping to zero.”

            More theory in a perfect market. Onboarding new employees costs money. It also assumes that the employer fires all employees.

            “And I still don’t understand why it’s preferable to have fewer people working at higher wages than more people working at lower wages.”

            What? You don’t believe in trickle down theory? But really, you’re assuming that there is no slack between what employers are ABLE to pay (get away with) and what they could pay and still be quite profitable. Walmart comes to mind.

            I don’t know what the optimal minimum wage is. But I’ll take the word of well-respected economists that $10.10 will do more good than harm. I don’t disagree that different locations have higher costs of living, but the states that need to raise the minimum wage the most won’t. In this case economics and politics are not mutually exclusive.

        • George Williams

          This guy is clueless about economics. Anyone capable of rational thinking can see that when government interferes in the natural supply and demand of labor and its cost in the market, it has negative unintended consequences. If such acts were positive then socialism would be the perfect economic system.

      • Stimpy

        Get a clue. The workers at VW squashed the union.

        • JMax

          The vote was 53% to 47%, not exactly squashed. Imagine if Corker and others had not interfered in the free market.

          • Stimpy

            The union vote failed. Be a gracious loser.

      • George Williams

        Just how do they squash the unions? The only influence politicians have on unions is establishing right to work states where people actually have a choice of joining a union or not, and by eliminating collective bargaining in state government. The latter has been a source of conflict of interest, where state worker unions donate to legislators to influence them into raising their wages in a never ending spiral that results in unsustainable wage growth and retirement benefits. The most “successful” state unions have run their states into bankruptcy. None of that is squashing unions, but serves to make them ethical and protects the taxpayer’s interests.

    • Psycho Psid

      The slope of the demand curve might come into play. But all this is irrelevant unless you are made out of stone and equate people with commodities and reduce human suffering to mathematical models

      • Seattle Sam

        I’m not sure I can decipher your response, but it seems like you would prefer to employ fewer people at higher prices than more people at lower prices? That’s not at all irrelevant. And you can model almost any human preference empirically. How do you think damages in wrongful death suits are determined?

        • Psycho Psid

          That is because like all right wingers you are made out of stone. Decipher this. Like all trickledown theories, the benefit to the “Job Creator” is axiomatic. And that is all that counts. To what extent anything actually “trickles down”? Don’t know. Don’t care.

          • George Williams

            These are the cruel facts of life. No one entitled to a job. No one is entitled to free medical care. No one is entitled to free-load off another. No one is entitled a home. If free this and that were true then no one would work for a living, but feed off the magic fairies that the Democrats assert produce the resources to make that happen.

          • Psycho Psid

            “In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” … “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

            Any idea who said this? (Hint: It wasn’t Obama)

          • George Williams

            I don’t care if it was Ronald Reagan or the Pope.

          • Psycho Psid

            Didn’t think so. Now go back to choking your chicken.

          • George Williams

            Exactly the type of response I’d expect from a sycophantic supporter of Obama.

          • Psycho Psid

            Exactly the type of response I would expect from a talking cesspool. Blow it out your blowhole you bloviating blowhard

          • George Williams

            Grow up.

          • Seattle Sam

            Steve Jobs is recognized for having added huge value to the world. Do you think he did so because his wealth “trickled down” or because he produced products people really wanted to buy?

            You probably think Bill Gates biggest contribution to the world is the Gates Foundation.

          • Psycho Psid

            No Steve (those jobs aren’t coming back) Jobs didn’t say it. Or Bill Gates. Yeah Jobs and Gates produced products people wanted to buy. What does that have to do with the minimum wage? The Gates Foundation? It might well turn out to be his biggest contribution. We will see. What would you say the Koch Bros biggest contribution to the world? Toxic waste?

          • Seattle Sam

            Clearly we had like-minded debate coaches. He always told me, “When the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. When they’re not, impugn your opponent.” Well done.

          • Psycho Psid

            I didn’t impugn you. Just your trickledown theories. Most right wingers would take “made out of stone” as a compliment.

    • sjangers

      The President probably figures that if his Attorney General can get away with ignoring the laws of the land, he can get away with ignoring the laws of economics.

  • JASVN67

    This Country of ours has been cursed with the worst President in its history. I can’t fathom the people who voted for him. To me, they represent the antithesis of what the founders desired for this new Rebublic. They shed their life’s blood to free themselves from the King and now we have a President who thinks of himself as one! He does not (strong emphasis) unite people, but divides them . It is evident the majority of voters believes as he does. How else do you explain his two terms as President? Socialism good. Conservatism bad. Wealth distribution good. Hard work bad. Dependence on Government good. Self reliance bad. I could go on but Bernie you get my point. One can only hope the voters eluded to earlier feel duped by Obama and suffer from voter remorse. Time will tell, midterm elections are not far away. It is no longer about policy but dictatorship.

    • JMax

      I voted for him twice. Nothing that you just wrote is true. AT ALL.

      BTW Conservatism barely exists in politics today.

      • JASVN67

        Really? Regale Bernie and I with more of your dubious thoughts.

        • JMax

          There’s plenty of dubiousness in your previous post for everyone.

          • JASVN67

            WOW. You’ve left us speechless. Now go back to sleep!

          • JASVN67

            WOW. You’ve left us speechless. Now go back to sleep!

      • George Williams

        All of it is true. Obama has failed on all counts as president, domestic and international policies. The best you can do is say that he got Osama Bin Laden and it’s all down hill from there. We still have what amounts to double digit unemployment, the lowest worker participation rate in history, much lower influence in the political direction of the international community, etc. Hillary couldn’t get her “Reset” button right, as a symbol or by real world measures, as shown by the contempt Russia has shown for Obama and his administration. The world laughs while Obama not only leads from behind, but falls farther behind. The Chinese threaten our allies in South Korea and Japan, emboldened by our unwillingness to show backbone in other parts of the world. We are in retreat and our adversaries know it. Blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.

    • legal eagle

      Great hyperbolic B.S….Thanks Archie Bunker..

      • JASVN67

        Tisks Tisks Pin Head. Can’t help it if the Truth Hurts!

      • JASVN67

        Tisks Risks Pin Head. Can’t help it if the Truth Hurts!

  • gypsyrose1

    A minimum wage increase would give a temporary boost to those people who don’t just get laid off. It also will increase overall costs for everything else, and would actually lower the wages of those making above the minimum, because without a commensurate raise, it moves them closer to the bottom.

  • John H

    Why stop at $10/an hour? Why not make it $15? Heck, $20 is even better! Do these idiots not see that there are repercussions to this kind of stupidity?

    • George Williams

      Sad to say, no.

  • CraigOlsen

    In an effort to explain to the liberals’ tiny minds a basic premise of simple math, why don’t the Republicans explain it this way: raising the minimum wage will take from the lowest income earners and give the difference to the next lowest income earners.

  • Clutch Cargo

    Minimum wage was never meant to support a two-child family, with a mortgage, a car, and two week vacation down the Shore! It simply provides an entry level job so employers can determine if an employee is responsible, and honest, and adaptable. I never would have gotten my first job (at age 13) if the car wash had to put up a salary big enough to buy a house, and a new Mustang, and air fare to Florida. In my experience, 99% of minimum wagers are teens living at home with their parents.

    • legal eagle

      The good old days? “In my experience, 99% of minimum wagers are teens living at home with their parents.” Your opinion is not based upon fact…

      • Seattle Sam

        You’re right. Only 31% are teenagers. Another 24% are age 20 to 24. We don’t know for sure whether they are living with parents, but it seems likely most are, since the average income of households that have someone earning minimum wage is over $50,000.

      • nickshaw

        I admit, to foster an argument instead of a debate, you have the perfect strategy.
        You don’t dispute Clutch’s statements, which are true.
        You attack his opinion based on his experience.
        Whether it’s a fact or not is irrelevant, he qualified his opinion.
        Like all progs, your whole schtick is based on deflection and misdirection.
        Sad, really.

        • legal eagle

          http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm..
          Clutch Cargo made a statement which is factually untrue and so you attack me for pointing out that 99% of minimum wage workers ARE NOT teens livings at home?
          What am I missing?

          • nickshaw

            Deflecting and lying. Typical.
            Clutch’s statement, just to remind you, was “In my experience, 99% of minimum wagers are teens living at home with their parents.”
            You have no idea if that is factually correct or not because you have not had his experience.
            “Legal eagle”? Phffft! You wouldn’t last an hour in a courtroom.

          • George Williams

            He’s never been in a court room. I believe that he’s spent his entire life in the sub-basement of a law firm still copying legal briefs for more successful lawyers and mumbling to himself.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I believe that he’s spent his entire life in the sub-basement of a law firm still copying legal briefs for more successful lawyers<<

            It wouldn't surprise me if he actually worked at a laundry service washing briefs for successful people's children.

    • legal eagle

      http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm
      Here are the BLS statistics. An opinion based upon experience is rarely factually correct. #FACTS

  • Peggy Stacy

    This is part of the Obama/Leftist assault on all pillars of American life. There will be a marginal number who an increase will help, to a point. But largely, there will be a drastic effect from the “law of unintended consequences.” Only, I’m not at all believing that Obama intends for good results. The redistribution mind set will not consider or recognize that their policies may do more harm than good. And in truth, to achieve their goal, that really does not matter.

    • legal eagle

      and it may do more good than harm? What’s your point?

      • Peggy Stacy

        If it were to do more good than harm, it would be in total defiance of not only economic principles but contrary to human nature. My point is that I believe that Obama doesn’t give a whit about whether the results would be good or bad. It is good politics, and good lip service for the populist crowd. It is merely a political move to him. But there are many others OF THE REDISTRIBUTION mind set who truly believe it would solve many problems and be a boon to the economy. AND there are many for whom if it puts more money in their pocket, they don’t care to examine in depth what the actual consequences will be.

  • Lougjr1

    OH my, You never seem to amaze me with your comments. You got it right again Bernie ! I do believe you know Obama as well as I do, since I figured him out the first time I heard him make a speech. I knew he was trouble then and so far he has given me proof that I was right. Thanks, and keep the pressure on this administration until they crack. All nuts crack open sooner or later. LOL

  • Mike

    In Europhttp://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/in-western-europe-the-average-jobless-rate-is-twice-as-high-in-countries-with-a-minimum-wage-vs-those-with-no-minimum/e, see the stats for countries with and without a minimum wage -

  • Buzzeroo

    OK Colleyville—you’re right–I stand corrected and am amending my comment to now include all lazy food stamp receivers who are as lazy and rotten as that bum in California who could easily be working but are not– be they in the North East, West and, of course the South which you seem to be so disdainful of……all of them proudly marching in Obama’s free loader parade to whom he so obviously panders by giving them what amounts to nothing;tells them it’s diamonds and the dumbasses believe it……and then vote for him and his band of thieves.

  • Hammockbear

    Obama has failed the American People. Obama Care deserves a funeral. Fuel prices are climbing, again. 32 cent increase in gasoline in a mere 18 days.
    Been grocery shopping lately? Huge increases on most everything, often now more than a dollar on many items that we will no longer buy. Clothing, often so cheaply made, the clothes last less than half the time of a few years ago. Everything we buy has seen a price hike and those who work, have yet to get a decent raise. Real Estate……..such a sad joke. New places to shop are in the trend, Thrift Stores popped up faster than Wally World. Welcome to America, come here, get pregnant and the taxpayer Actually Pays for it all, being called, Welfare…………. Nothing funny about any of this and to think, we have no true leader. Look forward to positive change in the next presidential election.

    • legal eagle

      and fuel prices are high because of Obama? LMFAO

      • Floridastorm

        Well genius, fuel prices were less than half the price per gallon under George Bush. So, same oil companies. Different president. You do the math.

      • nickshaw

        I seem to recall the Dims blamed it on Bush when it spiked during his terms.

      • EddieD_Boston

        When they were higher than normal when Bush was president it lead the nightly news and was on the front page every day. You don’t remember? When Bush was president gas prices spiked for 4 or 5 months and went back down to $1.80+/-

        At least have some kind of clue as to what you’re talking about. Gas price have nothing to do with who is president but you’d never had know it 6 or 7 years ago.

        You’re a smart guy. Go back and look at the daily media coverage.

      • Hammockbear

        Apparently msnbc forgot to mention. The republicans learned from the democrats that no matter if you pinch your finger in the door, it is ALL Obama’s fault…………. everything wrong is Obama’s fault. yessah…………

  • nickshaw

    I always find it hilarious and vexing at the same time when politicians agree with the CBO’s findings as the last word, the final judgement on policies they promote.
    Except when they disagree with the CBO’s last word, final judgement on policies they promote.
    If the CBO’s findings agree, it is stocked with geniuses and it’s reports are trumpeted far and wide. Disgaree? Hey, what do they know?
    The funny thing is, the CBO is so often wrong that no one of right mind would depend on it’s findings!

  • Chuck

    Love the punchline. Reminds me of a line in a recent K.T. McFarland column–something like: While Putin is busy redrawing the world map, Obama is drawing up his NCAA bracket. Yeah, Obama is all politics, all the time. It’s governing that he never mastered and never will.

    • legal eagle

      So it’s true….there are people out there who take K.T. McFarland seriously?…..LOL

      • Chuck

        It was easy, when her observations were right on, particularly this one. Putin is taking Obama a lot less seriously right now. Russian troops are amassed on the border, awaiting his command to commence Round 2. Probably, then, it’ll be time for another Obama vacation.

        • legal eagle

          Just like Putin took Bush seriously when Georgia was invaded? And what do you believe Obama and NATO should do about Putin?

          • Chuck

            Putin picked his spot very carefully with Bush, waiting until Aug. 2008 to invade Georgia–in the waning days of his administration, with the Obama campaign in full gear. He has no such compunction now with Obama.

            What was especially revealing to me at the time was the difference in reaction between the Obama and McCain camps. McCain responded with swift denunciation of Soviet aggression in Georgia. All remained silent from Obama for days until he finally made some lame comment that both sides needed to hit the negotiating table. I thought, “What?!” That was my first inkling that Obama was utterly clueless on foreign policy.

            Now that we appear to be closing in on the Malaysian plane, maybe now we can organize a searching party for the Obama foreign policy.

          • legal eagle

            McCain was President when? You know you are just spouting hyperbole? I can imagine your reaction if Gore was President on 9/11/2001…..but because Bush was POTUS…not his fault?
            Pure political hypocrisy on your part…Guess it was FDR’s fault that Hitler invaded Poland? LOL

          • Chuck

            Obama ran for president in 2008 against McCain. The Georgia invasion occurred during that time, forcing both campaigns to issue responses, with eye-opening differences, as I explained. Meanwhile, radicals are going to attack, no matter who is president. But when they smell weakness in the U.S. president, they are especially emboldened to act. Al-Assad got away with murder in Syria, the Iranian mullahs continue their drive to nukes, Putin will continue on the march, and you’ll see China seize Japanese islands. What will Obama do now? Launch another apology tour, or announce another red line he doesn’t back up?

          • legal eagle

            I hate to break the news to you but the U.S. does not have the will or the resources to act as the world’s police force?
            I thing Reagan recognized that during the Lebanon bombing’s in 1983….

          • nickshaw

            Don’t forget the economic problems we were experiencing at the same time, Chuck.
            Yes, Putin knew there was no way in hell Bush could respond.

          • mike strieker

            Yeah, his lame comment was like his voting present in the senate. He has no moral priciples, only political coniving

          • mike strieker

            Hgfffff

          • Chuck

            Exactly right, Mike. You know, Legal Eagle had asked what Obama should do now about Putin. To me, the plan is simple:

            1) Ban the use of coal.

            2) Mandate that Russia go on Obamacare,

            3) Don’t allow any drilling on Russian public land.

            4) Have the EPA pass rulings on Russian business.

            5) Redefine the full-time Russian work week to 30 hours.

            6) Raise the Russian minimum wage.

            7) Mandate overtime pay for government employees.

            8) Demand the Russian government pay free welfare benefits to unqualified citizens and Illegal immigrants.

            I could go on, but I guarantee these measures would bring the Russian economy to its knees; after all, it has been working in the U. S. since 2009.

          • Floridastorm

            I agree. Bush did very little over Georgia. He did send warships to the black sea and provided military advisers to Georgia. But that was it. We should do exactly what we did with the Afghans when the Soviet Union tried to occupy Afghanistan. We gave the Afghans shoulder fired Stinger Missiles which enable the Afghans to knock out so many Soviet tanks, helicopters, and convoy trucks, that The Soviet Union did not have the resources to continue with fighting the Afghans and pulled out. Maybe we should do the same for the Ukraine.

          • legal eagle

            Perhaps we will help arm the Ukraine government but it will be done covertly. Placing blame for Putin’s actions on the U.S. government is best left for pundits, who have a need to justify their paychecks, by perpetuating the myth that the U.S. is the world’s police force..

      • OldDave

        Hey, Eagle. I’ll bet if you look long enough and hard enough you may find five or six people who take you seriously.

        • legal eagle

          http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage
          I believe the vast majority of Americans take my position seriously….

          • nickshaw

            That’s because the vast majority of Americans are compassionate people.
            Given the facts as to what would happen as the result of an increase of the minimum wage (as outlined by the CBO, noted here) and that, in fact, more people would be hurt for the benefit of an even fewer number of people than before such a policy went into effect, I think they might have a different opinion.
            Of course, all prog policy is based on “feelings” and depend on (not without reason!) voters not having a clue.

  • Michael

    This also does not take into considertion that higher wages cause higher prices. If those now making $7/hour will make $10/hour then those currently making $10 will have to be paid more as well. If everyone in a grocery store get paid more, how much do the price of groceries go up? It is very questionable just how much anyone is being “helped” by this pay increase.

  • Jarob54

    Low skills will only get one so far in life. You can arbitrarily raise the minimum wage, and those working for minimum wage will still be working for minimum wage and so the question then. Why are they working in a minimum wage job?
    Seems the always benevolent democrats are always seeking ways to ensure their minimum wage voting block will always have a minimum wage job. Now they want to ease the complaining of their minimum wage voting block by throwing them a minimum wage pay increase. Always loving, always benevolent, always cunning, always crafty democrats. They want to ensure that they “own” their democrat base and never allow them to stray from their democat dogma.
    And never let their minimum wage base know that there is a way out of minimum wage jobs. Should that happen those in minimum wage jobs may change their partiy allegiance, once they have seen the light.

    • legal eagle

      As opposed to the Republican’s corporate benefactors? Same arguments have been made since 1932…The U.S. is a consumer based economy. If workers can’t afford to consume, the economy suffers…

      • nickshaw

        Oh, like the Dims don’t have corporate benefactors.
        Please.
        It is a fact that corporations, within a truly competitive structure, will always strive to lower the price of their product to entice more buyers.
        With few exceptions, a corporation or organization that does not face competition raises it’s prices without a commensurate increase in costs.
        Of course, yours is the typical opinion of corporations expressed by progs.
        The vast majority of corporations exist to provide a good or service to the most customers it can, at a reasonable profit.
        Raising prices beyond what a consumer can pay is tantamount to corporate suicide.
        Unless they are a “favored” corporation. Like GE, for example.

        • legal eagle

          Corporations will always strive to lower their prices?

          Are you living in America or Fantasyland?

          • Charlie

            legal eagle, you spend untold amounts of time arguing any and (seemingly) every point made. But you obviously have an over-inflated impression of your knowledge of corporations. The profits are in manufacturing. Manufacturing is driven by market share. Market share is driven by price.
            Look it up, or continue to say the damn fool things you always say. I really don’t care.

          • legal eagle

            and the manufacturing jobs are in Asia because of low wages….What’s your point?

          • legal eagle

            So Walmart’s profits are in manufacturing? What are you talking about?

          • Charlie

            Eagle, sorry to ignore you for so long but I’m trying a new strategy . It seems your employment career did not include the business world. That’s OK.
            Quick teach. Retailers base their pricing off of manufacturers cost. If Walmart has it, a manufacturer made it. OK, what else can I explain to you before class is out for the day?
            I know you’re not stupid, so figure it out from here.

          • legal eagle

            I was responding to your statement “The profits are in manufacturing.”
            Walmart’s profits are not “in manufacturing”….case closed?

          • nickshaw

            As the sole owner of a number of corporations and having many friends that own or run corporations, I know what I’m talking about.
            It’s about market share first, then profits.
            You, on the other hand, haven’t a clue.

          • legal eagle

            and it’s about being able to fund the company while you are building market share? Thanks for the wonderful lesson in economic theory….LOL

          • EddieD_Boston

            Competion brings down prices. Economics 101.

          • legal eagle

            Like in the airline business….LOL

          • Hammockbear

            Apparently msnbc forgot to mention the GE plant that will soon shut down in the USA so to start manufacturing in Bejing. Also, this was after Obama and Immelt got friendly. And something about not having to pay taxes………

  • Buzzeroo

    Obama, like all egotistical bullies is only cunning when he has no opposition who has the power to oppose him. His unilateral $ 10.10 per hr, minimum wage on federal jobs is nothing but smoke to look and sound good to the mooches like the utter filching fool in California living on undeserved food stamps so as to give him another reason to vote for democrats. Government contracts for the most part require people that are more highly skilled than the shlubs who could only qualify for a minimum wage….All that would happen if he somehow prevailed and got the ten buck minimum wage to be the law of the land would be nothing more than several new boatloads of unemployed shlubs who nobody would be stupid enough to pay over $400 per week to stumble uselessly around while they tried to learn to be useful. I might add that, in every single case in America, whenever a shlub succeeds in learning to be useful to a business, he or she is paid even more that Obama’s naive, phony $10,10 so he’d best stop beating his gums before he completely ruins the unskilled’s lives even more than he already has by denying them any opportunity to be employed at all–anywhere.

    • Colleyville

      Yeah, ZERO white people in the South are on foodstamps.

      You guys make your own side look stupid.

      • nickshaw

        Weird.
        I didn’t see where Buzz mentioned the color of “shlubs” but, you seem to have divined this with no problem at all.
        Must be one of those “dog whistles” that only progs are aware of.

      • Robert C

        Have to agree. Not one thing said in Buzzeroo’s comment had so much as a twinge to do with race. Guess stupid is clear here!

      • legal eagle

        You can’t say “white people'” on this site…Readers are very sensitive to any implication that racism still exists in America…LOL

        • Jeff Webb

          >>You can’t say “white people'” on this site…Readers are very sensitive to any implication that racism still exists in America…LOL<<

          You're the only proven bigot around here and you know it.

          • legal eagle

            As compared to you…a proven idiot?….LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            >>As compared to you…a proven idiot?<<

            Too early to conclude that. We'll revisit it after I start saying stuff like "corpse-man."

  • MaleMatters

    Good column as per usual, Bernie.

    Lately a min. wage hike is being promoted as a way to help women, whom Democrats cast as victims of Republicans.

    Are women as a group victims? Here’s what the Democrats desperately do not want you to know:

    In general, women not only live longer and enjoy better health than men, who die sooner and at a higher rate of the 12 leading causes of death, they also control most of consumer spending and most of the nation’s wealth. Soon they will control even more of the nation’s wealth.

    “Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband.” -http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women

    Sound like an economically oppressed group in need of a min. wage hike?

    Here’s one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts:

    “In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm

    A thousand laws won’t close that gap.

    In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is another feel-good bill that turned into another do-nothing law (political intentions disguised as good intentions do not necessarily make things better; sometimes they make things worse)…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.

    That’s because women’s pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working outside the home if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman, as illustrated by such titles as this: “Gender wage gap sees women spend 7 weeks working for nothing” http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cwgbaueysnsn/rss2/.)

    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)

    The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:

    -accept low wages

    -refuse overtime and promotions

    -choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html)

    -take more unpaid days off

    -avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)

    -work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time more often than their male counterparts (as in the above example regarding physicians)

    Any one of these job choices lowers women’s median pay relative to men’s. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.

    Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.

    “The more alarming wage gap might be the one between mothers and childless women: One recent paper (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146522483/the-wage-gap-between-moms-other-working-women) found that women with kids make roughly 7 to 14 percent less than women without them.” So why do organized feminists and the liberal media focus only on — and criticize — the wage gap between men and women? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-mommy-track-myth/283557/

    More in “Does the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

  • buckrodgers

    During President Obama first two years in office, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congrees with a super majority and could of passed a higher minnium wage, imagration reform,equal pay for women or any other legislation they wanted without NO Republican Support, SO WHY DIDN’T THEY AND WHY AREN’T REPUBLICANS ASKING THAT QUESTION EVERY SINGLE DAY.

    • legal eagle

      Because your facts are incorrect…Dems did not have “supermajority” for Obama’s first two years, and digging out of the Bush economic disaster was the priority…..#FACTS

      • You are a joke!

        Blaming Bush is so passé. Unfortunately the Dems’ digging was a 5 trillion debt increase. Boy that was really an answer to Bush. Take that Repubs.

        • legal eagle

          Didn’t hear you complaining when the deficit rose substantially under Bush? or under Reagan?

          • nickshaw

            Nor did I hear Bush or Reagan promise “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end
            of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to
            make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I
            refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and
            that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for
            getting our spending under control.” (Skeeter, Feb. 2009)
            And then proceed to increase it.
            That’s apart from the national debt, a totally different animal, which Skeeter managed to add to by more than nearly all previous presidents combined!
            Yeah, about that “But I
            refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay”.
            Try to stop looking foolish on a national forum such as this. It tends to lower all of our scores.

          • legal eagle

            Haven’t the deficits decreased substantially?

        • legal eagle

          I’m stating a fact…..Blame whomever you want…

      • Colleyville

        Well said

      • nickshaw

        So, Dims can’t walk and chew gum at the same time?
        Are you seriously trying to imply that every single Dim in the House and Senate was working full time on the “Bush economic disaster”?
        And though they may not have had a supermajority for those two years, they certainly had enough support, as they do even today, from squishy Repubs to get some of these things passed.
        Nope, most of them were working full time on ObamaKare ’cause that is the holy grail of prog governance.
        And they had to work full time because it was resisted so much by the electorate.
        FACTS (and I don’t need some puerile hashtag!)

        • legal eagle

          “Are you seriously trying to imply that every single Dim in the House and Senate was working full time on the “Bush economic disaster”?”
          Do you actually believe that U.S. economic policy is created in Congress?
          Also, what you said was factually incorrect hence the hashtag….don’t get insulted because you were incorrect…

          • Floridastorm

            Please get your facts straight. The housing bubble caused the collapse of the economy in 2008. The housing bubble was caused by sub prime mortgages issued with little or no management or verification processes. Banks, that until then, did not issue sub prime mortgages, but were bullied and threatened by the federal government, under the direction of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, to issue these bogus mortgages. Before all of this happened Bush had requested that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac be audited many times and was fought every step of the way.

            https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

          • legal eagle

            This is factual nonsense but if “Nice Deb” is your source of economic reality, so be it…Ignorance must be so blissful…

          • nickshaw

            “Do you actually believe that U.S. economic policy is created in Congress?”?
            Why not?
            YOU obviously believe economic policy is entirely at the behest of the president or it wouldn’t be the “Bush economic disaster”, would it?
            You progs are so freaking transparent and yet you are able to convince the lo-fos that a bad economy is the government’s fault if it’s a Repub president but, the fault of outside influences (or a Repub Congress!) when it’s a Dim president.
            I gotta’ admit, you’re darned good at snowing the gullible. Too bad that’s quickly coming to an end, eh?
            Lies and hypocrisy always catch up to you in the end.

    • MaleMatters

      You raise a point I have made many times. Thanks.

  • Rosie Riveter

    Mr. Goldberg, you deserve a raise!

    • legal eagle

      Rube Goldberg?

  • legal eagle

    Bernie- You’ve made a wonderful argument for a lower minimum wage….Let’s make the minimum wage $3.00 per hour…According to Republican dogma, that should create millions of jobs , and keep millions more of Americans in poverty….

    • Floridastorm

      Well, legal, There are already millions of employees making $3.00 per hour and less. Most service industry employees (restaurants, hotels, and others) make a lot less than minimum wage. Why doesn’t the government enforce a minimum wage of $10.10 on these companies? Try it and see what happens. Talk about losing millions of jobs and putting thousands of businesses out of business. Do you understand the Capitalism and Free enterprise concept of supply and demand and profit margin?

      • MaleMatters

        Thanks for stealing my thunder!

      • legal eagle

        “Well, legal, There are already millions of employees making $3.00 per hour and less. Most service industry employees (restaurants, hotels, and others) make a lot less than minimum wage.”
        Can you cite me something to verify your assertion or is that your “Opinion”?

        • Floridastorm

          https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wages/wagehrfacts.shtml

          I believe that $3.63 per hour is below the minimum wage, which is what most service industry employees are paid. Geez. Have you heard of Google?

          • legal eagle

            You might read what you’ve cited….As per Maryland law the exemption is for establishments that gross less than $250K per year….I stated at a Hyatt recently…Think Hyatt does not pay minimum wage?

        • sjangers

          The specific wage isn’t cited, but BLS reports that in 2011 approximately 2.2 million American hourly workers were earning below the minimum wage. You can find that information here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm .

          The majority of those workers are probably workers who may have tip income, although many states do permit sub-minimum wage for youth workers and there are federal DOL provisions for sub-minimum wage in very specific circumstances. It’s possible that this figure may also include farm workers, although that isn’t clear from a casual reading of the BLS information. That 2.2 million number won’t take into account those workers who are being paid for piece-work or the self-employed who are averaging less than minimum wage for their efforts.

          • legal eagle

            From the same report…

            “Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage”

          • Sadlystupidpeoplevote

            Research has shown? What research? Show us some empirical data legal eagle. sjangers cites his source. Where’s yours? My guess: you’re young, Liberal, have no idea of how a business is operated, think hybrids are going to save the world, believe religion and religious leaders are responsible for more suffering, evil, and death, in history than anything/one secular (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot), quick look those names up. Research has shown that young liberals are great at blaming others for their ignorance. Please, oh please, do share more of your genius with us. Share with us what else research has shown. We need answers! And you apparently the informed voter who can provide them.

          • legal eagle

            Footnotes from the same BLS report cited by sjangers…

            http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage

          • sjangers

            You questioned Floridastorm’s assertion that there are already millions of people making less than minimum wage. The BLS report provides evidence to support that claim. Now you want to quibble over how many more hundreds of thousands aren’t counted in the BLS information because they are paid for piece-work, are low-wage salaried, or are self-employed with a low average hourly return for their labor? I guess that should tell me that you know the law and the facts aren’t in your favor on this issue.

    • Sadlystupidpeoplevote

      Sadly, stupid people, maybe you’re among them maybe not, vote. Please share your genius with us: name a period when there was no poverty, as we define it, here. Should it be eliminated? Absolutely. Will it be? Never. Why? Because stupid people continue to believe the pre-election vacuous rhetoric DC spews. Fluff and attack campaigns unfortunately work very well, Why? …stupid people… Also, poverty is a relative term. Visit South America, Eastern Europe, Africa. They have poverty. buckrodgers posted that Dems controlled congress for Obama’s first two years. Why didn’t this genius, for whom I’m guessing you voted, raise minimum wage? Dem dogma prevented it? Evil Reps somehow infiltrated along the Illuminati, CFR, the Koch Brothers, etc., and stopped it. You’re another whining Liberal likely among those who shares any stupid facebook post so long as it vilifies the Reps. And they’re on the internet so they must be true. Share with us more of your genius.

      • legal eagle

        Here we go again….The new Limbaugh dog whistle…Stupid people vote Democratic….Smart people like yourself are intellectually superior….Republican Fantasyland?

        • Sadlystupidpeoplevote

          Name calling? Making assumptions? Perhaps your reading comprehension needs some honing. Not only are you wrong you’re a reactionary fool. Limbaugh is an idiot as are Hannity and O’reilly, et al. Nowhere did you read “stupid people vote Democratic”. And I’m not a Republican. Never will be. For a legal eagle your ability to form complete thoughts and convert them to words is in need of help. So, rather than post talking points you get from Maddow or Lawrence O’donnell share some of your original thoughts. If you’re capable.

      • legal eagle

        It’s called democracy….Everyone’s vote counts…What makes you “smarter” that anyone else? Nothing like false arrogance for the Limbaugh crowd…make them feel superior to those who don’t listen to “Rush the Entertainer.”

        • Sadlystupidpeoplevote

          At least I can read and spell. If that makes me “smarter”, as you for some reason place in quotation marks, then I guess I am. And it’s not democracy. It’s a Democratic Republic. Quick, google that so you’ll know the difference before posting more of your insight.

  • Wally C

    If the President had ANY business experience at all, maybe one would give the a second thought. He doesn’t, but voters will only hear that he tried to get them higher wages. In fact all they will receive if passed will be more misery..

  • savage24

    The liberal/progressive movement’s war on poverty has done nothing but create more poverty. The welfare and food stamp programs continue to grow by leaps and bounds while the rest of the country has gone stagnant. The spending and control mentality of a government run amok makes this a certainy, while there can be no vibrant economy with this type policy.

    • Floridastorm

      The problem is that the 50 % of the ignorant Americans believe in fairy tales. The same ones that want that Obama stash, Obama phones, and free welfare for life. Unfortunately, they are still allowed to vote. It’s a great country, ain’t it?

      • legal eagle

        So are you smarter, or just more arrogant, than the “ignorant Americans” you mention?

        • Floridastorm

          I do know that I’m smarter than you are but maybe not as arrogant. After all, you’re a Leftist so you should know what ignorant means.

          • legal eagle

            You said “50% of the ignorant Americans”… I didn’t say it…Don’t write crap if you can’t defend your crap…

          • Floridastorm

            Those are the voters for Obama. Need I make it anymore clearer.

      • savage24

        You are right. not only do they vote, they procreate adding to the rolls of the takers.

  • rbblum

    ‘Democrat politics as usual’? Why not be a bit more descriptive: progressive values and ideals that are contrary to capitalism and free markets; basic values and ideals embedded within our constitutional republic?

  • Gloria

    It’s pretty simple really. Employer to employee (boss to worker for those who don’t know big words) – “The good news is you are getting an increase in your hourly wage to $10.10/hour! Oh, by the way, the bad news is that your pink slip will be enclosed with that first bigger paycheck.” Sorry Charlie, for those who are unfamiliar with Economics 101, or simple math, and for those who have never in their life actually run a ‘for profit’ business. It does not compute.
    Even Janet Yellen, according to the WSJ, sees the CBO as credible.

    • Sadlystupidpeoplevote

      Well put Gloria! Liberals want to live in a society (Utopia) that has never nor will ever exist. They don’t compare our wretched horrible evil American culture to one that is actually achievable. This is what keeps them occupied. Sadly it also keeps them voting.

      • Gloria

        Thanks for the praise! Too bad your name is so accurate : (

    • legal eagle

      So now Republicans are concerned about workers? LOL

      • sjangers

        What’s funny about that, Eagle? Most Republicans are workers. ; )

        • legal eagle

          I’m referring to Republican ideology…

          • sjangers

            We’re still concerned about workers. We just think that workers’ interests are usually best served when government doesn’t get involved.

      • Jeff Webb

        >>So now Republicans are concerned about workers? LOL<<

        One thing's for certain: the whole notion that democrats are sincerely concerned about workers is a crock.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Obama’s so concerned with workers that he’s put a record number of them on vacation over the past five years. What a guy. lol.

  • Crapocalypse

    Robert Heinlein wrote (and I paraphrase):
    I knew that the world was going to hell when a politician said “I promise that everyone in America will make higher than average salaries.” And no-one laughed.

    • MaleMatters

      Ah, Heinlein. He used to be one of my fav sci-fi writers.

    • legal eagle

      and who is proposing that?

  • Birdie

    Fact is, it doesn’t really matter anyway because Mr. Obama encourages people NOT to work anyway.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Obama’s economic plan makes zero economic sense. Uneducated dolts have no clue. What makes me more mad are people like Rachael Maddow, who studied philosophy at Oxford and is too clueless to understand she didn’t learn anything after spending all that time and money. People like her are ruining the country by enabling the stupid.

    • heather

      Well said!

    • Ted Crawford

      It is simply, one more, among thousands, example of the FACT that whenever, Philosophy meets reality, Philosophy takes a terrible beating!
      Poor Rachel is either the exclamation point to Henry Adams belief; “Nothing in Education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts!”
      OR
      She is simply another Progressive Useful Idiot, who knows full well she is spewing garbage, but, given that her $7 Million a year salary has made her a Multi- Millionaire, will continue to do so. That is untill she is successful and the Progressives take complete control, at which point she will be among the first to visit the Camps! Her idiocy being no longer necessary!

    • MaleMatters

      “People like her are ruining the country by enabling the stupid.”

      On that note:

      “Why Barack Obama Won Twice”
      http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/why-barack-obama-won-twice/

    • Floridastorm

      Proves that Oxford is not the elite institution it used to be.

    • legal eagle

      Only economic geniuses like yourself have a clue?

      • EddieD_Boston

        I was an accounting major undergrad and have an MBA. So yes, I believe I know enough to have an educated opinion. Lemme guess….Political science major? Or maybe English?

        • legal eagle

          So, based upon your education, can I assume you know the difference between opinion and facts?

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    Interesting how we’ve had minimum wages of various types for 100 years, and yet poverty hasn’t been solved. You really hit the nail on the head, Bernie; about Americans ‘not following the news’.

  • Brian Stover

    A higher minimum wage helps those who will be working after the increase takes effect.

    It hurts those who will be laid off, those who need entry level jobs that will no longer exist, and those whose skill set will be replaced by technology.

    It is interesting how so many workplace regulations are promulgated by people who have never had to meet a payroll.

    As always, the laws of unexpected and unintended consequences will come into play.

    • Patrick H.

      Exactly, minimum wage laws benefit those who are already working and keep out those who are currrently unemployed.

      • Floridastorm

        It doesn’t benefit those that are already working if they suddenly are not working.

        • legal eagle

          and now you’re worried about the unemployed?…..LOL

  • George Williams

    This is not about minimum wage for the people in the lowest category of wage earner, but about paying off the unions whose base line wages will be affected by it. The minute a new minimum wage becomes law, the unions will be recalibrating their wages to argue that they are justified an increase, one far above the little dictator’s position. Obama could care less about minimum wages for non union workers, because they cannot afford to contribute to the Democratic Party’s war chest.

    • Psycho Psid

      Nothing wrong with you that a goodfistfuckingwon’t cure

      • unions suck

        unions = thugs and goons? seems you prove it!

      • Floridastorm

        Ah, the intelligence of a union thug. Makes my heart beat more rapidly.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    There should be NO minimum wage. In days gone by people with money to spend hired people. That is, they didn’t just buy piles of stuff, they bought themselves leisure time. (Butlers, Housekeepers, Drivers, Gardeners etc.) The fastest way to get a job, is to already have a job. The fastest way to higher pay, is have a higher demand for labor. Who wouldn’t hire someone to mow their lawn, wash their car, do their laundry, and prune their trees, if it were affordable? As labor gets sucked up, it’s price goes up. As folks gain experience working, they become more valuable, and thus their price goes up. A society at full employment, (and lower wages) would still better than a society with high unemployment. (unless you’re a rich liberal politician, who’s more committed to his self aggrandizing Government program, than seeing self sufficient families providing for their own care)

    • Colleyville

      Yeah, why can’t we be more like China.

    • legal eagle

      So tell us when the U.S. was at “full employment”?

  • sjangers

    When the CBO agrees with the President and Congressional Democrats, they trumpet CBO studies as a gold standard of non-partisan analysis. When CBO disagrees with the President, he and Democrats have considerably less respect for the CBO’s conclusions.

    Common sense, and just a little casual analysis, suggests that the CBO has it right this time. There are approximately eighty million hourly wage jobs in the U. S. economy. Roughly 1.7 million of those positions are paid the federal minimum wage. A 39% increase in minimum wage- or about $3.19 for each hour of labor after the addition of fringe expenses- will probably cost a fair number of minimum wage workers their jobs.

    Businesses aren’t charities. They exist to turn a profit for their owners on invested time and capital. Few people are in business to lose money. Business owners may not be eager to cut back their work force, reduce the scale of business, or close doors, but most are realists who will do the math and make their decisions based on what’s best for them and their business. They aren’t going to maintain business activity at current levels if they think it will be a bad investment of their time and money, whatever the benefit to employees. They certainly aren’t going to accept bad business risks just to benefit vote-scrounging elected officials. When the projected return on investment for a business drops below the level of government bonds, for example, all that money goes immediately into the bond market.

    Since a large number of minimum wage jobs exist in industries that aren’t enormously profitable, it’s reasonable to predict that requiring them to increase a portion of their labor expenditures by a factor of .39 will result in managers taking a much closer look at how best to continue the function of that low-skill labor. In some cases, no doubt, managers will conclude that the function is necessary, they’ll increase the labor expense as government dictates, and will hope they can pass the cost along to consumers, make cuts in other expenses (perhaps including salary increases for higher-paid workers), or that the increased expenditure won’t necessitate the eventual reduction or elimination of the business activity.

    But in many cases managers will determine that they’re better off eliminating positions and will either ask other workers to add the job function to their existing responsibilities, or will hope that the business can continue without that job function. In a few cases we’ll likely also have managers making the determination that a large low-cost labor force and limited profit margins won’t allow their business to survive a 39% increase in labor costs. So their business will close, putting all the employees that it supported- minimum wage and otherwise- out of work.

    It’s perhaps understandable that the President and most elected Democrats don’t understand the potential impact on businesses and workers of such a dramatic hike in minimum wage. While most are eager to pass laws that impose additional costs on business owners, few of them have more than a passing familiarity with what’s involved in running a successful business. As one well-known liberal warrior, one business bankruptcy and ten years removed from the US Senate, once observed, “I … wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day”. That font of wisdom, of course, was George McGovern. He made that observation almost twenty-five years of accumulated government rules and regulation prior to today.

    If there’s any justice in the world, President Obama and some of the social justice warriors in Congress will also be condemned to spending the rest of their lives earning a living by running businesses with their own money and under the regulatory regime they’ve imposed on the rest of us.

    • legal eagle

      The last time I looked, the largest employer in America was Walmart.. Walmart’s policy is to pay low wages with minimal benefits.

      Their low wage policy forces their workers to supplement their incomes by getting government assistance, such as food stamps etc.,

      A recent report estimated the Walton’s net worth at $100 billion making them the wealthiest family in America , if not the world…
      You can draw your own conclusions…

      • sjangers

        I probably don’t draw the same conclusion as you do, Eagle. Most low wage workers are employed by businesses that don’t have large profit margins. Businesses that do have larger profit margins tend to pay more than minimum wage, even to low skill workers, in order to avoid the costs associated with employee turnover. Larger employers, like WalMart, as well as many grocery stores and fast food outlets, pay minimum or near-minimum wages because they make their profits on volume of business, not the value added of worker productivity.

        A business like WalMart isn’t turning a huge profit on each sale. If they had to pay forty or fifty percent higher wages to the workers who produce their products (indirectly) and their direct employees, it would add substantially to their costs per unit. That, in turn, would require them to raise prices on most store items, would make them less competitive with other retailers, and would drive down volume. That drives down profits. That makes many WalMart outlets unprofitable and leads to the closing of stores.

        WalMart could probably afford to pay employees another five or ten percent on wages, although they choose not to do so to maximize return on investment. Forcing WalMart to increase labor costs by up to forty percent in many instances would probably put them out of business in the long run. Despite their low labor costs, the business is struggling to remain competitive in many of their markets. Consequences of that are that many liberal do-gooders get to feel good about themselves and blame greedy businessmen when stores close and unemployment goes up. They probably won’t even be aware that we’ll all then be paying more for the products we now buy at WalMart, making it harder for many Americans to get by on their already-marginal incomes. So employment goes down a bit and cost of living goes up a bit, while liberals are boasting about how much they care about working people and complaining about how greedy big businesses are. A $10.10 minimum wage sounds like a win-lose-lose-lose proposition to me.

        • legal eagle

          I believe your theory is disproven by Costco…Costco pays substantially higher wages than Walmart and is a highly successful retailer…
          Your argument is theoretical not based in reality…Walmart would go out of business if the minimum wage was raised? You’ve got to be kidding?

          • sjangers

            I know a lot more about the WalMart business model than the Costco model, Eagle. As far as I know, there isn’t a Costco within a hundred miles of my home. What kind of retailer is Costco? How do they generate profits? What role do their employees play in adding value to sales?

            I’m afraid that at this point the only evidence I have that this is an apples-to-apples comparison is your word, and you’ve warned us many times here that an individual poster’s word is rather insufficient evidence. Please provide more information about the Costco business model, how that model compares to the WalMart model, and why you think two businesses competing in the same markets using the same model is likely to be healthy for either business.

          • legal eagle
          • legal eagle
          • sjangers

            Thanks for the link, Eagle. I’m not sure if it was intentional, but you apparently sent the same link twice. I tried both and was directed to a commercial site both times before I could connect to Forbes. You aren’t some sort of closet capitalist, are you?

            After looking over the Forbes information I’m still a bit confused. Aside from learning that the author of the column, Rick Ungar, gets a raging hard-on whenever Costco or raising the minimum wage is mentioned, and that too much exposure to WalMart apparently isn’t as healthy for his libido, I’m a little lost as to how this information relates to the theme of Bernie’s column and my original post. I know I did ask for more information about the Costco business model, and there were a few useful pieces of information that I could infer from Ungar’s column, but it didn’t bring me much closer to understanding how my “theory”, as you characterized it, is disproved by the Costco experience.

            After some additional research of my own, I think I can conclude that WalMart and Costco are similar businesses, but that it isn’t a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. Both are retailers that sell similar products, although I gather that Costco may be trying to reach a middle class consumer while WalMart is targeting a lower socio-economic demographic. WalMart is also at a somewhat different stage of its business cycle than Costco, with WalMart in business for more than fifty years and well-established in most US markets and Costco in business just over thirty years and still expanding. Both are very large operations, but WalMart had about four times the volume of sales as Costco did last year. WalMart has about six times more locations than Costco and about twelve times as many employees. So despite the fact that Costco is WalMart’s closest retail competitor in the U.S., there are distinct differences between the two companies that may account for different approaches to employee compensation. There’s no evidence in the information that I’ve uncovered that suggests one approach to compensation is preferable to the other, only that both approaches appear to satisfy the needs of the respective companies.

            Some additional facts: Costco charges an annual membership fee for shoppers while most WalMart locations do not. Costco pays employees an hourly rate that is a little over 42% higher than the rate paid by WalMart and, while it’s a little more difficult to be precise about benefits, Costco’s total average annual compensation package appears to be about 75% more valuable than that offered by WalMart. Costco appears to place a higher value on well-compensated and motivated employees than WalMart, allowing them to get more labor out of each employee, although whether or not the labor-to-cost ratio favors Costco is more difficult to determine. Some consumer surveys suggest that shoppers find Costco employees more engaged and helpful than WalMart employees, but there’s not much that I can determine from the evidence that suggests this gives Costco a competitive advantage that offsets their higher labor cost. Also, Costco may be benefitting from their participation model that does encourage shoppers to do the majority of their business with that company once they’ve bought into the membership.

            The net result is that, at least in the last year, Costco has experienced about three times higher sales growth than WalMart experienced. Figures over the past five years show that Costco is still experiencing a higher rate of sales growth than WalMart, although the growth rate between the two retailers is more even over that period. That suggests positive things for the long-term health of the Costco business model, but it doesn’t necessarily suggest that the WalMart model is failing. After all, while Costco stock value has increased by 250% in the past five years to WalMart’s 143%, WalMart’s annual dividend yield is about 2.28 times greater than Costco’s. WalMart is a cash cow for investors while Costco is a rising star. Their respective profiles are bound to be somewhat different, but no one in their right mind would tell you that either is a bad place for investors to put their money.

            So what can we conclude from all the data? Nothing dramatic about the issues we’re discussing here, I would say. After collecting and processing all this information, I’m still at a bit of a loss as to how you conclude that the Costco experience “disproves” anything I’ve written in my earlier posts. Would you care to offer more evidence to support your contention than just the stains on the fly of Rick Ungar’s trousers?

          • legal eagle

            The cost of low wages at Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) are at the center of a new report released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Low wages are an issue across the economy, but Wal-Mart, as the country’s largest private employer, has long faced closer scrutiny than other companies.

            According to the report, the cost of Wal-Mart’s low wages isn’t just felt by workers like Stinnett, but also transferred to American taxpayers. The report zeroes in on Wal-Mart in Wisconsin. That’s because the state releases information on how many workers are enrolled in its public health care program broken down by employer.

            At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

            Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

          • sjangers

            This is the same information you provided in response to another one of my comments, posted six or eight items above this post. Rather than regurgitate the same arguments I made in my response to that post, I’ll just refer you to what I said above.

        • legal eagle

          Perhaps you might consider the cost to taxpayers for Walmart’s low wage policy.

          The cost of low wages at Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) are at the center of a new report released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Low wages are an issue across the economy, but Wal-Mart, as the country’s largest private employer, has long faced closer scrutiny than other companies.

          According to the report, the cost of Wal-Mart’s low wages isn’t just felt by workers like Stinnett, but also transferred to American taxpayers. The report zeroes in on Wal-Mart in Wisconsin. That’s because the state releases information on how many workers are enrolled in its public health care program broken down by employer.

          At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

          Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

          • sjangers

            How far do you want to go down that road, Eagle? There are many, many things in our society that impact the taxpayer wallet. Should government be involved in regulating all those activities? What criteria would you use to determine where government should and should not get involved?

            Of greater concern, I think, are the consequences of trying to do something about the cost to taxpayers of WalMart’s business practices without fully understanding both the costs and the benefits of those practices. The law of unintended consequences often dishes out some painful reminders that we don’t always know as much about anything as we’re sure we know.

            What happens if we do pass a law forcing WalMart to pay all its employees a “living wage”. First, how do we determine what that wage should be? Is it enough income to cover food, shelter, health care and clothing? Probably. Should a living wage also cover the cost of transportation? Education? Job training? Communication? Basic entertainment? Does the living wage cover just the employee, or should it cover the employee and of all his or her dependents? Does that mean the living wage must be customized? Or should we assume that all employees have 2.2 dependents? Or should we assume that all employees have some theoretical maximum number of dependents? Do we assign a single national “living wage” based on average or highest cost of living in a MSA? Or do we try to customize the living wage to the actual cost of living where the worker lives? If we average or otherwise fail to customize, we’ve created some substantial cost to taxpayers simply by the process of government intervention. There’s a lot of room for honest disagreement about this process, let alone the kinds of disagreements that politics might inject into the conversation.

            And once you figure out how you’re going to establish a living wage and pass legislation to impose it on WalMart- or perhaps on all employers, or all employers over a certain size- what cost will that have on taxpayers? WalMart will almost certainly have to raise prices, at the very least. So those necessities (food, personal care items, clothing) that consumers now purchase at WalMart will become more expensive, driving up costs for taxpayers both directly and with a higher CPI, which will require higher levels of income to move individuals off public assistance and, oh yeah, will inevitably drive up the living wage, forcing WalMart into another round of wage increases, which will in turn force them to raise prices again.

            And what happens to Costco during all this? WalMart will now be paying employees as much as Costco, so some of those highly motivated Costco employees may decide to go work for WalMart. That forces Costco to offer a lesser product to its customers for the same price, or it forces Costco to raise wages in order to compete for those high quality employees. And that kicks off another spiral of higher prices, higher CPI, higher living wage, etc. The end result for everybody is that consumer dollars don’t go as far as they used to go, which will have a significant impact on taxpayers.

            But let’s say an increase in the living wage doesn’t play out according to the above scenarios. Let’s say that WalMart looks over the situation and decides that across-the-board compensation increases of 75% to all employees isn’t sustainable and that it makes more sense to close the doors to their business, rather than losing tens of billions of dollars in trying to keep operating. What’s the cost them to taxpayers? Aside from losing a source of inexpensive staple consumer products that tens of millions of Americans rely on to help keep their cost of living down, what about the 2.2 million workers who are suddenly unemployed? What impact will that have on the American taxpayer? What will that cost?

            Whether WalMart’s employee compensation should even be a question for public policy is the first hurdle that needs to be cleared- and we haven’t even addressed that issue. The second hurdle, assuming we get that far, may be determining the impact that WalMart’s current compensation policies have on the American taxpayer (perhaps $904,000 annually per supercenter, or about $3,000 per employee). The third hurdle is determining the impact that not having WalMart around would have on American taxpayers. You point out the estimated cost in government benefits and services of a single, three-hundred-employee WalMart supercenter. What is the value of the benefits accrued to the American taxpayer due to the existence of that supercenter? And what is the cost to the American taxpayer if that supercenter disappears? Those are all questions that have to be answered before we get too excited about the prospect of doing something social justicey about the “taxpayer burden” imposed by WalMart.

          • legal eagle

            This is your response, “so what?
            Looks like you’re advocating for American oligarchs like the Walton family and the Koch Brothers. Have you not figured out yet that “trickle down” economics has not worked or do you still buy into that Reagan myth?

          • sjangers

            I put a bit of time and effort into attempting to explain some of the folly of trying to address what appears to be a social problem without fully considering all aspects of the situation, and all you got out of my response was “so what”?!!! It’s feels like you just don’t care enough about me any more for this relationship to work, Eagle.

          • legal eagle

            I appreciate the though you put into your comments. However, when the response includes hypotheticals such as Walmart going out of business, it’s difficult for me to believe you are doing anything but taking the other side of the argument.
            The Walton family is now worth a reported $100 bil. Do you really think there is a remote chance that they will be going out of business?

          • sjangers

            Well of course I’m taking the other side of the argument. Isn’t that exactly what you do here?

            You raised what you apparently consider a serious social problem without being particularly clear about what you want to do about it, other than “something”. I’m suggesting that much more careful analysis is in order because whatever is done is bound to have many unintended consequences. WalMart going out of business is the sort of extreme consequence that gets raised in a discussion like this because the conversation is lengthy enough without trying to descend into nuanced analysis of potential consequences. Would WalMart ever just suddenly disappear one day? That’s highly unlikely. Would the people who run WalMart now decide that an imposed increase of 75% in their labor cost means they would be better off moving their wealth to other forms of investment? That’s a very real possibility!

            Whatever the Walton family’s net worth today, they aren’t going to allow that value to evaporate in order to keep the Walton name attached to a store. They’ll invest the money elsewhere if the WalMart investment becomes problematic. And while that’s highly unlikely to happen in the form of the doors of twelve thousand WalMart stores suddenly closing at the same time, there’s no doubt that such a decision would have dramatic and far-reaching consequences for American consumers and for our economy.

            You seem to assume that the size of the Walton fortune means that normal rules of economics and investment decision-making might not apply to them. You should consider the likelihood that the fortune, accumulated over more than fifty years, isn’t solely the result of annual profits generated by a retail operation. The Waltons aren’t dependent on holding on to WalMart like grim death, else the fortune disappear anyway. You appear to make some silly assumptions about what the numbers you are throwing around here actually mean. I suggest that much more careful analysis is in order.

          • legal eagle

            I would assume the Waltons could sell a portion or all of their interest in Walmart anytime they chose to, so I don’t believe it would change much of anything.

            This is not a “social” problem. It’s a corporate policy problem. Walmart’s profits are subsidized, in part, by state and federal governments payments to their low wage workers….

            The “problem” would be partially resolved if Walmart workers were paid more and therefore were not eligible for government assistance…This is, in my opinion, an obvious example of “corporate welfare”.

            As the U.S. is not, in theory, an oligarchy, I believe a rise in minimum wage is good economic policy…

          • sjangers

            The relationship between WalMart and the government is symbiotic, in my opinion. WalMart provides certain benefits to individuals and to society as a whole, government offers some benefits to WalMart and benefits to citizens that indirectly benefit WalMart. I wouldn’t assume that the benefits offered by one or the other are more beneficial without some pretty careful analysis that looks at more than just one side of the issues.

            If the Waltons decide that a 75% increase in labor costs mean it isn’t worth their while to continue with the business, a number of things could happen. It’s possible that they might sell the entire operation to others, but it’s reasonable to assume that they could have trouble finding buyers if they themselves, with the size of their resources, don’t see continuing the operation as a good investment decision. More likely, the Waltons sell their stake in WalMart- probably at a moderate loss over current value- and then the corporate entity eventually decides that trying to continue as before under the new economic burdens isn’t going to be beneficial. The corporation would then probably break up their holdings, keeping certain portions of the retail operation that they believe could be profitable. Some stores might be sold to other retailers. Some stores would be closed, putting those employees out of work. The dramatic consequences that I suggested in previous posts would probably not be quite that dramatic and would occur over time. But that doesn’t mean that the costs associated with those consequences wouldn’t outweigh the associated costs of not interfering with WalMart’s current compensation policies.

            I’m going to leave the rest of your argument alone. We’ve already hashed over most of the points you make and you still have your perspective. I’d suggest that there may be other ways to address the “problem” of cost of government benefits associated with WalMart compensation, but that might set you over the edge and I wouldn’t really mean it. But I do think we ought to consider that there may be more “solutions” to this problem- including leaving the situation alone- than acting on a poorly-thought-out response driven by partisan politics in an election year.

          • legal eagle

            The relationship between every person and corporate entity is symbiotic isn’t it? It’s the degree that counts…

          • sjangers

            Absolutely. And that’s what I’m trying to get you to consider.

          • legal eagle

            I guess you are a true plutocrat…..

          • sjangers

            When I was younger, I did consider becoming a goofycrat. But the party of Carter, McGovern and Cranston just seemed like the wrong place for me.

          • legal eagle

            So your ideas changed as your party affiliation changed? Seems like you can think for yourself…

          • sjangers

            On my good days. But sometimes it’s easier to just let someone do the thinking for me. You know, maybe I will eventually find my way to the goofycrats.

          • legal eagle

            I hope that you find happiness and good health….Political ideology will not provide either…LOL

          • sjangers

            Probably not. But it can keep us entertained when there’s nothing better to do.

      • Floridastorm

        According to statistics that I have read Walmart’s average hourly salary, for a full time employee, is $12.83 per hour. For it’s part time employees it’s about $9.60 Per hour. To be a Walmart employee you need little or no skills. The net worth of the Walton family has to do with innovation and intelligent marketing. Not by paying its employees slave wages, which it doesn’t. The Walton family came from nothing and it was years of hard work that made the company what it is today.

      • sjangers

        I’m not sure why I let you bait me with these kinds of silly posts, Eagle. It turns out that Floridastorm is entirely correct. The average wage at WalMart is almost twenty percent higher than the $10.10 hourly that the President is proposing. It has nothing to do with my original post. WalMart is almost completely irrelevant to any discussion about raising the minimum wage. Why did you even bring it up?

      • Mike

        Some months back, I asked a Walmart employee where I could find a plastic water pitcher. Her English was poor and it took me a few tries to get her to understand me. She then tells me they don’t carry it. Doubting her, I ask another employee who points me in the right direction. So, it took 2 hourly workers what 1 should have accomplished.

        So, instead of worrying about the $100B the Walton’s have accumulated, maybe we should praise them for hiring more people than they really need.

        • legal eagle

          http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/06/12/walmart-costco-comparison/

          Perhaps you might consider this article before you make an absurd statement….Walmart workers are there to stock their shelves and cashier…not to provide customer service….Walmart doesn’t give a crap about customer service……

          • Mike

            Whenever I’m in a Walmart, the place seems to be swarming with employees. I’m sure a hefty headcount factors into their equation. That woman who couldn’t help me is probably lucky to work in retail with her poor communication skills.

          • legal eagle

            Headcount? Employee must have been an ignorant Hispanic? How dare American companies hire employees with a language barrier?…..LOL

          • Mike

            If you’re gonna work with people, you’d better speak their language. Otherwise, there are jobs suited to those who can’t……