Raising the minimum wage, in addition to being tragic, will probably cost lives.
Hmm. Now all I need are a few facts to bolster the provocative lead. And facts I've got! From George Will:
Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.
And from the Times, in an article about public health:
A Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School
... The one social factor that researchers agree is consistently linked to longer lives in every country where it has been studied is education. It is more important than race; it obliterates any effects of income.
Year after year, in study after study, says Richard Hodes, director of the National Institute on Aging, education “keeps coming up.”
And, health economists say, those factors that are popularly believed to be crucial — money and health insurance, for example, pale in comparison.
Dr. Smith explains: “Giving people more Social Security income, or less for that matter, will not really affect people’s health. It is a good thing to do for other reasons but not for health.”
Health insurance, too, he says, “is vastly overrated in the policy debate.”
Instead, Dr. Smith and others say, what may make the biggest difference is keeping young people in school. A few extra years of school is associated with extra years of life and vastly improved health decades later, in old age.
Dems want to kill the minimum wage earners and America's youth - go figure.
UNRELENTING: Lots of reax at Memorandum. Sadly, even when kidding I manage to make more sense than Kevin Drum, who offers this:
Second, he's mistaken in a moral sense. A rich society really has no excuse for not setting bare minimum levels of decency for all human interactions, including those between employer and employee.
A legal thresholds for "all" human interactions? Ridiculous. Now, if someone wants to argue that it is disgraceful that our affluent society can not impart enough skills to people that they are capable of earning at least the minimum wage, let them argue away. Given the tiny number of people at that earnings level threshold, as well as their relative youth, I may not be impressed, but at least it is something; telling me that it is bad manners to pay less for someone who is less productive is not convincing me, especially since it hardly strikes me as better manners to decline to hire the person and replace them with a machine or by outsourcing.
Not just wage earners and America's youth, but their puppies too!
Ya can't forget about the poor puppies!
Posted by: Davebo | January 04, 2007 at 03:46 PM
plus they want to railroad innocent white lacrosse players and send em to sing sing
Posted by: windansea | January 04, 2007 at 04:17 PM
You have learned from the lefty trolls very well TM...using circular logic you can blame anyone for anything
Posted by: windansea | January 04, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Actually, long before the demographics bite on the longevity issue, the Red Alliance wants fewer jobs for their declared consituents as well as higher prices at retail, especially at the low end. They've long explicitly wanted higher prices at WalMart, though the Mart has refused to cooperate. Now in the ascendency they may be able to finally deliver the misery that so palpably longs for company.
Posted by: megapotamus | January 04, 2007 at 04:32 PM
I wonder if this will go through. It has been a long time since there was a raise in the minimum wage. I heard that Bush might consider signging it if there is a provision for tax breaks for small businesses who will see an increase in payroll costs. They can not over ride a veto.
Posted by: Terrye | January 04, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Raising the minimum wage, in addition to being tragic, will probably cost lives.
And your existence, while grotesque, probably saves lives.
Cuz y'know, Tom, deep down in places that I don't want to talk about at parties, I want you on that wall. I NEED you on that wall ...
Posted by: MichaelW | January 04, 2007 at 05:08 PM
The Democratic Party also refuses to equitably distribute Pink Unicorns! It's simple greed!
Posted by: ed in texas | January 04, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Iraq!
Posted by: BTW | January 04, 2007 at 05:16 PM
Hey! Someone stole my M/O...movie lines are my forte...
Posted by: Sue | January 04, 2007 at 05:18 PM
Canada just gave .25 cent raise to laborers and 25% to themselves.
Go figure
Posted by: Sec | January 04, 2007 at 05:35 PM
OT:Newsday says Jamail Hussein has been found--http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-iraq-jamil-hussein,0,5292830.story
Posted by: clarice | January 04, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 per hour? That's about what Congress makes, and most people are way more productive than Congress. Share the wealth, I say.
;-)
Posted by: Forbes | January 04, 2007 at 06:38 PM
Ahhh, but I just heard Pelosi say that "everything this Congress does will be for the children."
Blech.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 04, 2007 at 06:53 PM
If Congress critters are only making $50 an hour, how does their net worth go up so fast?
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 04, 2007 at 06:54 PM
Ahhh, but I just heard Pelosi say that "everything this Congress does will be for the children."
Aha! They're in favor of child labor too!
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 04, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Aha! They're in favor of child labor too!
Not to mention abortions for children, and I'm sure there's more.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 04, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Ahhh, but I just heard Pelosi say that "everything this Congress does will be for the children."
A political party, that is directly responsible for the abortions in this country, is going to do everything for the children.
That is the reason I will never vote Democrat. They have lied so often they don't even know they're lying anymore.
Posted by: pagar | January 04, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Pagar, you need to learn the art of the Democrat Ellipsis. As in: "Everything this Congress does will be for the children... that is, those that make it out of the birth canal alive, in one piece, with an intact skull."
Posted by: mcg | January 04, 2007 at 07:21 PM
But will they listen to the voice of the people and pull the children out of Iraq? We have a failed war in Iraq you know, which is why none of you want to talk about Iraq. Iraq Iraq Iraq.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 04, 2007 at 07:22 PM
""Everything this Congress does will be for the children... that is, those that make it out of the birth canal alive, in one piece, with an intact skull."
Those that don't become Democrat Senators
Posted by: Cindy Sheehan | January 04, 2007 at 07:28 PM
No Paul a failed war looks like this
Posted by: PeterUK | January 04, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Sorry, Pofarmer, two disjointed snide remarks. Congress makes about $75 per hour.
Posted by: Forbes | January 04, 2007 at 08:05 PM
Hey I will talk about Iraq. That would be the Iraq that Clinton bombed the crap of in 98 right? The one he said we should liberate from the tyrant with WMD that Bill gauranteed us the Butcher of Baghdad would use. Yep, let's talk about Iraq and history.
Posted by: Terrye | January 04, 2007 at 09:10 PM
Dems want to kill the minimum wage earners and America's youth - go figure.
But wait! There's MORE!
First, expect 10-15 cent price increases on items produced by entry-level waqe earners.
Second, expect employers to cut their number of entry-level wage earners ANYWAY to cut their overhead, now that they have an excuse.
Then, watch the newly unemployed try to buy the more expensive food and goods they can't afford anymore!
THEN, explain to the newly-unemployed that it's still their social duty to provide work opportunities and benefits for the illegal immigrants who are working below the minimum wage anyway!
It's a sure vote getter for '08, Nancy!
Posted by: richard mcenroe | January 04, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Awww, c'mon Terrye.
You know history doesn't start before about March 03.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 04, 2007 at 09:20 PM
Dems want to kill minimum wage earners and youth because it's easier to control the dead vote than live voters who may move up in life and vote Republican.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | January 04, 2007 at 09:56 PM
Righties. Your party is toast. Not just for an election or two. Not for ten years. This is it. No more repuglican party. You did it to your selves with the help of the religious right of course. Nobody will be cutting those loons any slack for a generation or two ... if ever.
Posted by: BTW | January 05, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Iraq here. Iraq there. There is no escaping the worst foriegn policy of all time.
Posted by: BTW | January 05, 2007 at 12:12 AM
richard mcenroe
Is this really how you Righties think? Saying that your arguments are childishly reasoned and transparently motivated would be too kind. By your argument you should be volunteering for a pay cut. Somehow I expect you will not.
Posted by: BTW | January 05, 2007 at 12:20 AM
"But will they listen to the voice of the people and pull the children out of Iraq? We have a failed war in Iraq you know, which is why none of you want to talk about Iraq. Iraq Iraq Iraq."
The only children I see in Iraq are the Iraqi children. The failed war is in America, where
back stabbing terrorist supporters in the Congress, Leftist media and leftist Americans provide the aid and comfort the terrorists need to keep going. We found out from the North Vietnamese military leaders after that war ended, that the only way they were able to win was with the support of the
American left, like John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and Ramsey Clark and the Communist Party.
Iraq terrorists aren't going to be able to
defeat the American military either, without the support of the American left.
Posted by: pagar | January 05, 2007 at 07:30 AM
Pofarmer:
Awww, c'mon Terrye.
You know history doesn't start before about March 03.
I disagree! Planning to take down the world trade center towers by the neocons/halliburton/oil companies begun well before 03.
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2007 at 07:34 AM
It has been a long time since the federal minimum wage was increased - but many states have increased it at the state level. For those states, the increase will have little or no impact. If Bush gets his tax benefits for small businesses, that may offset the entire spiral.
What leftists don't understand is basic math. If you raise costs to a business, they must raise prices. They are not the government who can either print money at will, or raise taxes. When businesses raise prices, then employees need more money to cover the higher prices. This leads to increases in minimum wage. Increases in minimum wage leads to higher business costs and hence higher prices - and away we go into an inflation spiral.
I have no problem with people making more money. But it has to be balanced. It is not a simple issue.
Posted by: Specter | January 05, 2007 at 07:43 AM
BTW:
By your argument you should be volunteering for a pay cut. Somehow I expect you will not.
Hey, now there's an idea! Hell no he won't volunteer for a pay cut. Greedy bastard.
A minimum wage increase is all fine and good. But what we really really really need is a maximum wage. No one can make more than say $100K/yr.
Maybe you can earn more than $100K, but anything above that gets taxed at 100% to be redistributed to those making less than say $20K/yr (I'm just thinking out loud here).
We need a bill in congress. Who to sponsor? Let me suggest...
Robin Hayes (R, NC)
Ray LaHood (R, IL)
Although it would be defying convention, I would propose the bill to be referred to as the Robin-LaHood Bill.
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2007 at 08:15 AM
Dems want to kill the minimum wage earners and America's youth - go figure.
I can't figure whether you're auditioning for RedState or making fun of it, Tom.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 05, 2007 at 08:41 AM
I agre with the premise that more students will give up on school to try to make money at the increased minimum wage rate. Babysitters have been making anywhere from 8 to 12 dollars an hour currently and in many cases that's watching 1 child. You can make more in a weekend than you could at Panera.
However as long as businesses get some kind of tax break they can continue to stay alive and maybe ,just maybe offer some health care benefits. If the dems want to impress; come up with a viable health care plan for families so people like me can retire in the next few years. I plan to be done working if Hil gets elected and immediately cancels all the tax cuts.
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2007 at 09:36 AM
BTW -- with my boss I don't need to volunteer for a pay cut... and since I'm an indie contractor the minimum wage doesn't do jack for me, anyway. That's why I'm starting my own business.
As long as you're being so smart, explain to me how making it harder and more expensive to hire legal workers will lower the number of illegal workers companies hire?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | January 05, 2007 at 10:44 AM
"Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent."
This is the kind of statement that makes me stop reading. First, whether they are "scholars" or "shmucks", all they are doing is looking up #'s. 2nd, it's just too far reaching a correlation. So of the states that allow students to leave school before 18, and of those that increased minimum wage 10%, teenage school enrollment dropped a whopping 2%. Of the hundreds of different inputs into the system that could alter teenage school enrollment a % or 2 (one being simple randomness), it must only be the fact that a 10% increase in the minimum wage caused the decrease in enrollment. And this is stated as a fact, that the 10% increase, and nothing else in the world, "caused" the 2% decrease in enrollment. I'm all for no minimum wage, but all against stupid idiotic scholar reports inserted into op eds.
Posted by: lame | January 05, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Hit and Run -- Old news. FDR wanted to cap salaries for all Americans at $25,000. Don't believe he offered to give up the family mansions.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | January 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM
"Maybe you can earn more than $100K, but anything above that gets taxed at 100% to be redistributed to those making less than say $20K/yr (I'm just thinking out loud here).
We need a bill in congress. Who to sponsor? Let me suggest..."
Oh,any member of the Communist Party.Oh course you have close the borders to prevent all those with transferable skills leaving to make over $100,000 elsewhere,perhaps build a wall,shoot escapees,there is a blueprint for all this somewhere.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 05, 2007 at 11:13 AM
You know history doesn't start before about March 03.
Profarmer,
I always knew I liked you - and now, starting history on my birthday....
Posted by: Jane | January 05, 2007 at 11:22 AM
It's not just the wage-price spiral that Specter details. There are lots of different rational reactions to the criminalization of low-skilled labor, and which one(s) any particular business adopts is highly dependent upon the particular situation of the business.
1) Fire some of the low-skill workers and do without. (Example -- fire the cleaners who come through every night, hire a service that only comes once a month, and send an email giving people instructions on where to dump their trash, find TP and paper towels for the bathrooms, etc.)
2) Move the jobs directly offshore under your own management. (Typically that means substituting offshore contractors for local ones.)
3) If you sell tangible goods which are made by low-skilled workers, you buy goods made in places where the low-skilled workers make less money.
4) Replace a whole team of low-skilled workers with many fewer higher-skilled workers and/or capital equipment. Example -- warehouse. You have periodic big shipments come in that need schlepping. You have a choice -- go down to the temp agency and hire a dozen homeless guys at minimum wage for a day or two, or hire one union forklift operator and buy a forklift. If the price of the homeless guys goes up far enough, you go for the far more productive and reliable (and non-cheap) higher-skilled labor. Which is why unions whose members make significantly over the minimum wage are always in favor of raising it. It cripples the competitions ability to compete with the union guys on their one competitive advantage, which is being cheap.
5) Go out of business. 90% of all small businesses fail, so it's not like it's a rarity or anything. If you are one of those suppliers who makes things with the labor of low-skilled workers, and those workers get more expensive so you lose all of your customers.
The real minimum wage is always the same, and it cannot be changed by legislation. The real minimum wage is always $0.00 -- what nobody pays you when you have no job.
Posted by: cathyf | January 05, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Dems pain and cause diseases. So, why be a constituent? That's how they got there and got the money.
Give me money and and job or it's strokes, heart attacks, and diseases. As far as dying and killing, that's all they do.
Minimum wage? 12 dollars an hour would be a nice start.
Posted by: C550 | January 05, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Suppose you have a country (call it "Sweden" to use a random name) which has a 90% tax rate on the highest bracket. Suppose a doctor in Sweden needs his house painted. So the doctor has two choices:
Option 1) Doctor earns $100,000 (whatever that is in kroner). Doctor pays $90,000 in taxes and $10,000 to a professional painter. Painter pays $9,000 in taxes and has $1000 to show for his work.
Option 2) Doctor takes 3 weeks unpaid leave of absence and paints his own house.
As long as the doctor earns less than $1.73 million per year, Option 2) will be the rational choice. Coincidentally, in the real country Sweden, the average MD works approximately 1/2 the number of hours each year as the average MD in the US.
Ok, I know this was said in jest as a setup to the Robin Hood punchline, but I'll take it seriously to explain a phenomenom that is easy to understand but most people don't appreciate.Posted by: cathyf | January 05, 2007 at 11:40 AM
richard:
Hit and Run -- Old news. FDR wanted to cap salaries for all Americans at $25,000.
Well, can I at least claim that I thought of it "as if for the first time"?
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2007 at 11:52 AM
PeterUK:
Oh course you have close the borders to prevent all those with transferable skills leaving to make over $100,000 elsewhere,perhaps build a wall,shoot escapees
See? My system creates jobs!!!!!
You got yer construction jobs (wall, jails), service jobs (snipers, morticians, funeral service, florists, hearse drivers), ooh manufacturing jobs (hearses, caskets).
Posted by: hit and run | January 05, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Indeed it does,everyone works for the state except the mafia,all God's children can then have a small flat to live in and a cardboard car,the production figure for brown,left boots size 8 outstrips every country in the world.
A problem might arise if you ever excede $100 grand in earnings.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 05, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Naw...that wouldn't be fair. I mean if we went that way who would the poor dems have to preach their "class war" plank to? I mean...there would be nobody for them to blame....'Course it would really flatten sylvia's phobia of "rich white men"
Posted by: Specter | January 05, 2007 at 12:29 PM
No big surprise to learn that Drum can't tell the difference between Decency and Money. But where did this come from?
Unlike pig iron ingots... they put their paychecks back into circulation, etc.
If you buy pig iron ingots from USX, I suppose the boys in Accounts Receivable just use your check to light their cigars?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 05, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Posted by: cathyf | January 05, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Hey Slartibartfast, just be glad that Tom's not competing with the Nazi Pope! series of posts that you ObWi
sewer dwellerscontributors enjoy so much.Posted by: Pope Rat!!! Haha, I called him Rat! | January 05, 2007 at 03:19 PM
testing
bold
italics
color darkred
size = 16
Posted by: TimS | January 16, 2007 at 06:31 AM
testing
http://www.yahoo.com> yahoo
Posted by: TimS | January 16, 2007 at 06:34 AM