Quinn: A $10/hour minimum wage is a principle as old as the Bible

posted at 6:41 pm on March 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Despite his clumsy expression, I’m going to go ahead and venture that, yes, most Republicans would probably agree with Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn that a person that works a solid forty hours per week at an honest, productive job should not have to live in poverty. That’s precisely why it would be nice if hiking the minimum wage was actually a constructive way to boost employment, median incomes, and economic growth, instead of an counterproductive and intellectually cheap populist band-aid. Via NRO:

Taking up the Democrats’ national strategy, it looks like Quinn is hoping to make the minimum wage a central issue in his own reelection campaign and is hoping to get the state measure passed — an especially popular issue with Big Labor, and Quinn is going to need all of their support he can get. He has some of the lowest approval ratings of any governor in the country, and it looks like the newly nominated Republican businessman Bruce Rauner is going to give him quite the run for his money and perhaps some Scott-Walker-ish competition, via Eliana Johnson:

Rauner set unions on edge during the primary campaign, criticizing their leaders and pledging to reform the state’s bankrupt pension system. “The government-union bosses are at the core of our spending problem in Illinois,” he said in a primary debate, arguing public unions create a “conflict of interest for the taxpayers” and have made a mess of the state fisc.

Rauner’s targets didn’t take it lying down: The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, and the Democratic Governors Association spent north of $3 million attacking him and trying to divert votes to one of Rauner’s primary opponents, state senator Kirk Dillard.

That’s far more than Democrats spent — $1.2 million — trying to steer Republican votes to Todd Akin in the 2012 Senate primary in Missouri, where Akin was viewed as the weakest candidate to take on vulnerable Democrat Claire McCaskill.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I knew you would not answer. SO predictable.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM

I did answer. The entire point of providing the link to Heritage, and even mentioning it again, was to say that yes, CBO can have problems in their reports. What you’re refusing to do is to consider this specific initiative and report, and offer a criticism of it. Instead you’ve tried to use one report which followed poor assumptions and then act as if some magical process of transference occurs for a separate report.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

And that is a sentiment I completely disagree with. We have worker safety provisions, we have consumer safety inspections, and we have labor laws in place to prevent exploitation. There are areas where I think government action is beneficial, and I don’t believe that businesses should be allowed to do whatever they please without restriction.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM

I maintain that it is the employer who is being exploited. Perhaps extortion is a better word for demanding that the employer pay the employee more than his economic worth to the enterprise.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

I maintain that it is the employer who is being exploited. Perhaps extortion is a better word for demanding that the employer pay the employee more than his economic worth to the enterprise.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

The profits of a typical company is going to exceed the net income of an individual worker. Given that there are also more employees than there are employers, with the exception of unions, I don’t see much in the way of opportunity for workers to exploit employers, although I view the reverse as having great potential.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

I maintain that it is the employer who is being exploited. Perhaps extortion is a better word for demanding that the employer pay the employee more than his economic worth to the enterprise.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Let me put on my socialist hat….

….but, but, but… 1890′s Robber Barons!.., and Upton Sinclair’s Jungle!!.. and, and everything Howard Zinn ever said or wrote about the US!!!

Forward Comrades!!!!

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Sorry if it’s a double (triple?) post. Apparently a filter ate something. I suspect the infoplease link.
 

1.) There is an overall increase in real income when considering all Americans put together
2.) The distribution of the benefit is oriented in such a way that more people gain than lose
3.) The distribution of gainers is concentrated where there is the greatest need, while the distribution of losers is concentrated where there is the least harm.
 
Those 3 are cause to support the policy.
 
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 7:57 PM

 
Sounds good. Now:
 
One unit of unskilled labor is currently priced at $7.25. That single unit of unskilled labor has maintained a constant value of about $5 (in 1996 dollars) since 1955
 
http://preview.tinyurl.com/deekp
 
Let’s support the policy.
 
1) Like water seeking its own level, what will prevent $10 from quickly achieving the same historical value?
 
2) What effect does that leveling have on someone earning $11/hour?
 
3) What effect would that leveling have on retirement savings?

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Given that there are also more employees than there are employers, with the exception of unions, I don’t see much in the way of opportunity for workers to exploit employers, although I view the reverse as having great potential.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

The government is trying to take the place of the unions to extort money from the company on behalf of the employee in order to get votes.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM

The profits of a typical company is going to exceed the net income of an individual worker.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Except for the ones that don’t make a profit. Especially the ones that don’t long enough to go bankrupt. Except for Government Motors and the too-big-to-fail corps the neo-socialist fascists love.

But yeah, the ‘typical’ Microsoft will make more in profits than the net income of individuals it employs.

And those damn greedy bastards at Microsoft really ought to be paying more than the minimum wage.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM

One unit of unskilled labor is currently priced at $7.25. That single unit of unskilled labor has maintained a constant value of about $5 (in 1996 dollars) since 1955

http://preview.tinyurl.com/deekp

Let’s support the policy.

1) Like water seeking its own level, what will prevent $10 from quickly achieving the same historical value?

2) What effect does that leveling have on someone earning $11/hour?

3) What effect would that leveling have on retirement savings?

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM

I like the fact that you provided a link and simultaneously posed a set of good questions. Let’s consider your questions in order:

1.) What would prevent $10 from quickly achieving the same historical value would be that the wage would be indexed to inflation per the proposals.

2.) Inflation obviously occurs. The question then is what sort of COLA adjustment their employer will give them, if any.

3.) The value of the stock of savings at the point of its passage would decline. The flow of real savings would presumably increase though as those who are lifted out of poverty can start moving some income away from satiating immediate needs through consumption and instead put it towards savings.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:41 PM

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM

I did answer. …

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

No you didn’t. What whacked alternative universe do you live in?

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:42 PM

The profits of a typical company is going to exceed the net income of an individual worker.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Economic illiterate. Seriously, this stupidity is far too much to take. The simplicity of a child is on display.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I maintain that it is the employer who is being exploited. Perhaps extortion is a better word for demanding that the employer pay the employee more than his economic worth to the enterprise.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

The tool doesn’t care.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM

And those damn greedy bastards at Microsoft really ought to be paying more than the minimum wage.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM

It was Bill Gates who went before congress and told them that there are not enough tech workers in the US and that he needed more work visas to hire foreigners. Half the tech workers I deal with are from India.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Let’s cut to the chase here…

Walmart! Walmart! Walmart! Those greedy bastards at Walmart ought to be paying at least $10 an hour to all of its employees!

Do I have that right SP?

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Except for the ones that don’t make a profit. Especially the ones that don’t long enough to go bankrupt. Except for Government Motors and the too-big-to-fail corps the neo-socialist fascists love.

But yeah, the ‘typical’ Microsoft will make more in profits than the net income of individuals it employs.

And those damn greedy bastards at Microsoft really ought to be paying more than the minimum wage.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Government regulations of business always results in some closures, since some businesses are always on the bubble and compliance costs can push them over the edge. The constant question is how many.

And it’s not just large corporations like Microsoft that will make more in profits than the net income of individuals they employ. There are other large corporations who pay far less, say, minimum wage, like Wal-Mart, Target, and other retailers, who also make far more.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:47 PM

The stupidity is just so tiring. 50% of businesses fail after 4 years…and it gets worse after the years go on.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Let’s cut to the chase here…

Walmart! Walmart! Walmart! Those greedy bastards at Walmart ought to be paying at least $10 an hour to all of its employees!

Do I have that right SP?

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Wal-Mart is certainly one example. They’re not the only employer of cheap labor by any means though.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Do I have that right SP?

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM

You know that is where SP’s family works with their worthless college degrees.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:49 PM

No you didn’t. What whacked alternative universe do you live in?

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Go back and read your own question. Then read my replies. If you still can’t comprehend how I answered your question, perhaps you should consider remedial English courses.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Adequately would refer to the notion of a living wage that Quinn is basically speaking about in the video above: the idea that a 40-hour work week should pay an adequate wage to provide for survival: rent, food, clothing, transportation, with enough left in savings to be able to retire when aggregated across one’s lifetime.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:00 PM

So… the solution for greater access to goods and services is to raise the costs and therefor prices of goods and services.

And in other news, the beatings will continue until moral improves…

elgeneralisimo on March 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Say SP you know so much. What does the average employee make at Walmart? Do tell.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:51 PM

So… the solution for greater access to goods and services is to raise the costs and therefor prices of goods and services.

And in other news, the beatings will continue until moral improves…

elgeneralisimo on March 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

It will result in inflation, a redistributive effect, and per CBO, also an increase in real GDP. Raise it by too much, and you’ll get an economy that contracts. The name of the game is elasticity.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Go back and read your own question.
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Spin on you POS.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Say SP you know so much. What does the average employee make at Walmart? Do tell.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Actually, that sort of information is normally considered proprietary. But this is a good place to start if you want to get a sense of the company.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM

And it’s not just large corporations like Microsoft that will make more in profits than the net income of individuals they employ. There are other large corporations who pay far less, say, minimum wage, like Wal-Mart, Target, and other retailers, who also make far more.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:47 PM

So, in those years that the company does not make a profit can we cut the minimum wage?

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM

So, in those years that the company does not make a profit can we cut the minimum wage?

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM

If that was proposed, I could support it. I’d want to see it refined though to include a provision that would require higher-earners to also take a pay cut that would be equally severe on a percentage basis.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:58 PM

In reality, SP agrees with the CBO when it suits him and not when it doesn’t. Also, if someone could prove to me that taking 80% of income was the perfect rate to improve EVERYONE’s economic standing… I’d say eff off. Some things are just wrong….but easy when you have the armed government behind you. Right SP?

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Actually, that sort of information is normally considered proprietary. ….

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Oh jeezus. They make over 12 an hour on average. Go eff yourself. You play such immature games.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

1.) There is an overall increase in real income when considering all Americans put together
2.) The distribution of the benefit is oriented in such a way that more people gain than lose
3.) The distribution of gainers is concentrated where there is the greatest need, while the distribution of losers is concentrated where there is the least harm.

Those 3 are cause to support the policy.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 7:57 PM

So why don’t they pass a law that assigns poor people as wards of rich people, and require the rich people to provide direct support, like child support or alimony?

Wouldn’t that accomplish all 3 of your points?

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

SP notice you little baby you couldn’t even post their average salary.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Oh jeezus. They make over 12 an hour on average. Go eff yourself. You play such immature games.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

You missed this line though:

Since the workforce in that statistic includes some store managers and leaves out all of the retailer’s part-time employees, it stands to reason that most of Walmart’s store workers would be earning under $25,000 per year.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:01 PM

It was Bill Gates who went before congress and told them that there are not enough tech workers in the US and that he needed more work visas to hire foreigners. Half the tech workers I deal with are from India.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Likewise. I started to see this trend in the 90′s. Apparently the typical American teenager does not want to become or be seen as a tech nerd.

We posted for a tech job recently. By a large margin most of the resumes we have received had Indian names. This is for a job that pays about four to five times the current minimum wage if calculated on an hourly basis, including good benefits with inexpensive health insurance.

Not sure where the blame for this lies. But for the most part American TV does not promote an envious image of the tech nerd. Of attorneys and ‘journalists’, yes. But not of tech nerds.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:03 PM

So why don’t they pass a law that assigns poor people as wards of rich people, and require the rich people to provide direct support, like child support or alimony?

Wouldn’t that accomplish all 3 of your points?

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

It would certainly accomplish points (2) and (3), but at the same time it would completely detach compensation from work, in which case we’d undermine the virtue of industriousness.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:03 PM

I like the fact that you provided a link and simultaneously posed a set of good questions. Let’s consider your questions in order:
 
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:41 PM

 
Thanks, but I’m not sure you’re following constant value vs. arbitrary dollar amounts. I’m bolding so that the words don’t get skipped over easily.
 
I’m separating the response because some of the answers were merged with the questions:
 

Q 1.) What would prevent $10 from quickly achieving the same historical value
 
A- would be that the wage would be indexed to inflation per the proposals.

 
Which does nothing to halt the value of $10 being suddenly worth exactly what minimum wage has always been worth. Any indexed amount automatically becomes worth one unit of minimum wage, which is a constant $5.
 
It has to happen, btw. One unit of minimum wage will remain at the same value ($5) regardless of whether we decide we should call it
$7.25,
$10.10, or
$725.
 
Indexing it to inflation has nothing to do with what it’s worth, which will be $5 (as the link showed).
 

Q- 2.) 2) What effect does that leveling have on someone earning $11/hour?
 
A- Inflation obviously occurs. The question then is what sort of COLA adjustment their employer will give them, if any.

 
Again, I’m not sure you understand the question. COLA has nothing to do with it, nor does inflation.
 
If $10 is suddenly WORTH $5 (which, again, is the constant value of one hour of minimum wage), what is the employee’s $11 worth?
 
Hint: Multiply by 0.5
 

Q- 3) What effect would that leveling have on retirement savings?
 
A- …The flow of real savings would presumably increase…

 
That’s faith. I’m not interested in religious arguments.
 
The question was what effect would $10 suddenly being WORTH $5 have on established retirement accounts?
 
For ease of use, let’s say a $100,000 401K.
 
Hint: Multiply by 0.5.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM

It would certainly accomplish points (2) and (3), but at the same time it would completely detach compensation from work, in which case we’d undermine the virtue of industriousness.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:03 PM

So un-earned income leads to life-long unemployment.

Who knew…..

What are your thoughts on a maximum wage?

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Wal-Mart is certainly one example. They’re not the only employer of cheap labor by any means though.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM

And SP, social-economic engineer extraordinaire, thinks everyone who shops at them ought to be paying more. And that the federal government should make it so.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM

If that was proposed, I could support it. I’d want to see it refined though to include a provision that would require higher-earners to also take a pay cut that would be equally severe on a percentage basis.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Why? Equality? People are not equally valuable to the company. I may not be able to afford to lose my technical staff to the competition, but I can sweep the floors myself if necessary.

This is sounding more and more like “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need”. Communism. It has never worked and it never will.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Which does nothing to halt the value of $10 being suddenly worth exactly what minimum wage has always been worth. Any indexed amount automatically becomes worth one unit of minimum wage, which is a constant $5.

I disagree. There’s nothing special about the number 10. The minimum wage amount of 10 when indexed to inflation means that in future years the number will no longer be 10. That unit of labor is then valued above what it would otherwise be valued without a price floor. That’s the point of a price floor.

If you’re trying to say that imposing a minimum wage doesn’t change the “market-clearing price,” you’re correct, but that price then is no longer of consequence. You raise the price of labor above the market-clearing rate and in so doing introduce an inefficiency. That’s the tradeoff.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM

This is sounding more and more like “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need”. Communism. It has never worked and it never will.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Thats cuz they never had enough money to make it work. Now, with a bag full of platinum coins, each valued at $1T, on deposit at the treasury, they can get it done.

Yes we can.

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:13 PM

So un-earned income leads to life-long unemployment.

Who knew…..

What are your thoughts on a maximum wage?

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Imposing a maximum wage would stunt the growth of income inequality, but leaves one with a question as to what to do with “excess” earnings.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM

And, of course, by making labor in one market more expensive, labor in other markets come into demand. Eventually, if the wage keeps rising, you’ll have the utopian wage, but no one will have a job.

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM

it would completely detach compensation from work, in which case we’d undermine the virtue of industriousness.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:03 PM

For the employer to set a fair valuation on a wage because of the value said employee returns to the company, your answer is “Not fair!! Everybody gets a trophy! Government will set value of labor!!”

Because the government setting arbitrary wages only partially detaches compensation from work? Or merely detaches VALUE from work?

Because with a minimum wage of $10, you can now be much less valuable, virtuous and industrious than you had to be before the hike. In fact, an employee had to have shown a modicum of industriousness and work ethic to earn $10, but now, anyone can arrive at work with no skills whatsoever. Winning!

You do realize that union wages are frequently indexed to minimum wages? And that people making $40, $30, $20 an hour will be getting a wage hike too?

Is that why you support this? You a union guy?

Pless1foEngrish on March 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Thats cuz they never had enough money to make it work. Now, with a bag full of platinum coins, each valued at $1T, on deposit at the treasury, they can get it done.

Yes we can.

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:13 PM

You’re right. I forgot about Star Trek. They made it work, but then they had a replicator that could provide all their needs.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

The profits of a typical company is going to exceed the net income of an individual worker.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Economic illiterate. Seriously, this stupidity is far too much to take. The simplicity of a child is on display.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Yeah, take that! And Profit to Earnings ratio too!

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

And SP, social-economic engineer extraordinaire, thinks everyone who shops at them ought to be paying more. And that the federal government should make it so.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM

That’s not the ultimate goal of the policy I’m seeking, but it’s undeniably an effect since part of the cost will be passed on to the employer, and part will be passed on to the consumer.

Why? Equality? People are not equally valuable to the company. I may not be able to afford to lose my technical staff to the competition, but I can sweep the floors myself if necessary.

This is sounding more and more like “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need”. Communism. It has never worked and it never will.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM

And you deal with that unequal worth by paying them different salaries to begin with. When considering cutting net pay below minimum wage though for companies in distress (i.e., taking losses), I’d want to see equal cuts on a percentage basis so as to prevent exploitation. You’d still have unequal compensation, but everyone would share in taking a hit. That helps get rid of golden parachutes for failure.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Imposing a maximum wage would stunt the growth of income inequality,

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

And in one sentence Stoic Patriot outs himself as Statist Pinhead

Pless1foEngrish on March 21, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Imposing a maximum wage would stunt the growth of income inequality, but leaves one with a question as to what to do with “excess” earnings.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

That problem never gets created. A maximum wage is just that, a maximum. Excess earnings will never exist. Income inequality becomes a set ratio, and should not change unless the law is changed.

Again, Utopia.

Until……what used to be higher wages never get spent on various doodads and vacations and Johnny’s braces.

Which puts the $10 minimum wage workers at Wal-Mart, hotels, and dentists out on the street drawing unemployment.

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM

what to do with “excess” earnings.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

There is no such thing as “excess” earnings. Earnings are part of what is required to raise capital either equity capital or via corporate bonds and bank loans.

Earnings are what are fed back into the company to create growth and more jobs. Cut earnings and lose jobs. Increase earnings and increase jobs.

It is called capitalism and it is the best system yet devised to create prosperity.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:23 PM

For the employer to set a fair valuation on a wage because of the value said employee returns to the company, your answer is “Not fair!! Everybody gets a trophy! Government will set value of labor!!”

Because the government setting arbitrary wages only partially detaches compensation from work? Or merely detaches VALUE from work?

Because with a minimum wage of $10, you can now be much less valuable, virtuous and industrious than you had to be before the hike. In fact, an employee had to have shown a modicum of industriousness and work ethic to earn $10, but now, anyone can arrive at work with no skills whatsoever. Winning!

You do realize that union wages are frequently indexed to minimum wages? And that people making $40, $30, $20 an hour will be getting a wage hike too?

Is that why you support this? You a union guy?

Pless1foEngrish on March 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

There’s a difference between altering the relative valuation of labor that would otherwise occur, and detaching the notion of work from compensation altogether. The aforementioned idea of making the rich essentially obligated benefactors who receive nothing in return would result in the latter, and that endangers the virtue of industriousness.

As for unions, companies and unions are allowed to change the terms of their agreements. Hiking the minimum wage doesn’t stop that. Get too greedy, and unions can also cause their companies to collapse. They may get ravenous, but it’s simply suicidal for them to kill the golden goose.

And no, while I support the concept of unions, I am not a union worker.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Imposing a maximum wage would stunt the growth of income inequality, but…

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

I think I have now read all really I need to read.

What we have here is another economic control freak who thinks he (or she) knows best how to engineer an economy.

This is clearly not someone who has much in common with Adam Smith.

But someone who does have some views in common with self-described “scientific” economic socialism founder, Karl Marx. And he (or she) doesn’t even realize it.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 10 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)

You want to drop out of high school… there are consequences. Granted, a 16 year-old may not appreciate them at that age.

Why not insist that people have a GED? How many people could be lifted from poverty, just by having a better education? How many people could earn more, and not require government assistance – if they were required to earn their GED – and improve their value?

Hill60 on March 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM

That helps get rid of golden parachutes for failure.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:19 PM

So what? Again, this is not the governments business. This is free enterprise. Get the government off my back and out of my pocket, as someone once said.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM

There is no such thing as “excess” earnings. Earnings are part of what is required to raise capital either equity capital or via corporate bonds and bank loans.

Earnings are what are fed back into the company to create growth and more jobs. Cut earnings and lose jobs. Increase earnings and increase jobs.

It is called capitalism and it is the best system yet devised to create prosperity.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Companies spend X on capital costs, and Y on labor costs. Impose a sufficiently low maximum wage (which is what I was responding to), and the amount of money initially going to ‘Y’ is freed up. If that money doesn’t all go back into capital, you have to figure out what to do with what’s left over. That’s the “excess.”

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM

So what? Again, this is not the governments business. This is free enterprise. Get the government off my back and out of my pocket, as someone once said.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM

And as I’ve indicated, I think it is the government’s business. The government exists to serve its citizens, not the concept of free enterprise. Sometimes serving the people means allowing for greater latitude in decision-making by businessmen. Sometimes it means less.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Which does nothing to halt the value of $10 being suddenly worth exactly what minimum wage has always been worth. Any indexed amount automatically becomes worth one unit of minimum wage, which is a constant $5.

 
I disagree. There’s nothing special about the number 10.

 
I really don’t think you understand what we’re talking about, and I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
 
Is anyone else having trouble following
1958′s $1
= 1984′s $3.35
= 1997′s $5.15
= 2013′s $7.25
= 2015′s $10
= 2035′s $725
 
= a constant value of around $5 in 1996 dollars
 
and does anyone have any suggestions on how to make it more clear?
 

The minimum wage amount of 10 when indexed to inflation means that in future years the number will no longer be 10. That unit of labor is then valued above what it would otherwise be valued without a price floor. That’s the point of a price floor.
 
If you’re trying to say that imposing a minimum wage doesn’t change the “market-clearing price,” you’re correct, but that price then is no longer of consequence. You raise the price of labor above the market-clearing rate and in so doing introduce an inefficiency. That’s the tradeoff.
 
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM

 
So you’re saying that, despite being able to look at one unit of minimum wage being valued at a constant worth since the 1950s,
 
http://preview.tinyurl.com/deekp
 
this time it won’t find that set level of worth (a constant $5) because “indexed to inflation”?

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Companies spend X on capital costs, and Y on labor costs. Impose a sufficiently low maximum wage (which is what I was responding to), and the amount of money initially going to ‘Y’ is freed up. If that money doesn’t all go back into capital, you have to figure out what to do with what’s left over. That’s the “excess.”

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Huh? What BS. I’m sorry, but I must have been absent when they covered that in business school. At least it was not in any of my MBA classes that I can remember. It may have been covered over with the education majors that are now teaching our kids.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Say SP you know so much. What does the average employee make at Walmart? Do tell.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 8:51 PM

I make 8.45/hr.
Alex makes around 7.85/ hr.
My 3 year review is in a few weeks. I should be making 8.85/hr after that.
Yes-we think that we’re being paid fairly
No-our jobs aren’t worth 10.00/hr.
Yes-raising the minimum wage to 10/hr would likely cost BOTH of us our jobs!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2014 at 9:34 PM

So you’re saying that, despite being able to look at one unit of minimum wage being valued at a constant worth since the 1950s,

http://preview.tinyurl.com/deekp

this time it won’t find that set level of worth (a constant $5) because “indexed to inflation”?

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM

What I’m saying is that indexing the minimum wage to inflation will keep the value of the minimum wage persistently higher than the $5 value you’ve shown in those tables, yes, because every time inflation comes to bring the value back down, the nominal amount will rise sufficiently to keep the real value elevated. That’s what it means to index.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM

But someone who does have some views in common with self-described “scientific” economic socialism founder, Karl Marx. And he (or she) doesn’t even realize it.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:24 PM

I need to correct myself here. It was Engels who coined the phrase “scientific socialism”.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:38 PM

And as I’ve indicated, I think it is the government’s business. The government exists to serve its citizens, not the concept of free enterprise. Sometimes serving the people means allowing for greater latitude in decision-making by businessmen. Sometimes it means less.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM

No. Emphatically, No! The government should protect its citizens and their property rights. Other than that they can go to he!!.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

So you’re saying that, despite being able to look at one unit of minimum wage being valued at a constant worth since the 1950s,
 
http://preview.tinyurl.com/deekp
 
this time it won’t find that set level of worth (a constant $5) because “indexed to inflation”?
 
rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM

 
What I’m saying is that indexing the minimum wage to inflation will keep the value of the minimum wage persistently higher than the $5 value you’ve shown in those tables, yes, because every time inflation comes to bring the value back down, the nominal amount will rise sufficiently to keep the real value elevated. That’s what it means to index.
 
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM

 
Yes. That’s exactly my point. The indexed amounts will assume the constant value of $5. They have to. Water seeks its level.
 
We’re still waiting on this one, btw:
 

The question was what effect would $10 suddenly being WORTH $5 have on established retirement accounts?
 
For ease of use, let’s say a $100,000 401K.
 
rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

No. Emphatically, No! The government should protect its citizens and their property rights. Other than that they can go to he!!.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

So I guess we should stop calling politicians civil servants and start calling them civil protectors?

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:43 PM

The profits of a typical company is going to exceed the net income of an individual worker. Given that there are also more employees than there are employers, with the exception of unions, I don’t see much in the way of opportunity for workers to exploit employers, although I view the reverse as having great potential.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:30 PM

You’re never going to get the time back you wasted on that post.

kcewa on March 21, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Yes-raising the minimum wage to 10/hr would likely cost BOTH of us our jobs!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2014 at 9:34 PM

SP, social-economic engineer extraordinaire, thinks your loss of employment is an acceptable price “we”, as a collective, must pay for the greater good. And that it is what is best in the long run for us all.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Yes. That’s exactly my point. The indexed amounts will assume the constant value of $5. They have to. Water seeks its level.

We’re still waiting on this one, btw:

The question was what effect would $10 suddenly being WORTH $5 have on established retirement accounts?

For ease of use, let’s say a $100,000 401K.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Let’s consider them separately:

1.) We’re playing a bit of chicken-and-the-egg here with your figures. Congress raises the minimum wage, inflation kicks in, it gets back to around $5, and then the Congress raises the minimum wage again until inflation eventually reduces it over time once more. That doesn’t imply that the market-clearing value of labor is necessarily $5, only that Congress tends to act once it regresses to that point.

Indexing would be a change from current policy. Rather than waiting for inflation to bring the real value of the wage back down to $5, an inflation metric would be used to keep raising the amount of the minimum wage past $10 every year automatically so the minimum wage would continually be $10 in today’s dollars.

2.) Regarding the 401(k) example, if we’re assuming that the value of the dollar has been cut in half as you’ve done, that fixed $100,000 figure in a 401(k) would then be worth $50,000.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:50 PM

So I guess we should stop calling politicians civil servants and start calling them civil protectors?

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:43 PM

You never heard me call these politicians anything except a$$holes. Corrupt a$$holes. The citizens have become more afraid of their own government than anyone else. It’s way past time to dismantle this monstrosity and put it back to what the constitution intended.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 9:53 PM

SP, social-economic engineer extraordinaire, thinks your loss of employment is an acceptable price “we”, as a collective, must pay for the greater good. And that it is what is best in the long run for us all.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Policies have both costs and benefits. If you’re going to be strictly risk averse, you’ll never do anything. You’ll never put a soldier in harm’s way, even though sending a soldier to his death can achieve a greater good. Likewise, you’ll never forge economic policy that may result in a net benefit, and helps more people than it hurts, simply because it hurts at least one person.

Governing requires considering the welfare of all actors, and doing what’s best for the society as a whole. So yes, I am willing to support policies for which there are costs and tradeoffs. For the particular policy I’m advocating, I’d even bear some of the burden of that cost and personally enjoy none of the benefit.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Get too greedy, and unions can also cause their companies to collapse. They may get ravenous, but it’s simply suicidal for them to kill the golden goose.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Detroit.

The former garment inndustry of northeastern PA.

Union membership is at historic lows because they have been destroying their employers one by one.

Unions are too dumb to realize the are biting the handthat feeds them or their leadership is too greedy to care about the future as long as they get their cut now.

talkingpoints on March 21, 2014 at 9:57 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:56 PM

How absolutely f6cking whyte of you! ///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Unions are too dumb to realize the are biting the hand that feeds them or their leadership is too greedy to care about the future as long as they get their cut now.

talkingpoints on March 21, 2014 at 9:57 PM

Well said. Unions only thrive in government these days where they can buy politicians.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Thank God Rauner won the Republican nomination…I went to college with Dillard and he is the archetype RINO whose only interest is in promoting himself. Of course, both Dillard and I also went to college with Mary Matlin and to watch her steady decline is depressing. My last memories of both of them are drunks at a frat party.

ironmarshal on March 21, 2014 at 10:08 PM

SP suffers from the delusion that all economic (human) activity can be sufficiently reduced to and understood in terms of numbers and equations.

And that by proper analysis and design the entire economy of the nations, and maybe even the world, is controllable. And that sufficiently intelligent people, like himself, can analyze these numbers and equations, and thusly engineer a more just and equitable economy.

This is a conceit he shares with all socialists. That economies can be, and should be, planned and controlled for the greater good… by them, of course

At the heart of Adam Smith’s economic worldview, is that human beings acting in their own self-interest will create an unplanned economy that is the best possible most efficient wealth creating economy, albeit not perfect.

The economic control freaks of the world disagree.

Obamacare, and prior government intervention in the health care industry/economy, will become a text book example — someday, in a time and place far far away.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

 
Let’s consider them separately:
 
1.) We’re playing a bit of chicken-and-the-egg here with your figures. Congress raises the minimum wage, inflation kicks in, it gets back to around $5, and then the Congress raises the minimum wage again until inflation eventually reduces it over time once more. That doesn’t imply that the market-clearing value of labor is necessarily $5, only that Congress tends to act once it regresses to that point.

 
Fair enough.
 
I guess I’ll continue to stick with math and 50+ years of economic data, but good for you for wanting to try something different.
 

2.) Regarding the 401(k) example, if we’re assuming that the value of the dollar has been cut in half as you’ve done, that fixed $100,000 figure in a 401(k) would then be worth $50,000.
 
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:50 PM

 
Shame you want to do it with our money, though.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Likewise, you’ll never forge economic policy that may result in a net benefit, and helps more people than it hurts, simply because it hurts at least one person.

Governing requires considering the welfare of all actors, and doing what’s best for the society as a whole.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:56 PM

I rest my case.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 10:12 PM

At the heart of Adam Smith’s economic worldview, is that human beings acting in their own self-interest will create an unplanned economy that is the best possible most efficient wealth creating economy, albeit not perfect.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM

You are correct. It is the Austrian School of Economics that uses the self-interest model. Politicians love Keynesian economics because it says that governments can control the economy by spending more money. They love to spend money and thus buy votes.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:16 PM

What SP advocates is forced redistribution of income, not from the wealthy to the poor, but from the poorest to the slightly less poor.

Even looking through the rose colored glasses of the CBO, we see:

500,000 will earn NOTHING. They will give up their entire income in order to allow 900,000 to gross $80 more a week.

Everything vs $80 a week.

Will $80 lift a family our of poverty? Of course not.

Will unemployment keep a family in the lowest tiers of our economy? Indisputably.

This is what a statist thinks is a “fair” redistributive outcome, and its evidence that they suck at math.

Pless1foEngrish on March 21, 2014 at 10:19 PM

You are correct. It is the Austrian School of Economics that uses the self-interest model. Politicians love Keynesian economics because it says that governments can control the economy by spending more money. They love to spend money and thus buy votes.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:16 PM

I should have added that Keynesian Economics has never worked, but they keep trying to quote it.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:19 PM

Corrupt puke DemocRats. Lies & Taxes is all they sell or the people”s votes. Again the taxpayers will care for the people who’ll lose their jobs & the illiterate morons that can’t do any better than a minimum paying job won’t care who signs the check.

RdLake on March 21, 2014 at 10:22 PM

I should have added that Keynesian Economics has never worked, but they keep trying to quote it.
 
Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:19 PM

 
Well sure, but that’s just because the right people weren’t in charge. See also
 

I guess I’ll continue to stick with math and 50+ years of economic data, but good for you for wanting to try something different.

 
Shame you want to do it with our money, though.
 
rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:11 PM

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Unions also establish their own minimum wage and a fixed wage scale that guarantees wages without concern for the skill or productivity of the member. The wage is then arbitrary and has no relation to any measure of value.

BobMbx on March 21, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Well sure, but that’s just because the right people weren’t in charge.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Maybe you’re right. Why don’t you and I try it? Worse case scenario is that we’ll both get rich trying. Better us than Pelosi and Reid.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Maybe you’re right. Why don’t you and I try it? Worse case scenario is that we’ll both get rich trying. Better us than Pelosi and Reid.
 
Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM

 
Heck, I’d be willing to scrape by on 50% of what they’re costing us.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:30 PM

Heck, I’d be willing to scrape by on 50% of what they’re costing us.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 10:30 PM

I hear that.

Kaffa on March 21, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Let’s cut to the chase here…

Walmart! Walmart! Walmart! Those greedy bastards at Walmart ought to be paying at least $10 an hour to all of its employees!

Do I have that right SP?

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Wal-Mart is certainly one example. They’re not the only employer of cheap labor by any means though.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM

In my area, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, and Kroger have installed self-checkouts, where one employee oversees between four and eight self-checkout terminals.

I wonder what did it, was it the last increase in the minimum wage or the piece of crap Obamacare?

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2014 at 10:45 PM

The wretched Quinn and Stoic Patsy ought to explain matthew 21:41 & chapter 25 before they opine on fairness.

AH_C on March 21, 2014 at 11:00 PM

From the (former) Greenroom thread, entitled : Do you “deserve fair pay” just because you work hard? (Jan 29, 2014)

My 10:55 PM comment which included a repost of my 4:04 PM comment.

There is NO “minimum standard of living” that anyone is owed, just because they work 40 (or more) hours a week, at “something.”

Repeating my comment :

F A I R” … doesn’t EXIST . . . . . in a market driven Capitalist system, because the definition of “fair” is subject to the opinion of every individual person.
.
I stand by my premise (from some time ago) of :
——————————————————–
1) – ABOLISHING ALL governmental regulation (tax law, EPA regs, “you name it”) that hinder, impede, or discourage people from establishing SELF EMPLOYMENT, or entrepreneurship.
——————————————————–
2) – abolishing the whole concept of “employees on payroll”. All persons who work at any business (other than their own) should be paid as a sub-contractor. Every person should have to bear their own burden of record keeping, accounting, and TAX withholding. Every individual person should have to write out the check(s) themselves for their own taxes, to the various levels of government, or “other”.

listens2glenn on January 29, 2014 at 4:04 PM

.
listens2glenn on January 29, 2014 at 10:55 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Stoic Patriot, social-economic engineer extraordinaire, thinks your loss of employment is an acceptable price “we”, as a collective, must pay for the greater good. And that it is what is best in the long run for us all.

farsighted on March 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Governing requires considering the welfare of all actors, and doing what’s best for the society as a whole. So yes, I am willing to support policies for which there are costs and tradeoffs. For the particular policy I’m advocating, I’d even bear some of the burden of that cost and personally enjoy none of the benefit.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 9:56 PM

.
Free-market to the MAX (that means “zero” government regs) … is what will promote “the welfare of all actors, and do what’s best for the society as a whole.”
.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 11:58 PM

I honestly don’t give a rat’s hind leg about fighting minimum wage increases until Republicans start pushing back against the illegal immigration.

Murf76 on March 22, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Okay, simple economics. When the price of something, let’s say in this case unskilled labor goes up. Barring no other outside forces other then price an quantity, the demand for said labor goes down and there is an excess supply or workers, that is called economic loss. Now let’s also put in the fact that some places will put in technology that would turn around and shift that demand curve further down the chain and you have a lot more people unemployed.

Leopard1996 on March 22, 2014 at 12:26 AM

And as I’ve indicated, I think it is the government’s business. The government exists to serve its citizens, not the concept of free enterprise. Sometimes serving the people means allowing for greater latitude in decision-making by businessmen. Sometimes it means less.

Stoic Patriot

So, you are a communist. Good to know.

xblade on March 22, 2014 at 12:31 AM

I also love the idea that these jackasses come up with to index the minimum wage to inflation. If wages are considered the cost of inputs to products, it’s going to increase the rate of inflation. In econometrics we call the autocorrelation.

Leopard1996 on March 22, 2014 at 12:31 AM

A fare [sic] wage is one that both the employee and the employer agree.

newportmike on March 21, 2014 at 7:05 PM

A principle that actually IS as old as the Bible.

Mat 20:12-15

12 saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

Somehow, I suspect Biblical principles of economics are not really one of Pat Quinn’s interests.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 22, 2014 at 1:37 AM

As has been pointed out many times, if raising the minimum wages was such a wonderful idea economically, why stop at $10?? Why not make it $100 an hour and we can all be rich?

Fred 2 on March 22, 2014 at 1:48 AM

A $10/hour minimum wageMarriage is between a man and a woman is a principle as old as the Bible

Flange on March 21, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Indeed.

itsnotaboutme on March 21, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Technically, marriage is older than the Bible. In fact, technically, it’s older than religion itself.

Gen 4:25-26

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 22, 2014 at 1:49 AM

You are correct. It is the Austrian School of Economics that uses the self-interest model. Politicians love Keynesian economics because it says that governments can control the economy by spending more money. They love to spend money and thus buy votes.


Technically, politicians are not using the Keynesian model. They have made up their own economic theory and simply labeled it “Keynesian” so low information voters would be impressed with their grasp of economic principles. Keynesian economic calls both for increasing government spending in bad times AND decreasing government spending in good times in order to keep the economy humming along at a steady pace. Now, no Democrat has EVER demanded a cut in the federal budget because times are good in the history of the universe.

Fred 2 on March 22, 2014 at 1:59 AM

I like the fact that you provided a link and simultaneously posed a set of good questions. Let’s consider your questions in order:

1.) What would prevent $10 from quickly achieving the same historical value would be that the wage would be indexed to inflation per the proposals.

2.) Inflation obviously occurs. The question then is what sort of COLA adjustment their employer will give them, if any.

3.) The value of the stock of savings at the point of its passage would decline. The flow of real savings would presumably increase though as those who are lifted out of poverty can start moving some income away from satiating immediate needs through consumption and instead put it towards savings.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2014 at 8:41 PM

So your answer to the value of your wages becoming less as minimum wage is hiked is to index the minimum wage to hike it again. This has already been done, and the results are a matter of history. It was called the Wage-Price Spiral. That is, as wages increase, the prices also go up. Which causes the earners to demand more money to deal with the higher prices. Which makes retailers and wholesalers raise their prices to break even. Which makes wage earners demand higher wages.

Ultimately, all you’re going is setting the equilibrium at a higher price point. At one point, it takes $10 an hour to get by. After a few cycles of the wage-price spiral, it takes $15 an hour to get by. You still have no more real money in your pocket, because the paycheck goes no further than it did before.

There’s no reason to believe the wage-price spiral will work better if it’s the government pushing up the spiral automatically.

And this is what happens when governments think they can ‘manage’ the economy. They just make a bigger mess.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 22, 2014 at 2:04 AM

You are correct. It is the Austrian School of Economics that uses the self-interest model. Politicians love Keynesian economics because it says that governments can control the economy by spending more money. They love to spend money and thus buy votes.

Technically, politicians are not using the Keynesian model. They have made up their own economic theory and simply labeled it “Keynesian” so low information voters would be impressed with their grasp of economic principles. Keynesian economic calls both for increasing government spending in bad times AND decreasing government spending in good times in order to keep the economy humming along at a steady pace. Now, no Democrat has EVER demanded a cut in the federal budget because times are good in the history of the universe.

Fred 2 on March 22, 2014 at 1:59 AM

True. That’s because most politicians stop listening when they hear what they want: “I can boost the economy by spending more?! Perfect!!”

Sort of like claiming that you can be a better husband if you have an affair or two. The reasoning is obviously suspect, but it appeals to the philanderer.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 22, 2014 at 2:09 AM

We’ve increased the minimum wage how many times now?
And exactly what has it accomplished in terms of gains in employment and real wages? In reducing poverty?
Somebody has to pay for this, meaning we can expect price inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax that affects, guess who, the poor the most.

It’s quite apparent to anyone BUT these idiot Progressive politicians that minimum wage increases AREN’T the answer.
It’s ALL just a political talking point or a means to reward those potentially granted “amnesty”.

Why is the answer to EVERY failed govt program ANOTHER failed govt program?
Please stop trying to fix things, you’re only making them worse!

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 22, 2014 at 2:46 AM

So the party that aggressively and proudly slaughters babies, promotes lust and perversion and sloth for votes, doesn’t mind using and abusing the same God that they booed at their convention in order to help their socialist takeover of a once free America?
Nothing new here–Satan quoted Scripture to Christ.

Don L on March 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM

Can’t find good help these days.

rogerb on March 22, 2014 at 6:55 AM

bmore, we’re going to reduce your wages to $10.10/hr if this keeps up.

rogerb on March 22, 2014 at 6:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3