Senate Republicans filibuster minimum wage

Wed

Jan 24 2007

07:47 pm

By: R. Neal

Bill held up over tax cuts.

Guess the Senate Dems will need a supermajority to get anything through the Senate. Which they would probably need anyway to override Bush's vetoes.

There is more work to be done to bust out the people's legislative logjam, starting in 2008.

UPDATE: Sen. Alexander and Sen. Corker both voted against cloture, i.e. for the filibuster. Aren't they supposed to be friends of the working people of Tennessee, where nearly 14% of the population lives in poverty?

Topics:

R. Neal's blog
Login or register to post comments

Maybe that's why they voted

Submitted by calloway on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 12:34am.

<
Aren't they supposed to be friends of the working people of Tennessee
>

Maybe that's why they voted for the filibuster. A higher minimum wage will do relatively little to help out those folks -- except send a few of them back to the unemployment line.

A higher minimum wage will

Submitted by bizgrrl on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:51am.

A higher minimum wage will do relatively little to help out those folks -- except send a few of them back to the unemployment line.

Where did you hear that?

You're kidding, right ?

Submitted by calloway on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 11:05am.

You're kidding, right ? Plain common sense, mostly ... but the data is out there.

This is just one of those issues that makes the left feel good without actually accomplishing anything (war on poverty, anyone ?) that, if you oppose, make you sound like the mean old man/woman/whatever. They love those sorts of things.

This is just going to get some folks fired and the guys making minimum_wage+.50 are going to end up with a lot more work to do before they go home for the day.

Where did you hear that?

Submitted by shortstuff on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 7:18pm.

You can find lots of opinions that support the idea that jobs would be lost if minimum wage is increased. Do you read the Wall Street, Newsweek or Time Magazine?

Oh come on, friends of the

Submitted by KyleBubp on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 2:48pm.

Oh come on, friends of the working people? Most working people I know have ambition which, in turn, aides them in increasing their pay over minimum wage. Raising minimum wage would not do a thing to help the "working man;" however, it might help Johnny 16 year old and uneducated people with no drive. If you have a problem with the amount of money you are making, take some responsibility upon yourself; don't cry to the Government to help you out.

Ok, folks. If we're tired of

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 3:03pm.

Ok, folks. If we're tired of hearing the same old BS about raising the minimum wage putting people out of work, hurting business, etc etc...How about doing a little light reading instead of watching Fox News or reading the emails from Rightwingtalkingpoints.com...

Try this.

Please note that every entry has peer reviewed studies for reference.

Steve

Economics

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 3:09pm.

Through common sense, how would it NOT hurt business or put people out of jobs? There is only so much money to go around. So either somebody has to lose their job to make up the difference in money there is to pay OR the business has to make less profit OR they have to raise their costs. The latter hurts consumers who in turn have to make more to afford the good, etc. This is not a "right wing" thing. It is economics.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

That's like - what - $1.10

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 3:48pm.

That's like - what - $1.10 per hour over minimum wage for the job that's probably the poster child for minimum wage work?

The question is, what would McDonald's pay if the wage floor were not set at $5.15? Some studies (Spriggs & Klein, 1994) have shown that increases in the minimum wage also boost wages above the minimum; the effect is strongest within $1 and grows increasingly margininal above that.

how would it NOT hurt business or put people out of jobs?

Obviously, the answer depends on the amount of the wage increase. One of the most famous studies of it's kind in recent years showed that a moderate increase does not hurt business or cost jobs. It's available here in PDF format (oops, I goofed - that's a reply by the authors to criticisms, but it's a good overview of their case. The original paper is here but costs $5).

Here's a good overview of the growing consensus among economists that the negative effects are minimal. To be fair, there's also growing consensus that the positives are limited, and that the best solution is a mix of increases in the minimum wage and the EIC.

Common Sense

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 3:52pm.

Now see, Craig, you didn't go read any of that, now did you?

Common sense says look at the serious studies and don't just parrot something you've heard. Raising the minimum wage has a rising tide effect on wage earners above the minimum and has no significant negative effects. History as well as current economic theory holds this to be true.

AS Sven notes, the Minimum wage is only part of the package.

Steve

Actually I did

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 4:02pm.

Actually I did go read some of it. Yet there are studies on the other side as well. I realize minimum wage is only part of the package, and that is what makes is worse. My biggest problem is where I am sure we differ: I don't think the government should be dictating wages.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Wages might find their own

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 4:13pm.

Wages might find their own level if there actually were such a thing as a Free Market. But there's not. And really, Government is not so much dictating wages as it is the floor.

Frankly, I think this is a stupid ideological fight for Republicans to make a stand on, but since it insures their branding as anti worker, I suppose it is ultimately a good thing politically, even if it would raise almost a miilion Americans out of poverty immediately.

Lift americans out of poverty?

Submitted by KyleBubp on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 5:27pm.

Are you insane? At the current minimum wage, if a person works 40 hours a week, every week of the year, the untaxed amount is $10,712. Assuming this person is single with no dependents, subtracting FICA ($9,892.53), then using the IRS Tax Table, the total comes to $8,786.15. With the proposed wage hike, the untaxed amount would become $15,080. Subtract FICA and it becomes $13,926.38. After Federal Tax, the total is $12,214.92. This is a mere difference of $3,428.77. Do you honestly think that's enough to bring someone out of poverty?
(link...)

Technically, yes. (Current

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 5:28pm.

Technically, yes. (Current poverty level for one person is about $9800, I think.)

But practically, no. It is not widely believed that raising the minimum wage will eliminate poverty. It is just one of many steps that will help in the long term.

Like I said, most economists

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 5:45pm.

Like I said, most economists recommend a mix of min wage increases and earned income credits. From the EPI's FAQ:

If the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 by 2008, these two policies would work in tandem to raise the income of a family with one full-time minimum wage worker to $18,326, 14% above the poverty line of $15,735 for a family of three. A proposal that sets annual increases to the federal minimum wage to adjust for changes in the cost of living would ensure that the combination of full-time work and the EITC would always keep this family above the poverty line.

I happen to believe the "poverty line" is a poor measure of a family's well-being, but there you go.

That's enough to allow

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 5:55pm.

That's enough to allow someone without health insurance to buy a policy. It's enough for someone who misses credit card payments a few times and gets trapped in a high-rate, high-penalty cycle to get out of debt. It's enough for someone with an unreliable car to buy a better used one and stop throwing money at repairs.

$3500/yr is an assload of money to someone struggling to keep afloat. If it means so little to you, maybe we can do a little experiment. You can send me a few Benjamins each month, and after a year I'll let you know whether it made a difference.

A few benjamins a month to rikki?

Submitted by KyleBubp on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 10:29am.

No thanks, I already put about $400 a month into multiple investments. Unless you can show me a track record of how you can earn me money, I will not be giving money to you anytime soon. Perhaps you should stop looking for handouts. It seems like everyone on here expects the Government to hold their hands because they have no concept of financial responsibility. Lower the interest rates on credit cards? Here's a brilliant idea: don't buy things you cannot afford. What a novel concept!

(link...)

flip flop

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 4:06pm.

Wow, that paltry $3500 seems to have a lot more emotional value to you than you cared to admit. Maybe you're wrong about how little it might mean to someone living in poverty.

In any case, I wasn't promising to earn you any money. Quite the contrary, I was offering to take it outright to help you prove your point about $3500 not being enough to help anyone out. And it's not really about me. Feel free to conduct the experiment with your choice of any of the 46 million Americans without health insurance.

Insane? Maybe...

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:40pm.

But I usually have good infomation. Try this quote:

"...another study found that a minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.15 would lift nearly 900,000 people out of poverty (Sawhill and Thomas, 2001)."

Here's the Study that was referenced:

Sawhill, Isabel and Adam Thomas. 2001. "A Hand Up for the Bottom Third." Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

More HERE.

Steve

$3,428

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 9:01pm.

$3,428 is enough to rent an apartment from me. One person making minimum wage won't meet my income requirements, someone making $7.25 will. So yeah, that's huge if someone wants to move out of their brother in law's basement.

The other thing that will help the working poor is to do something about predatory lending. Also mainstream banks that charge $29 for a bounced check and $29 if you are a day late on your credit card, etc. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

Party affiliation

Submitted by KyleBubp on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 3:14pm.

Party affiliation holds no bearing on facts. This place throws affiliation around like its an end-all be-all.

Good For Them

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 9:48am.

A raise in the minimum wage would be bad on several fronts. Very few people making minimum wage are actually living on it. Also, it is NOT the government's role to set wages. If a person is worth more than minimum wage, then the free market will value the at what they are worth. 60% of the population living in poverty did not even work in the previous year. Most of those on minimum wage are students working part-time jobs.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Hey, cdt, got anything to

Submitted by bizgrrl on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 11:29am.

Hey, cdt, got anything to back up this info? Besides Fox News.

Here is one page with

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 12:03pm.

Here is one page with statistics form the US Department of Labor.

Here is another pretty good page.

I heard the statistic about those living in poverty who do not work. I am looking for a reference. If I find one, I will post that as well.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

I found the stat about those

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 12:57pm.

I found the stat about those under the poverty level who did not work the year before. However, it takes a little work to get to. You have to download the file from the Census Bureau's Download Site. To do so, follow these steps:

1. Click Here.
2. Click Download Center on the left-hand side of the page
3. Select 2005 American Community Survey
4. Click United States (010) and Click GO.
5. Click "C17005. Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Individuals by Employment Status."

You will have to download this, and then open it in Excel by using "|" as the delimiter. You can parse through this data. Here are the numbers:

Number living under poverty: 26,184,850
Number of these in labor force: 11,459,861
- Employed in labor force: 8,517,030
- Unemployed in labor force: 2,942,831
Number of these NOT in labor force: 14,724,989

So, percentage under poverty not working = 67%
- Breakdown (14,724,989+2,942,831)/26,184,850

Enjoy the facts.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Does that include children?

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 12:58pm.

Does that include children?

At any rate, I'm ready and willing to be educated.

How is the free market working to eliminate poverty?

You stated (essentially) that there should be no minimum wage. What would the "market wage" be if there weren't a minimum?

Here's one measure

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 1:58pm.

You stated (essentially) that there should be no minimum wage. What would the "market wage" be if there weren't a minimum?

I can't find a website for McDonald's employment in Knoxville, but in Chattanooga they are paying $6.25 per hour starting wage for "crewmembers." That's like - what - $1.10 per hour over minimum wage for the job that's probably the poster child for minimum wage work?

Those statistics are for

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 2:33pm.

Those statistics are for individuals 16 years and older.

A person (or good for that matter) will be paid for his knowledge, experience, skills, etc. If his characteristics are deemed valuable, he will be rewarded or he can go elsewhere to be rewarded for those skills. If a person has little or no skills, then the marked value of that person will be fairly low. Until he can somehow better himself (education, certificates, proof of knowledge, experience, etc.) he will stay at about the same value (salary).

Also, if a place of employment sets their salaries too low, they are not going to be able to attract employees. Just like if a retailer sets the price of a good too high then nobody will buy it.

Let's say McDonald's decides they are going to pay their starting workers $0.50/hr. If nobody goes to work there, then they will have to raise that rate until they start to attract employees. Once they do, then that would be the market rate. If it turns out these employees are not as good as they need, then they will have to raise the pay to attract better employees.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

A person (or good for that

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:25pm.

A person (or good for that matter) will be paid for his knowledge, experience, skills, etc. If his characteristics are deemed valuable, he will be rewarded or he can go elsewhere to be rewarded for those skills. If a person has little or no skills, then the marked value of that person will be fairly low. Until he can somehow better himself (education, certificates, proof of knowledge, experience, etc.) he will stay at about the same value (salary).

Har. Y'know, the above is spoken like someone who's never held an actual, y'know, job.

____________________________

Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.

Har. Y'know, the above is

Submitted by KyleBubp on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 10:31am.

Har. Y'know, the above is spoken like someone who's never held an actual, y'know, job.

Or someone who's held a real job that requires a refined skill set to succeed instead of working an assembly line where skills aren't necessary to produce a product.

(link...)

Kyle

Submitted by watcher on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 11:50am.

I think you are my new favorite person...I think it and *boom* you write it. Amazing.

Clearly you've never worked

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 11:53am.

Clearly you've never worked on an assembly line. Why insult millions of American workers?

Clearly you've never worked

Submitted by KyleBubp on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 11:56am.

Clearly you've never worked on an assembly line. Why insult millions of American workers?

I didn't realize that stating the truth (skills are not needed in this line of work) was insulting. Perhaps some internal conflict you have makes it insulting to you.

(link...)

Some sample manufacturing

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 12:10pm.

Some sample manufacturing job listings:

Japanese owned company looking for production people to work in their Monroe manufacturing plant.

job Requirements

*Possess the ability to operate all machinery in fan drive production area.
*Ensure work guidelines are adhered to daily.
*Ability to achieve daily production goals.
*Learn about fan drive components.
*Perform visual inspection on fan drive components.
*Ability to make minor adjustments to machine equipment.
*Manufacturing experience a must.

---

MOST, INC. (Missouri Smelting Technology), a Toyota Group Company, is accepting applications for Production Team Members. Successful candidates must be H.S. graduate or equivalent with ability to operate various types of industrial equipment and willing to work 12 hr rotating shifts. OT will be required. Positions are physical, combined with a hot, dusty and noisy plant environment.

---

Assembler

SUMMARY

Performs manual labor along a production line. Operates and troubleshoots production line machinery and computers. May perform minor repairs as necessary.

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES

Operate production line machinery and computers. Troubleshoot production line machinery. Perform equipment change-overs. Responsible for quality control. Make adjustments as necessary to produce product within specifications. Reject product outside of specifications. Operate within standard operating procedures (SOPs) and Job Safety Analysis (JSAs). Operate forklift to maintain raw material supply for the production line. Complete daily production logs. Perform preventive maintenance (PMs) on production line machinery. Communicate with operators from other shifts. Clean and maintain work area. Turn off and lock out equipment when not in use. Other duties as assigned.

Perhaps some internal

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 12:13pm.

Perhaps some internal conflict you have makes it insulting to you.

Perhaps you are a... OK, never mind. Who are you people and where did you come from, anyway?

(P.S. It's not insulting to me. I don't work on a production line. Reading comprehension is, however, a useful skill.)

Who are you upset with? Are

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 12:46pm.

Who are you upset with? Are you upset that people posted challenging questions to your position? I am a blogger in the Knoxville area that happens to disagree with your position on the minimum wage increase. Thus I posted arguments from the other side. I do not wish to engage, nor have I, in personal attacks; I simply want to challenge your position on this issue with which I disagree.

I don't think Kyle was trying to say that assembly workers don't have any skills; I took it to mean that the skills needed for that type of work, in general, are less valued in the marketplace than those for other types of jobs that pay more.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

"I don't think Kyle was

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 12:54pm.

"I don't think Kyle was trying to say that assembly workers don't have any skills"

Kyle:

instead of working an assembly line where skills aren't necessary to produce a product.

stating the truth (skills are not needed in this line of work)

Seems pretty clear to me.

Anyway, I'm not upset with anybody. Disagree all you want. Insulting people (individuals and entire classes of people) or defending people who insult people doesn't help your case.

Further, insulting the host of an open forum provided for you to express your opposing viewpoints is bad form.

So, have either of you ever worked for minimum wage? Has either of you ever worked in a factory on an assembly line, or a factory in any capacity other than in the office?

That's rhetorical, and I don't expect a response, and frankly don't care.

Best of luck to both of you in your future endeavors.

I will be happy to respond

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 1:02pm.

I will be happy to respond to that. Firstly, I NEVER insulted you. Secondly, no I have never worked for minimum wage because I made a choice to finish my high school education and then continue and get my college education. Thus I had the education to not have to work this type of job.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Never said you insulted me.

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 1:09pm.

Never said you insulted me. You seem to be defending someone who did. Or are you the same person?

It's great that you had an opportunity to get a college education and not have to work that kind of job. Best of luck to you.

Minimum wage?

Submitted by KyleBubp on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 1:30pm.

So, have either of you ever worked for minimum wage?

Yea, I have, and it sucked. I realized that I did not want to work at Taco Bell/Little Caesars for the rest of my life, therefore I got an education.

(link...)

I'm afraid I worked several

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 1:54pm.

I'm afraid I worked several minimum wage jobs and some below. By the time I got to High School I had a pretty good work history. The minimum wage was about $1.25 an hour when I was working construction during college.

Now the point is not to show how tough my life was, actually I enjoyed most of these jobs, but to state that I was paid as little as my employer could get away with. He still made good money on the construction project even saddled with that outrageous minimum wage. I'm very glad to have had the work and, Craig, I'm glad you were from a prosperous family and didn't have to work until you finished your degree.

But please don't generalize your experience as a rich kid, because you didn't earn it, you were given it.

It appears that you skipped a few classes you might should have gone to, though.

Steve

I was given it? Is that so?

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:15pm.

I was given it? Is that so? So because I "earned" an academic scholarship to go to school I am a little rich kid? But can I only "earn" it if I work minimum wage jobs?

What classes "might should" I have gone to? Economics? I have already stated sound economic priciples.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Ignore Steve. Most of us do.

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:19pm.

When Steve cannot stay within the bounds of the debate he will use some old time blogger tricks. Play nice Steve.

I was given it? Is that so?

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 11:34pm.

I was given it? Is that so? So because I "earned" an academic scholarship to go to school I am a little rich kid? But can I only "earn" it if I work minimum wage jobs?

What classes "might should" I have gone to? Economics?

Yes, Yes, No, because you said you never had to work a real job or any job until you were out of college, didn't say you had to work minimum wage jobs, said you had to work some kind of job, and Critical Thinking, and I think we might argue the "sound economics" claim.

Love you, too, 9.

Steve

Steve's got me beat at

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:45pm.

Steve's got me beat at $1.25/hr. Our first minimum wage jobs were $1.65/hr. You must be a REALLY old geezer. :)

(Although I worked in my Dad's drycleaners as a young teen for, I believe, $1.45/hr, but I don't remember if that was minimum wage or just a child labor violation. OK, just kidding, Dad.)

Even though this is not

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 10:32am.

Even though this is not worth debating anymore here, I wanted to rebut Andy Axel's uninformed claim. Ever since I graduated college I have never been WITHOUT a job. Any quite a bit above minimum wage due to skills, education, etc. But clearly let's make ignorant personal claims about someone because they hold a position you either disagree with or do not understand.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

Even though this is not

Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 6:56pm.

Even though this is not worth debating anymore here, I wanted to rebut Andy Axel's uninformed claim. Ever since I graduated college I have never been WITHOUT a job. Any quite a bit above minimum wage due to skills, education, etc. But clearly let's make ignorant personal claims about someone because they hold a position you either disagree with or do not understand.

What I said was, you speak like you haven't ever worked anywhere in a job where worthless people both make more than you do, and may even be your immediate supervisor. I didn't say you've never held a job. Hell if I know.

I will say this: I've worked most of my waking hours during and since earning an honors degree from Kansas U. and I've had plenty of jobs where clueless pricks made more than me, worked less than I did, and certainly had fewer skills. The Peter Principle in action: A rise in salary corresponds to a decrease in competence. You see it all the time in business. That's what I was talking about -- and having worked for no fewer than 3 Fortune 100 companies, and having several of them as my customers, I know of what I speak. And if you think that's an uninformed position, spend a week in this chair. You'll get to know many people that make 20x times the minimum wage who honestly have fewer skills, have far better benefits, and work much shorter hours than people working entry level or craft-type jobs.

I made no assumptions. And when I say I made no assumptions, I certainly didn't asssume you were humorless. I was making a joke. I can see that you didn't get it.

Are you really not familiar with The Peter Principle?

You're going to claim that everyone that makes a living wage earns it by being more educated or more skillful? You've never had a genuine idiot for a boss who made 3x what you did for much less work?

Lucky you.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Sauce for the goose.

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 10:05am.

Sauce for the goose.

Poor widdle oppwessed

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 10:08am.

Poor widdle oppwessed Weepubwicans...

____________________________

Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.

Big Picture

Submitted by watcher on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 4:12pm.

You're right...minimum wage is not the whole story (and "amen" to the person who finally used the word "economics").

Anyone care to muddy the waters further and throw the immigration issue into the mix (i.e., the whole "they're only doing low-paying jobs Americans don't want to do" argument)?

McDonalds minimum wage

Submitted by shortstuff on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 7:29pm.

Woah!! If minimum wage is increased....does this mean the burger gets thinner at McDonald's or the consumer pays more for the burger.....or the employee suddenly finds him/herself richer and takes off for the Bahamas and McDonald's is forced to shut down. Good Lord, this could be the end of the Golden Arches!

tuna

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 4:14pm.

Did the Dems cave on that transparently stupid charge of favoritism toward Starkist or were we a filibuster away from destroying the Samoan economy?

Marginal utility, baby.

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 6:02pm.

Marginal utility, baby. Marginal utility.

Just as a side note, 82

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 7:56pm.

Just as a side note, 82 Republicans voted FOR the minimum wage increase in the House, including Rep. Duncan.

Five Republican Senators voted for cloture to end the filibuster, six if you count Lieberman.

Why do they hate America's small businesses?

(Too bad Frist wasn't able to get the rules changed to only require a simple majority to end a filibuster. The minimum wage hike would now be law.)

And Lamar! voted to kill it

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 8:05pm.

And Lamar! voted to kill it altogether.

Wow. I completely missed

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 8:14pm.

Wow. I completely missed that one. Unbelievable.

Graham, Hagel, McCain, and Sununu are a little surprising, too. They have come across as somewhat reasonable from time to time on various issues.

Not even Bob Corker voted for it? Guess he'll be getting a call from Big Jim.

Sen. Allard who sponsored it is living in some Corporate Utopia Dreamworld:

"Less Government intervention, at all levels, enables the private sector to attract, recruit, and retain the best possible employees and reward increased productivity and responsibility with higher compensation."

Translation: We can have sweatshops just like they have in the third world!

I guess it would help us compete on a level playing field, though.

Yeah, and I'll be patiently

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 8:28pm.

Yeah, and I'll be patiently waiting for these noble free marketeers to call for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve Board, whose impact on wages is several orders of magnitude larger than the Fair Labor Standards Act.

And the FTC, the SEC, the

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 8:34pm.

And the FTC, the SEC, the FDA, the FAA, the DOE, the FCC (oh wait)...

We don't need regulation. We need anarchy.

We don't need regulation. We

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 8:43pm.

We don't need regulation. We need anarchy.

...until we need regulation.

Gotta love those libertarian wannabes. "Why doesn't reality conform to this conceptual framework I have laid down?"

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

My eyes are tearing up from

Submitted by Sven on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 11:58am.

My eyes are tearing up from all this rugged individualist heroism. A reg'lar bunch of Davy Crocketts, I tells ya.

The summer I got out of high

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:19pm.

The summer I got out of high school I worked a minimum wage job in a Carrier Air Conditioning plant, out on the factory floor.

The next summer I worked at the old Miller's Dept Store, under the parking garage in a room with no windows, sorting paper charge tickets all day. Also for minimum wage.

I was doing it to earn enough money to get through college. But I came to have a lot of respect for the other folks (especially those on the assembly line) that get up and do the hard, unpleasant work day after day after day. We'd all be SOL if they didn't show up.

As for getting an education and getting a better job - you do realize if everybody did that there wouldn't be anybody left to do the minimum wage jobs? Oh wait, I guess illegal aliens could do them. Oh wait, we're going to deport all of them.

Our economy requires all kinds of jobs and the people in them. All of them need to be respected and treated like their work matters. And frankly, in most cases the work an assembly line worker does matters a whole lot more than the work his grossly over-paid CEO does. If CEOs can make the obscene salaries they do (and please don't insult my intelligence by telling me their "skills" make them worth it), then we can pay assembly line workers a decent wage.

All of them need to be

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:46pm.

All of them need to be respected and treated like their work matters.

Exactly.

Regardless of our level of

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 4:07pm.

Regardless of our level of affluence, everything that enables our comfort, convenience, security, safety, and health is the product of the sweat of somebody's brow. It may not be our own, it may not be that of our parents, but we owe a debt of gratitude to people who got their hands dirty. Instead we keep widening the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots.

Some of the comments on this thread reminded me of a statement attributed to a member of the Astor family at the turn of the twentieth century, "The way things are today, a person with a million dollars could live as though he were rich."

One of those Astors died when his luxurious suite of rooms, highly subsidized by the impoverished immigrant trade, sank off the Grand Banks in 1912.

Geezer, indeed. My first job was painting houses and general handy work for $1.00 an hour. When I went to work at K-25 in 1966 as an Instrument Technician Apprentice for $2.70 an hour I thought I was rich. I was really. A Mercedes 230SL delivered in Knoxville in those days was only $8109.00.

Please excuse the rambling and carry on.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

The underlying fallacy of

Submitted by Sven on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 2:38pm.

The underlying fallacy of this free labor market fantasyland is that better-paying jobs are inherently more valuable (and as a corollary, better-paid workers are inherently more deserving).

As Dean Baker points out, the guvmint could easily flood the domestic market with doctors, lawyers accountants, programmers, journalists, etc., etc., eliminating the artificial scarcity of those skillsets and turning those professions into commodities in a heartbeat.

The fact that it doesn't is every bit as interventionist as raising the minimum wage.

Let them eat cake.

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 6:46pm.

Let them eat cake.

No thanks.

Submitted by KyleBubp on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 7:19pm.

No thank you, they can work for what they want/need, just as I have.

(link...)

Thanksgiving at your house

Submitted by Sven on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 7:36pm.

Thanksgiving at your house must be a real hoot.

they can work for what they

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 7:44pm.

they can work for what they want/need, just as I have.

I notice on your blog you say you are applying for student loans.

Would that be government subsidized and guaranteed loans, setup by a government agency to encourage banks to loan money to otherwise high-risk borrowers and give them forever to pay them off?

At any rate, on behalf of all American taxpayers, we are happy to oblige. (And I'm dead serious about that.) And again, good luck to you in your future endeavors.

"I notice on your blog you

Submitted by ultron on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 8:06pm.

"I notice on your blog you say you are applying for student loans.

Would that be government subsidized and guaranteed loans, setup by a government agency to encourage banks to loan money to otherwise high-risk borrowers and give them forever to pay them off?

At any rate, on behalf of American taxpayers, happy to help out. And again, good luck to you in your future endeavors."

Hee hee! Ouch.

Me personally, I've always thought that decent minimum-wage levels and some kind of minimal health care are what keep the poor from rising up with torches, pitchforks and other implements to, you know, get a revolution going.

I hope you're going to spend

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 8:30pm.

I hope you're going to spend some of that student loan money on a photography class.

snerk!

Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/26 - 9:01pm.

snerk!

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Discussing:

Large banks have too much AI data center debt? (1 reply)
GOP misleading on federal health care funding (1 reply)
Feds indict civil rights group (3 replies)
Georgia issues burn ban, first time in state history (2 replies)
State of TN proposes exempting voucher students from standardized testing (1 reply)
UAE asks for financial assistance? (1 reply)
Are our deployed military going hungry? (1 reply)
Tennessee passes bill to restrict college students' protests (1 reply)
Inflation up, gas up, food up, consumer sentiment lowest ever (1 reply)
Some AI uses are "outside the bounds of safe/reliable technology" (2 replies)
A Letter to the U.S. Congress (1 reply)
President: we can't take care of daycare, Medicare, Medicaid (1 reply)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About