Raising minimum wage increases unemployment

[_EAllusion]

Because of the tobacco suits, there's a huge cache of internal documents from the industry anyone can read if they want. In the case of Milloy, he was head of "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" which also was the principle sponsor of junkscience.com. If there's any question over whether that was a PR front group of the tobacco industry meant to muddy the public's perception of the science, this demonstrates the case as clearly as possible:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2045930493-0504.html

It later folded in oil/chemical industry and related groups as it took the same PR model to issues like global warming and environmental regulation*.

I thought that might be challenged, so I figured I'd preemptively head that off.

*Here's a list of its eventual stable of supporters:

3M
Amoco
Chevron
Dow Chemical
Exxon
General Motors
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lorillard Tobacco
Louisiana Chemical Association
National Pest Control Association,
Occidental Petroleum,
Philip Morris
Procter & Gamble,
Santa Fe Pacific Gold
W.R. Grace.

[_Brackite]

Thank God that the GOP was able to retain control of the House of Representatives!!

Wonder if there is gerrymandering between the districts in Spirit Prison?

I don't know about Spirit Prison, but from my part of the Country, there is no evidence of gerrymandering by the Republicans. For example, in Arizona, while the Republican Party controls both houses of the Arizona State Legislature, and GOP Nominee Mitt Romney won the State of Arizona by 9.05%, the Democrats hold five out of the nine Congregational seats from Arizona.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... zona,_2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... om_Arizona



In California, President Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney 60.24% to 37.12%. And the Democratic Party holds 38 out of the 53 Congressional seats from California, which is more than two-thirds of the Congressional seats there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rnia,_2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... California



In Nevada, the Democratic Party holds two of the Congressional seats there, while the Republican Party also holds two of the Congressional seats there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rom_Nevada

[_EAllusion]

Republican gerrymandering is most brutally efficient in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, etc.

It's the biggest deal in swing states that saw a Republican sweep in 2010. There are states such as Illinois that have a strong Democrat gerrymandering advantage, but overall Republicans currently have been more successful at gerrymandering and have been more gungho about it when given the chance.

The difference between modern gerrymandering and its earlier counterparts is that mathematical models that need sophisticated computing to run have been developed that are incredibly efficient at maximizing a party's advantage within a given window of time. The net effect is comparatively huge advantages for one party in the way districts are drawn that disenfranchises a group of voters.

Sam Wang has calculated that the current Republican edge is about 7 points. That is to say, in order to get a 50/50 house split, Democrats would have to win the national congressional vote by about 7 points. That constitutes a strong landslide. In a normal, baseline election the vote split usually is close to 50/50, with a slight edge going to Democrats. A baseline election gives you a moderate Republican landslide. An election with a moderate Republican edge will give an extreme landslide.

The most recent election saw about 1.5 million more votes cast for Democratic congressional candidates. The result was a high-moderate Republican victory in the house.

[_cinepro]

The proposition that, ceteris paribus, the more costly it becomes to acquire some good or service the fewer will be the number of units, per period of time, of that good or service that people wish to acquire is not an ancillary or secondary proposition in economics. It’s foundational. So when someone argues that this proposition doesn’t hold for good X or service L, the burden of persuasion is on that someone to make a compelling case for such a startling proposition. And it is a heavy burden.

The percentage of empirical studies that can be interpreted as showing that a forced increase in the cost of hiring workers does not reduce the quantity demanded of such workers (or, more generally, does not prompt employers to adjust in ways that diminish the employment options of low-skilled workers) is hardly high enough to compel economists to say, “Yes indeed. Low-skilled human labor does indeed appear, at least over some range of costs, to be exempt from the law of demand.” And yet economists who support raising the minimum wage – knowing full well that if the law of demand is never suspended for low-skilled labor that a higher minimum wage will indeed harm such workers generally – nevertheless rush on the basis of relatively flimsy evidence to support a policy that threatens harm to low-skilled workers.

http://cafehayek.com/2013/02/waging-war ... -wage.html

[_mledbetter]

Republican gerrymandering is most brutally efficient in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, etc.

It's the biggest deal in swing states that saw a Republican sweep in 2010. There are states such as Illinois that have a strong Democrat gerrymandering advantage, but overall Republicans currently have been more successful at gerrymandering and have been more gungho about it when given the chance.

The difference between modern gerrymandering and its earlier counterparts is that mathematical models that need sophisticated computing to run have been developed that are incredibly efficient at maximizing a party's advantage within a given window of time. The net effect is comparatively huge advantages for one party in the way districts are drawn that disenfranchises a group of voters.

Sam Wang has calculated that the current Republican edge is about 7 points. That is to say, in order to get a 50/50 house split, Democrats would have to win the national congressional vote by about 7 points. That constitutes a strong landslide. In a normal, baseline election the vote split usually is close to 50/50, with a slight edge going to Democrats. A baseline election gives you a moderate Republican landslide. An election with a moderate Republican edge will give an extreme landslide.

The most recent election saw about 1.5 million more votes cast for Democratic congressional candidates. The result was a high-moderate Republican victory in the house.

This is just annoying to even read. Both parties do this garbage. Nothing new here. Technically, both parties invented this crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ican_Party

[_mledbetter]

I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with the effects of raising the minimum wage. There is certainly evidence that it hurts manufacturing as a whole in this country when you take into consideration that we are now part of a global economy and have to compete with much lower wages outside the U.S.

My problem with it is that it seems to be yet another nod to American Unions. Most union wage contracts are based on the minimum wage with stipulations stating that there will have to be renegotiation if the minimum wage rises. Obama is just rewarding his supporters here. Nothing new. Just like he rewarded Buffet by killing the keystone pipeline deal. Didn't want to hurt his buddy's railroad having a monopoly transporting oil down from Canada. Just like he rewarded his supporters in all of the failed Green energy companies he gave billions to.
Green energy -> crony capitalism.
Keystone Pipleline -> crony capitalism
minimum wage -> crony capitalism
bailout -> crony capitalism

I understand that both parties do this crap, but when are the Obama supporters here going to just admit that your guy is just as bad as the last one. I know the media is pretty effective at turning us against each other, but we all need to wake up and realize that the corruption in this country is just out of hand and none of these jokers up there on capital hill have the balls nor the motivation to do anything about it.

[_Brackite]

Twenty states now have minimum wages above the federal rate, compared to 15 in 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.

Some States do have Minimum wages above the Federal rate, mainly because the cost of living is higher in a few of those States that have higher minimum wages above the Federal rate. For Example, California's minimum wage is $8.00 an hour, but the cost of living in California is higher than it is in most other States. in my opinion, Minimum wage laws should be left up mostly to the States.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MinimumWage.htm

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

[_Kevin Graham]

There is certainly evidence that it hurts manufacturing as a whole in this country when you take into consideration that we are now part of a global economy and have to compete with much lower wages outside the U.S.

In theory, but most manufacturing jobs pay well above the minimum wage anyway, and there isn't any clear evidence from previous MW bumps that decrease in domestic manufacturing was the result.

My problem with it is that it seems to be yet another nod to American Unions.

What's so awful about unions? It seems to me our lives would suck without them. Don't you believe workers should be able to negotiate their own wages? So why shouldn't they be able to negotiate in groups?

Most union wage contracts are based on the minimum wage with stipulations stating that there will have to be renegotiation if the minimum wage rises.

This isn't known for sure. It is true in "some" union contracts, but not all, and probably not "most." A recent WSJ article covered this topic stating there is no way to know what percentage of union contracts has this stipulation tied into it.

Obama is just rewarding his supporters here. Nothing new.

Is that what Reagan and Bush were doing when they increased it? Why does everything have to have some hidden motive? Isn't it just possible that Obama wants to increase the minimum wage because it is about time, and because he genuinely believes it is the right thing to do to allow workers wages to keep up with inflation? Ya know, I think Romney suggested the same thing during his campaign.

Just like he rewarded Buffet by killing the keystone pipeline deal.

Here we go again. Are you seriously suggesting that the compelling arguments against Keystone, have nothing to do with his decision?

Didn't want to hurt his buddy's railroad having a monopoly transporting oil down from Canada

Yes, because the man who gave away half his wealth to charity, is really going to be begging for financial help from the President. Isn't it just possible that Buffet invested in the railroad without considerations of future "favors" from Obama? Isn't it possible that Obama really, genuinely, sincerely believes Keystone is a bad idea? I mean it isn't like his pre-election rhetoric was completely different on this issue. So when Romney or any Republican pushes for Keystone, are they merely doing favors for the campaign contributors who benefit? Is it even possible for any politician to have beliefs and values anymore, or are we just to assume they're all puppets being controlled by the money? Because it seems to me that if Democrats were only interested in the money, then they'd be Republicans (i.e. corporate lobbyists pay a hell of a lot more than unions do).

Just like he rewarded his supporters in all of the failed Green energy companies he gave billions to.

Dude, you gotta come up with something better than these failed talking points from the Romney campaign.

[_mledbetter]

Sorry for the late reply. I don't work for the government, a university, or a union.

...and there isn't any clear evidence from previous MW bumps that decrease in domestic manufacturing was the result.

Depends on who you talk to, I guess.

What's so awful about unions? It seems to me our lives would suck without them. Don't you believe workers should be able to negotiate their own wages? So why shouldn't they be able to negotiate in groups?

First of all, that list is such a load of Union crap propoganda, that I can't even read it without getting pissed off.
For instance:
*child labor laws finally gained traction in this country during the great depression, so many adults were desperate for work, that such laws finally had wide support. There were many people who supported such laws, not just unions.
*paid vacations, health care, dental, vision, sick leave are an absolute necessity for any business wanting to attract skilled labor. The idea that unions were the sole reason behind such offering is absolutely ridiculous.
*pensions: the only a-holes that get pensions these days are some private sector unions(paid for by the unions) and government workers (paid for by we the people). The rest of us actually have to work and save for our retirements. The reason, it's too damn expensive for companies to afford pensions and the ridiculous union salaries. Unions pay those pensions now out of their union dues, at least the ones we work with. The only other company that I've ever interviewed with that offered a pension was actually a railroad that was being heavily subsidized by the government, so they could afford that crap, I guess.
*safety conditions are not only a union thing. Companies don't want to work with you if you have a bad safety record because of liability reasons.
*collective bargaining is just great, as long as the business owner has the right to collectively fire your ass or at least move their operations to another state where the labor is cheaper. Also, if I get a job at Kroger, I shouldn't be forced to pay union dues if I don't want to join the stupid union.
*weekends: what a load. Weekends have more to do with religious observances than anything else.
*overtime: another child of the great depression more than anything having to do with Unions. Lucky for unions, we had a democrat in office during the great depression.
I work with union guys all the time. Some are great guys, and the ones that do well were I work have anything but a union mentality. This mentality that you learn a skill and do that skill for the rest of your life and actually expect that you should be paid more for doing the same type of work as you get older or more senior is so freak'n foreign to me that it makes me sick to my stomach. If you want to be competive in this world, you have to learn marketable skills. You can get some of that in a union. However, if you want to move up and learn skills that make you even more money, you aren't going to learn that in a Union. The jokers shouldn't get pissed off when other people are making a butt load more money than they are, but they do. It's ridiculous.

This isn't known for sure. It is true in "some" union contracts, but not all, and probably not "most." A recent WSJ article covered this topic stating there is no way to know what percentage of union contracts has this stipulation tied into it.

You mean this one? The same one that contains this statement?

Minimum-wage hikes are beneficial to unions in other ways. The increases restrict the ability of businesses to hire low-skill workers who might gladly work for lower wages in order to gain experience. Union members thus face less competition from workers who might threaten union jobs.

That's pretty messed up stuff, right there. That's the reason so many people in this country loath unions.
Even if you are right and the minority of Unions have contracts that are based on the minimum wage, how does the nullify my argument that this was a hand-out to his supporters?

Is that what Reagan and Bush were doing when they increased it? Why does everything have to have some hidden motive? Isn't it just possible that Obama wants to increase the minimum wage because it is about time, and because he genuinely believes it is the right thing to do to allow workers wages to keep up with inflation? Ya know, I think Romney suggested the same thing during his campaign.

Reagan and Bush made a LOT of deals with the democrats that I don't agree with, but that's politics. You have to give the other side something if you want something in return.(in theory)

Here we go again. Are you seriously suggesting that the compelling arguments against Keystone, have nothing to do with his decision?

Compelling to who? The radical left?

Yes, because the man who gave away half his wealth to charity, is really going to be begging for financial help from the President.

But I thought you guys on the left believed that the government knows how to spend everybody's money best. Shouldn't he had just given it to the government? It's really easy to do when filing your taxes. He certainly preaches that crap to the rest of us. Buffet can go to hell. He's a self-serving a-hole, if there ever was one.

[_Kevin Graham]

Depends on who you talk to, I guess.

Yes, and who exactly are you talking to? Some person named "LaborUnionReport (diary)", the author of that article? I'm referring to specific evidence based on actual studies. Not right Wing propaganda in the form of blog entries written by people too embarrassed to use their real names.

First of all, that list is such a load of Union crap propoganda, that I can't even read it without getting pissed off.

Well, I'm sorry you're so emotional about this, but this says more about you than it does the information, right?

For instance: *child labor laws finally gained traction in this country during the great depression, so many adults were desperate for work, that such laws finally had wide support. There were many people who supported such laws, not just unions.

Unions began condemning child labor back in the early 1830's and their efforts were essential to the final demise of the practice. In fact, "Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined." Take for example:

1832 New England unions condemn child labor
The New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Workingmen resolve that “Children should not be allowed to labor in the factories from morning till night, without any time for healthy recreation and mental culture,” for it “endangers their . . . well-being and health”

1883 New York unions win state reform
Led by Samuel Gompers, the New York labor movement successfully sponsors legislation prohibiting cigar making in tenements, where thousands of young children work in the trade

1892 Democrats adopt union recommendations
Democratic Party adopts platform plank based on union recommendations to ban factory employment for children under 15

So this isn't "Union crap propaganda". It is well established historical fact.

*paid vacations, health care, dental, vision, sick leave are an absolute necessity for any business wanting to attract skilled labor.

Woah, you're all over the place here. You're lumping all kinds of benefits together and now talking only about "skilled labor." How do you define skilled labor, and what about the folks who don't fall into that category? I can think of many skilled folks like yourself who absolutely hate their jobs because their employers treat them like crap. But right now it is an employer's market, as the supply of skilled workers is extremely high. So the workers don't have nearly as much negotiating power despite their skills and experience. The thing that can offset that kind of imbalance is the power of group negotiations, or unions.

Employer-based Health care wasn't based solely on unions, but they were stronger supporters of it when it was becoming a reality. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research , "its origins can be traced back to 1929, when a group of Dallas teachers contracted with a hospital to cover inpatient services for a fixed annual premium." In other words, a group of employees acted as a group to negotiate these benefits.

The idea that unions were the sole reason behind such offering is absolutely ridiculous.

Depends on which examples.

*pensions: the only a-holes that get pensions these days are some private sector unions(paid for by the unions) and government workers (paid for by we the people).

Sounds like you're just pissed off that the unions managed to negotiate a better deal than you. And of course government workers are paid by tax dollars. So what? This doesn't say anything about whether pensions are right or wrong. Somehow I doubt Republicans would care about military pensions. What about the millions of taxpayers who were against outrageous military spending? Should they have to keep paying for such things?

The rest of us actually have to work and save for our retirements.

And government workers don't work for their retirement? This doesn't make any sense. Of course they do.

The reason, it's too damn expensive for companies to afford pensions and the ridiculous union salaries.

That's what they tell you and want you to believe. Funny how those companies who pay unions, somehow manage to stay in business. Take for example Walmart in Germany. Employees get six weeks paid vacation per year and their average salary is double that of the American-based Walmart employee. But we're told by Walmart in America that it would go out of business if it were unionized here. That's why it spends millions every year fighting unions. Corporations love having the upper hand over potential employees and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid unions because they don't want an even playing field. The closest thing we have to tyrannical government in this country is found within corporate America. You're told what to do, what to wear, how to act, where to be, when to be there, you're judged or reprimanded when legitimate issues arise that cause you to be late, absent, you're told how much you're going to get paid no matter how much you deserve or require to make ends meet, etc. Whatever happened to the love of freedom and liberty? In corporate America both have been reduced to a considerable degree.

Very few workers, as a percentage, can actually negotiate their wages and benefits in this country, and that's the way corporate America wants it. They have to maintain this sense that you need them more than they need you. The power of unions tilts the scales and balances them out. Businesses need employees just as much as employees need them.

Unions pay those pensions now out of their union dues, at least the ones we work with. The only other company that I've ever interviewed with that offered a pension was actually a railroad that was being heavily subsidized by the government, so they could afford that crap, I guess.

Well, my job isn't union, but it does offer 401k. In fact, almost every job I've ever interviewed with offers this. And why do you think they offer that when by law, they're not required to? I haven't looked into this but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a result of competing with unionized pension programs.

safety conditions are not only a union thing. Companies don't want to work with you if you have a bad safety record because of liability reasons.

I think you missed the point of this. I didn't say it was only a union thing. Unions are to be thanked for pushing for safety standards. Companies are always trying to cut corners to maximize profits and one of the things that gets lost in the mix is the importance of safety standards. They don't want to put in the money necessary because ultimately they'd rather gamble and bet that no one will get killed on the job during a given year. You're approaching this issue as if the employee is the problem. I don't know of anyone who can be said to have a "bad safety record" as if people are intentionally trying to get hurt on the job. That makes no sense to me. Just take for example the coal miners who died in Kentucky five years ago. The CEO admitted to refusing to abide by Federal safety measures because he said it was cheaper to just pay the fines instead. The point about unions and safety is that they have more power to see something done about it.

*collective bargaining is just great, as long as the business owner has the right to collectively fire your ass or at least move their operations to another state where the labor is cheaper. Also, if I get a job at Kroger, I shouldn't be forced to pay union dues if I don't want to join the stupid union.

I agree with all of this. But you're not forced to pay union dues at Kroger.

*weekends: what a load. Weekends have more to do with religious observances than anything else.

Not true. It wasn't until the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America demanded and received a five-day work week, that this became the norm: "After that, the rest of the United States slowly followed, but it was not until 1940 that the two-day weekend began nationwide." Besides, it wasn't like the sabbath was considered to be on Sunday or Saturday (depending on the religion), only after the turn of the 20th century. As far as the Eight hour work day, there is no getting around the fact that this was a product of unions.

I work with union guys all the time. Some are great guys, and the ones that do well were I work have anything but a union mentality.

What the hell is a "union mentality" if it doesn't apply to those union folks you also like?

This mentality that you learn a skill and do that skill for the rest of your life and actually expect that you should be paid more for doing the same type of work as you get older or more senior is so freak'n foreign to me that it makes me sick to my stomach.

That's exactly how it works in many non-union job markets. My step-father has been with BellSouth/ATT as an engineer for something like fifty years now. He admits to doing exactly nothing at his job, but he refuses to retire because they keep changing the retirement packages. If he stays another 2-3 years, his retirement benefits go up even further. He has been saying this for ten years now. I don't know all the details of the packages, but I know it is enough to make this 71 year old, lazy fart, milk his company for a six figure salary every year even though he admits to doing nothing productive. Most days he just stays home and listens in on conference calls. I say listen, because I've never once heard him speak up or offer any input. He's just a corporate relic they refuse to fire because there is some sense of paying the man something because he has stuck around for so long. And the irony is that he is a union hating Republican like yourself.

If you want to be competive in this world, you have to learn marketable skills. You can get some of that in a union. However, if you want to move up and learn skills that make you even more money, you aren't going to learn that in a Union. The jokers shouldn't get pissed off when other people are making a butt load more money than they are, but they do. It's ridiculous.

The only people I see getting pissed off are folks like you who appear to be envious that unions managed to negotiate a better deal than you. You're judging them all for having a "mentality" of laziness or refusal to learn new skills. What the hell Matt, do you think every job is similar to computer programming? You're going to have to learn more languages and/or stay updated with the way the industry is changing. But in many unionized industries, a person's experience is all they need to warrant pay increases. When I went to school for CISCO routing it was explained to me that salary was based on experience. The longer you're in the field, the more you get paid. It gets boring as all hell, but you're income is commensurate with the time you put in. So this is not something unique to unions because the value of a worker increases with his experience.

That's pretty messed up stuff, right there. That's the reason so many people in this country loath unions.

That is just this author's opinion which I have already shown to be a moot point regarding the effects of minimum wage laws on employment. There is no longer a consensus on this issue anymore, though I can understand why Republicans would endorse the view that minimum wages are always bad (since they're primary supporters are corporations who fund them), and decrease employment. You guys like to take extreme examples to make your points, so allow me to do likewise. Instead of asking what would happen if minimum wages were increased to $20, what do you think would happen if the MW was dropped to $2? Yes, of course employment rates would skyrocket. But at the same time average wages would fall through the floor. People today have to work two jobs to make ends meet, whereas in a world without MW, they'd have to work three or four, which would be impossible anyway because there are only 168 hours in a week and at least a quarter of that should be reserved for sleeping. Or do you think the free market should decide how much sleep we need? So what's the point of having a low 2% unemployment rate while poverty increases? That's essentially a result of Capitalism. Capitalism only works when workers are paid less than what they're worth. All the wealth is funneled to a minority at the top as they're wealth makes an uneven playing field by providing them with more political clout, political speech, so that they can see legislation through that further benefits their wallets. It isn't a coincidence that wages have stagnated since Reagan, while productivity has skyrocketed. America's greatest periods of prosperity were times when wages were more evenly distributed. Thirty years ago a CEO would make a fraction what he makes now, while the grub workers were making enough to live comfortably in the middle class. Nowadays a CEO is expected to make a larger share of a company's profits while a smaller share goes to the folks at the bottom end of the ladder. And this is all well and good, because..... because the free market is always the fair market? I call BS on that theory.

If Republicans got their way, the MW would be gone, poverty would skyrocket, taxes on the wealthy would be reduced to virtually nothing, infrastructure in the country would collapse, the wealthy would live in their own gated communities, shut off from the rest of the country, etc. Such a warped distribution of wealth would turn us into a country very much like Brazil.

I mean it is the same "solution" they propose every year since the Reagan years. John Boehner actually had an argument last week with a journalist, and he insisted there was "mountains" of evidence that cutting taxes on the wealthy produces a booming economy! This is how deluded these folks are. No amount of evidence will suffice. They have their dogma, and they're going to employ blind faith no matter what. There is nothing new or innovative in the way they propose solutions. It is all about preserving a failed ideology, cut taxes, reduce all regulations, decrease government from every angle, and we'll all live happily ever after. I mean their philosophy is really that simplistic. Yet, there is no evidence to support it, and plenty to refute it.