IN A CRITIQUE OF A RECENT COLUMN by New York Times columnist David Brooks, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said the following:
“(W)hen almost all the gains from growth go to the top, as they have for the last thirty years, the middle class doesn’t have the purchasing power necessary for buoyant growth.
“Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms — wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) — the inevitable result is fewer jobs and slow growth, as we continue to experience.
“Few jobs and slow growth hit the poor especially hard because they’re the first to be fired, last to be hired, and most likely to bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits.”
Dr. Reich is right on the (literal) money. Stagnant wages mean slow growth, because the primary driver of growth is customers, and if customers can’t buy, then businesses can’t sell.
It is worth mentioning a fundamental principle of political economics, borne out by rafts of research over many decades: the higher you go on the wealth ladder, the more likely is the holder of wealth to save, rather than spend, any gains in marginal income. If you are or know people toward the bottom of the income scale, you will immediately grasp the truth of why this is so: people at the bottom defer or do without things that, in the present moment and circumstance, qualify as “needs.”
When I was making very little money, my cars received repairs on a triage basis — the urgent and mandatory, purely mechanical stuff got fixed, and everything else was subject to the duct-tape-the-hole-and-live-with-it kind of solution. At some point the heater core in my old Ford Taurus cracked and spewed coolant in the interior, so I disconnected the heater and drove around wearing jackets in the wintertime (it helps that I live in Northern California; in a place like Michigan, a heater is more of a necessity).
My place was furnished with second-hand and garage sale-acquired furniture and cookware, including an ancient television I’d gotten from my parents when they got a better model.
I had no cable television, kept my heater off most of the time and for several years had no car at all (back then I could walk to work, so I had no commute expenses).
I economized in many other ways: I never ate out, since cooking my own food from scratch was way cheaper; I bought most of my wardrobe at the Goodwill store across the street from my job; on vacations I would hike up into the Berkeley Hills or camp at the beach, spend time with friends, and so on.
Qualitatively, it actually wasn’t a bad life, but here’s the thing: Any increase in income — and in those days my raises were in 50-cent-per-hour increments — was spent on little upgrades. Rather than never going to the movies, I could suddenly go to a matinee once a month. The next raise, I might be able to go to a local restaurant a few times a month and order something cheap (this usually meant a cup of soup or maybe a salad).
In other words I could suddenly afford to have things, many of them pretty basic, that poverty had previously denied me.
As I got those little life-upgrades, I was also doing something else: I was contributing more to other people’s incomes. That one more movie ticket or cheap dinner were provided by workers who were paid to provide them to me, and whose wages also contributed to still others’ economic advancement. Those 50-cent raises were put to work more or less immediately in the economy.
For those at the top of the income ladder, on the other hand, a 50-cent raise is far more likely to be put into savings of one sort or another. Once you have a nice house, a couple nice cars, the vacation house in Aspen and the yacht in the Caribbean, you start to run out of things to spend money on.
The resulting savings are also essential to the economy, of course. Those savings are put to work by companies that need to expand production capacity or replace outdated equipment with newer and more efficient equipment.
So, both savings and spending are needed; the question is, which of those two things is more needed in our current situation?
The answer is provided by Heidi Shierholz, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute:
“Just 74,000 payroll jobs were added in December. It is unlikely that the underlying growth rate is this low, but the weak December showing does highlight that the excessive optimism in recent weeks about strong acceleration in the labor market is likely misplaced. The average monthly growth rate in 2013 was 182,000, just under the average monthly growth rate in 2012, which was 183,000. At the average growth rate of the last three months — 172,000 jobs per month — it would take nearly six more years to regain pre-recession labor market conditions, given our gap of 7.9 million jobs.”
Nearly eight million missing jobs means there is not demand in the economy sufficient to justify creating them. Given the obvious lack of demand in the economy, and the well-established fact that the best way to increase demand is to put more money into the hands of people who will spend it rather than save it, I think we have an open-and-shut case for an increase in the minimum wage — and more generally for policies that result in more equitable distribution of economic gains.
As Dr. Reich said, we’ve tried sending more family members into the workforce, working longer hours and loosening credit to enable consumption through increasing indebtedness. It is time to focus our efforts on more sustainable ways of increasing demand in the economy.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Before an election? Probably not going to happen.
With support for a minimum wage hike running at about 70%, Whigs are only shooting themselves in the foot if they don’t do anything before the election.
I agree with you on that point to a certain degree. Here is why it likely won’t happen:
Demoncrats want this issue to be alive so they can continue to scape goat the evil rich white man for keeping their feet on the necks of the down trodden. Ignorant voters fall for this crap and vote in Demoncrats to try and get more feed from the trough, be it through various government hand outs or a forced increase in wages.
If Republicans were smart (and they are not) they would pass a token minimum wage, disarming this as an issue.
As a majority of Whigs support a minimum wage hike, you seem to be suggesting the majority of Whigs are ignorant. We might finally be reaching some common ground.
There is no shame or embarrassment in ignorance.
I freely admit my ignorance regarding a number of subjects: the succession of rulers during the Ming Dynasty, for example.
Lack of information is simple ignorance, which can be easily overcome.
Taking advantage of ignorance for political gain is entirely different; as is willingness to deceive the voters to achieve one’s political ends (if you like your health care plan…).
This subject (min. wage) is an example of creating an issue for political ends, as a raise in the min. wage is a band aid used to garner votes, divide the nation, avoid addressing 0bumer’s failings and does not represent a fix.
No, I am not embarrassed to admit a lack of knowledge on various subjects. But I would be embarrassed and ashamed to stand behind a party, such as the Demoncrats (or their supporters) who purposefully deceive the electorate and keep others ignorant with false information.
“This subject (min. wage) is an example of creating an issue for political ends, as a raise in the min. wage is a band aid used to garner votes, divide the nation, avoid addressing 0bumer’s failings and does not represent a fix.”
No, it’s a matter of economic fairness, economic expansion, shrinking the untenable disparity between rich and poor, and keeping people out of poverty. That we’ve gone this long without increasing the minimum wage is a travesty.
“Demoncrats (or their supporters) who purposefully deceive the electorate and keep others ignorant with false information.”
Absurd on its face. Just one revealing example: the Whigs are the ones trying to dismantle Medicare, yet tried to suggest in 2012 that they were trying to ‘save’ Medicare and that President Obama was trying to tear it down.
Another example of such tactics from the propaganda arm of the Whigs, Faux News…
Obama said this to New Yorker magazine:
““There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president, Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,”
Pretty balanced statement, no? Pretty hard to argue with, no? However, as reported by Faux and the entire right-wing media empire, Obama only stated the first sentence. No purposeful deceit there? ‘Fair and balanced, LOL!’
No, it’s a matter of …. keeping people out of poverty.
Isn’t that what the ‘War on Poverty’ was about?
How did that work out?
Just in case you did not already know the answer.
Worked out quite well, actually. Fact is, the War on Poverty had a great success rate until funding was redirected elsewhere. In the first 10 years, the poverty rate shrank from 19% to 11% (42% improvement!)…until money was diverted to escalate the war in Vietnam. Ensuing years have found the Whigs doing all in their power to erode the safety net under those who need it. Still, we’re currently at 15%, so despite all of the Whigs’ efforts to starve the hungry, we’re still 21% better off than we were when the WOP began. Not as good as it should be, or as it will be if the Whigs get out of the way, but much better than we were when the ‘war’ began.
Since you did not read the link, I will summarize portions of it:
The real question is: What did the “war on poverty” set out to do — and how well did it do it, if at all?
Both President John F. Kennedy…(and) Lyndon B. Johnson…were very explicit as to what the “war on poverty” was intended to accomplish.
What the war on poverty was intended to end was mass dependency on government.
President Kennedy: “We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence.”
The same theme was repeated endlessly by President Johnson: make “taxpayers out of taxeaters.”
Its slogan was “Give a hand up, not a handout.”
Lyndon Johnson “The days of the dole in our country are numbered.”
Now, 50 years and trillions of dollars later, it is painfully clear that there is more dependency than ever.
As to the specifics of your comment, Sowell predicted the response:
When the hard facts show that a policy has failed, nothing is easier for its defenders than to make up a new set of criteria, by which it can be said to have succeeded.
That has in fact been what happened with the “war on poverty.”
A minimum wage hike lifts people out of poverty, taking them off of welfare, or off of food stamps, or off of education assistance, etc. MINIMIZING the need for your so-called ‘handouts’. As usual, you talk in circles. Whigs destroy the economy and create hardships for the poor…INCREASING the need for government assistance. History shows the economy succeeds much more with Dems in the WH. You consistently avoid the facts and cherry-pick/twist quotes. You’re an easy example of the quote you cite. Hard facts cause you to change the criteria. More purposeful deceit. It’s how you roll.
As usual, you talk in circles. I have to, as you neither listen nor read the sources cited.
Whigs destroy the economy and create hardships for the poor It all George BUSH”S FAULT!!!!!!
Hard facts cause you to change the criteria. You claimed near victory in the War on poverty, I referenced you back to the original purpose of the WOP. That is not changing criteria; that is called accountability for original intent, a term demoncrats are not familiar with.
More purposeful deceit You are not addressing the points I have made, that is simple avoidance
who makes the minimum wage?
Answer: 2.8% of all workers. 50% of whom are age 24 or less. 24% of whom are under 19. 64% are part time.
Your arguments reiterate the same tired old talking points that have been passed around since LBJ.
Thank you for finally admitting you talk in circles, as it’s been clear to everyone else here for quite a while.
“It all George BUSH”S FAULT!!!!!!” Good, I’m glad we can agree on that. Two unpaid tax cuts for people who don’t need it, two unpaid for wars, a blind-eye toward Wall St. malfeasance, letting Enron drive energy policy, etc. Worst. President. Ever.
“You claimed near victory in the War on poverty” You’re a liar. I said no such thing. I said we’ve made progress. We had made great progress until money was diverted to Vietnam, followed by the Whigs war on the war on poverty.
“who makes the minimum wage?
Answer: 2.8% of all workers. 50% of whom are age 24 or less. 24% of whom are under 19. 64% are part time.”
You conveniently omit the number of people making more than the minimum, but less than the proposed $10.10. Similarly, many currently making more than $10.10 will see their wages increase. 88% (!) of those who would see wages lifted by a hike are over 20.
More fun facts:
In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60, which would be the equivalent of $10.70 now.
It’s been almost FIVE years since the last hike.
States with minimum wages higher than the federal floor have greater job growth than those at the federal floor.
The most comprehensive study on the impact of minimum wage increases is here: http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
“Your arguments reiterate the same tired old talking points that have been passed around since LBJ.”
Not talking points. Facts.
In re Bush, I omitted the obvious…the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Benician how can a minumum wage increase do all the things you say it will. How much per hour will it take to take the folks you are refering to off food stamps, welfare and education assistance {your words}.. In California if at present they are making $9.00 an hour what will it need to go to? At $9.00 full time that is $18,720 a year. Say it goes to $15.00 it is $31,200 a year. You say minimizing the need for support. If what you are saying is going to put a big dent or eliminate support completely I would say you have a good argument. I would like to see your math on this. Then I would say give them the $15.00 and move on. No more support needed. Problem over. The only issue with that is now you have created another unemployed group that will be in greater need of government support. It is also questionable if the increase in minimum wage is going to do what you say. I say nothing changes. The folks on minimum wage will stay where they are and still get government support. Problem is not solved. The Liberals will complain about income equality and way of life for those in need. Personal responsibility is the answer Benician.
Benician the minumum wage will be increased. It will be done by states and not the Federal Government. If the Feds do it it will cause the the Liberal states to hike their minimum wage just to stay ahead of the Feds. The states do best not the Feds. So it will happen and the Feds standard will mean nothing. Just a political move by the Liberals. By the way Benician Fox news is hammering CNN and MSNBC. I have noticed that CNN has become very left leaning. The only problem is Fox News is considered middle of the road and they are stealing the folks that want Fair and Balanced news. Sorry to report the bad news Benician.
Matt: I love your solutions and analysis!…but the moneygrubbers at the top of the dogfood pile that have the gold and make the rules believe the underachievers and sloth-ants at the bottom of the economic woodpile deserve to be here…so therefore we stagnate and watch foreign shores get decimated with toxic rule laxities but offshore jobs…Junk made in China thst usef to be jumk msde in Japan a generation ago…we are so short-term sighted..and so we stagnate…and stagnate and stagnate…benevolence was a word once upon a time ago…Cheers for the days ahead..
pb
Raising the minimum wage has little if nothing to do with helping close income gaps or helping poverty. The best solution to helping the poor is economic growth. The greatest rise in lower income occurred during the 80’s and late 90’s when private sector jobs expanded with economy. Raising minimum wages kills jobs.
The past 6 years the average household income has dropped 7% and true unemployed levels of American workers is reaching 35% as the total employment number has dropped by 6 million under this disastrous administration. Governments don’t create jobs … The private sector creates jobs and this administration continues to attack capital creation and profit.
Help the economy grow and you help the poor. Minimum wage increases punish the poor by killing jobs.
Do you take every fact you can find, then opine the opposite?
1) Raising the minimum wage DOES close the income gap
2) Raising the minimum wage DOES help poverty
3) The greatest rise in lower income in recent history was during the 90’s (Clinton years)
4) DEMAND creates jobs. Higher minimum wage increases demand
Increase in demand in many cases means increase in production with less employees. Very simple high tech manufacturing or production lines in say Fast Food outlets using less folks. That means the employees will now be more skilled and will get a higher wage because of their skills. The unskilled are left to do the unskilled jobs at the minimum wage. Just how does raising the minimum wage close the income gap. Impossible. Just how does raising the minimum wage help poverty. Impossible. Both are effected by inflation which takes away any gains along with all the hiden fees in everyones daily life. The worst rise in lower income is during the Obama years. Demand does create jobs but at the same time creates high tech use in industry which creates demand for skilled work force. The minimum wage unskilled group will remain where they are. Unskilled and in less demand and also remain a mimimun wage group as they always have. The only way to reduce the gap is full employment say at about 4% without government interference. Let industry and free enterprise solve the problem AS they always have. All minimum wage increases do is keep up with inflation and does not take them out of the category they are stuck in without skilled training to get a better job. The government can not do this. The folks can do it as they always have. Another words do it yourself with proper training and preparation for your entry into the work force. It may well have to start at at the minimum wage level to achieve their goal.
Yes the Clinton years. Forget politics and economic positions. Clinton believed and promoted free market activities. NAFTA, reduced capital gains taxes, regulatory relief. Clinton promoted economic policies closer to Reagan than Bush and is the polar opposite of Obama. Same party different policies!
And no … Your position regarding the minimum wage does not hold up to quantitative analysis. Recent studies show a raise to $10 wage would kill 1 million jobs. How is that going to close the wage gap or increase demand? You have to work in order to collect the wage.
Yes the Clinton years. Forget politics and economic positions.
A lot of people forget how Clinton changed during his Presidency. He went all out for ‘HillaryKare’ in ’92-94, it cost him big time. Lost the House. Veered to the middle, becoming the moderate he needed to be to get re-elected. He basically sold out his principles and made a fortune in doing so. Yet they still love him.
Actually, studies show a minimum wage hike will create jobs. Why are states with higher minimum wages faring better than those with lower minimum wages? You can’t spend if you have no money. Everyone makes out. BTW, in re Clinton, you omitted the tax hikes that no Whig voted for and many Whigs, including their leader at the time (Gingrich) said would destroy the economy. Why are the Whigs always wrong on economics?
Without sources or references your statements are meaningless
If you had read thoroughly, you’d have noticed I provided a source: http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
Here’s another: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/qanda
Why are states with higher minimum wages faring better than those with lower minimum wages?
They aren’t:
State Fiscal Condition (50 = worse) Index (Using four solvency indices):
Ranking (Min wage vs. Federal Level) Unemployment rate
50. New Jersey (same as federal Min) Unemployment (from BLS)= 7.8% (Nov. 2013)
49. Connecticut (higher) 7.6%
48. Illinois (higher) 8.7%
47. Massachusetts (higher) 7.1%
46. California (higher) 8.5%
5. Wyoming (lower) 4.4%
4. Nebraska (same) 3.7%
3. North Dakota (same) (2.6%)
2. South Dakota (same) 3.6%
1. Alaska (higher) 6.5%
(based on fiscal year 2012 by Mercatus Center George Mason University)
Hmmmm…the top five are all sparsely populated states with modest public needs, while the bottom five are all densely populated states with huge public needs. Nothing to do with minimum wage (even at that, #1 has a higher min wage, and #50 is the same), but thanks for your usual attempt to mislead and distract.
Sorry Benician the better states are Red States. The worse states are Blue states. What it really shows is that Republican states are better run than the the Liberal states. Benician also note that the Liberal run states have some of the highest taxes in the country and still can not get it right. Sorry Benician Dennis was spot on. Your failure is in interpretation.
No Benician is right. Bob is wrong again.
Thanks Bob. Interesting side note on those “sparsely populated states:
Omaha Nebraska Murder rate
We can all produce studies for every position. So how about common sense.
Less than 7% of the population works at minimum wage. 90% of those jobs are service sector. Service sector businesses are largely low profit margin entities. The highest cost sector in these businesses are labor. You raise the cost of labor, you cannot employ more laborers. Employment drops. Add in the horrendous cost increases associated with healthcare/Obamacare, employment drops further. You cannot hire if your costs are increasing. Period. Common sense. And one can only spend an increase in wages if you have a job and get paid. Lose the job, it doesn’t matter what the wage level is.
Regarding Clinton, he raised marginal rates once, but lowered all other taxes, promoted deregulation, and supported free trade. He also had a strongly Republican congress throughout. He was only presented economic legislation that was conservative. Clinton, functionally, was an economic conservative.
So, the tax hikes were conservative legislation? Is that why it drew 0 Whig votes? While I have issues with many things Clinton did, it’s nice revisionist history to suddenly call him some kind of hero on the right. I sure don’t recall much support for him from the right while he was Prez.
In re the service sector…what are you calling such jobs? Health care industry? Accounting? Information technology? Investment services? Yes, we can produce studies, as I’ve done, or you can pull crap out of your a$$, as you’ve done. More pay = more money to spend = greater demand = more jobs. Economics 101.
You obviously have never run a business or understand fiscal issues. More pay=higher costs=lower profit=loss of jobs.
Maybe you’ll understand this … If high wages is the key to lower employment, why are so many jobs going to China? Why does the USA have persistently high unemployment? If what you state as a policy were true, our unemployment rate would be near zero.
Your equation is faulty. lower profit does not equal loss of jobs. Lower demand equals loss of jobs. If I’m selling widgets, and it requires one man-day of labor to sell 100 widgets, am I gonna cut back on labor and not sell those 100 widgets? If more money in consumers’ hands means I can sell more widgets, won’t I increase labor to meet the demand? I employ enough labor to move the optimum number of widgets I can sell.
If I can sell the same number of widgets with less labor, I’ll cut back on labor whether or not there’s a wage hike.
Benician it appears you are using the Socialist model. It does not work in the USA.
Clinton had a lot of support from the Republicans because he did many things the Republican way and it worked. He knew when to fold em. His defeat in Arkansas taught him that.
Everything you point out Benician just supports the FACT of what the minimum wage is for. Entry level positions. Not to be a career minimum wage worker. Training, training and more training. Not Liberals Socialist ideals. Never has worked.
The real answer is energy. We must and will be energy independent. We will do it safely and healthy. Jobs are and will come back to America because of cost of energy and our advanced high tech manufacturing. Natural gas for cars, trucks, buses and heavy equipment. In America we are sitting on a gold mine and that is fossil fuel. We will extract it in a very clean, safe and healthy way. We must work together with the producers, scientist, silicon valley and the anti fossil fuel group to get the correct regulations to the satisfaction of all. It can be done. Matt minimum wage is not the answer. Low paying or minimum wage jobs are going to slowly be reduced. Those that pay those wages will being hiring less folks because they are also going high tech and will need less workers to do the job, ever fast food. Minimum wage is what it is a minimum skill job. It always has been and will always be that way. Pure stepping stone or temporary work while going to school or preparing yourself for a better job. Most of us had them and were glad we did because they filled the need as we moved on in our desire to be skilled and get a better job. Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. In some cases only a supplement to household income that fit the schedule of the person. Matt I do believe you must learn the difference between low income , middle, higher and the top tier. Once you have got that issue solved you will realize that it is not the governments job to guide you to a better paying job. Matt it is you and it has always been you.
From the above article:
“Now is the time to raise the minimum wage”
From the article below more information on the minimum wage for the community to consider…
11 Jobs Where an Honest Day’s Work Earns You Poverty
The current minimum wage is a maximum shame on America.
“As the fight for a raise in the minimum wage heats up, with Democrats pushing hard in 2014, here’s a look at some of the hard-working people who don’t deserve poverty as the reward of an honest day’s work.”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/11-jobs-where-honest-days-work-earns-you-poverty?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Let’s take a closer look at one of those 11 Will:
3. Casino workers: Pity the poor suckers losing money at the blackjack table, but pity the dealer, too. Many casino jobs, like dealers and drink servers, are either minimum wage or just a notch above…. Often these employees depend on tips to support their livelihoods…
Tips are the key. An average Blackjack dealer makes around 50-70K. Not a bad income and much higher than any min. wage job.
Most jobs that rely on tips pay low wages and people line up for them. I worked my way through college as a waiter, min wage. But I could clear enough on tips in one weekend to pay for my monthly rent (Large apartment 2 blocks from the beach).
Most of what is contained in that list has more holes in it than a sieve.
Will you may want to look at the reason they have those jobs.
Many on the right are mostly against a minimum wage hike AND against a public safety net. Well, you can’t be against both, unless you’re in favor of a never-ending growth to the underclass.
The minumum wage has always been raised and will be this time also. Many states do it on their own. No need for the government help. The chance for the poor to get to the 20% level is better now than 45 years ago. The opportunity is still there. We must all strive to do better and but our self in a better position for a better job. This whole minimum wage issue is pure politics. It should be left to the states to make that decision. Not the government trying to exchange the distribution of income another words redistribution. That is all it is. By the way this issue is low on the voters minds.
“Without sources or references your statements are meaningless.” “DDL” January 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm
“Livesay” makes point about skill and training. Eventually we will drive up to a MCDonalds and all of our food will be prepared and served by robots. Automation and technology have replaced more jobs than offshoring and downsizing. The self checkout line at the bridge toll booth(eliminated), supermarket, robotic orange and grape pickers, and gas pumping station are examples of how technology has replaced many jobs. So the bottom line is that if we want eliminate more unskilled workers, who many come from poverty stricken areas, we must invest more heavily in the education, training, and life subsistence of the poor and under advantaged. “Livesay” makes a valid point, but fails to create a connection of how to reduce the number of unskilled. The food and hospitality industries are one of the greatest employers of low paying jobs. These low paying jobs will be replaced by robtic automation devices.
Harvey as I said you must properly prepare yourself for the next better paying position. Even at entry level fast food places they do have training programs and do promote from within. I have hired people right from a very minimum wage paying job. I gave them the opportunity and they took advantage of the opportunity.. Company training and educatiom money. Guess what. They got a college degree and are now thriving when they thought the world had left them behind. The government has many programs that help the unskilled and poor to take advantage of opportunites. It does not appear it is working as well as it should. Indivuals must seek out opportunity and use the tools that are offered. It make take a lot of effort but what is the alternative. I will seek out opportunity and get results. It also shows that there is a way out to other folks that are or could be permanently minimum wage folks. It takes effort and a little help will not hurt.
“Livesay” makes a [valid] point…..
When a wealthy person pays more taxes they face no starvation, homelessness, health care issues, lack of education opportunity, but those at the bottom are significantly effected by a lack of economic “horsepower”. Not everyone has the “intellectual, physical, emotional, and innate personality” to be a high achiever. We as a compassionate society must recognize these short comings of part of our population and not glibly and inhumanley say, “they need to get off their lazy dumb asses”; this previous unkind apathetic statement does not address or solve the corpus of the problem.
Thank you, Harvey, I agree, benevolent used to be a word in the dictionary…I think it was replaced by blatant greed…pb
From the above article:
“Now is the time to raise the minimum wage”
From the article below, more information on the minimum wage for the community and our elected leaders to contemplate…
A victory for the minimum wage workers—
“If working-class activists and progressive organizations do not build a strong left-wing political alternative, then the vacuum of growing anger in society will be filled either by right-wing demagogues or by populist Democrats who will attempt to contain our movements within the “safe” channels of the corporate Democratic Party.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/03
Thanks Will for confiming you are a Socialist. That must have been very easy for you to finally come out of your political hiding if you were you in political hiding. Does not appear that way Will. Just took you a little while to admit it.They will love you in Seattle.
A minimum wage is only effective if you have a job. Raise minimum wage, you lose jobs. 10% of nothing is nothing.
Best way to raise wages is to create jobs. Jobless rate drops, businesses have to compete to hire new employees. They have offer higher wages to win the employees. Incomes go up.
Mandating minimum wage increases in a week economy only costs jobs. This turns into “Good news Mr. Jones. Minimum wages are going up. Bad news, we have to eliminate your job. ”
I want people to make more. Let the market work and wages will go up and job creation will also go up. Best of both worlds.