Democrats want to raise the minimum wage

[forrestkc]

But, WSB, Democrats have been the biggest spenders up until these last 2 years.

Clinton never proposed an increase in discretionary spending of more than 3% over the previous year.

Bush has averaged 8% in his budget proposals so far.

Reagan averaged 11% growth in his budget proposals.

That is the budget proposed, not what congress actually passed. What the Republican Congress passed and what Bush Signed into law has amounted to the largest growth in the fiscal size of the federal government in American history. Bush is actually outspending LBJ of all people.

Moderates have always spent less than conservatives or liberals. Bush Sr. and Clinton were fiscal conservatives compared to President Bush and Reagan. I might add that Eisenhower was the biggest fiscal conservative in so far as his budget proposals went, and he was a moderate as well. You want smaller government, elect a moderate Republican or a moderate Democrat.

[Marnie]

But, WSB, Democrats have been the biggest spenders up until these last 2 years.

Clinton never proposed an increase in discretionary spending of more than 3% over the previous year.

Bush has averaged 8% in his budget proposals so far.

Reagan averaged 11% growth in his budget proposals.

That is the budget proposed, not what congress actually passed. What the Republican Congress passed and what Bush Signed into law has amounted to the largest growth in the fiscal size of the federal government in American history. Bush is actually outspending LBJ of all people.

Moderates have always spent less than conservatives or liberals. Bush Sr. and Clinton were fiscal conservatives compared to President Bush and Reagan. I might add that Eisenhower was the biggest fiscal conservative in so far as his budget proposals went, and he was a moderate as well. You want smaller government, elect a moderate Republican or a moderate Democrat.

Whoa. Before we re-write history here, part of Reagan's problem was having to rebuild the military, which was decimated by 4 years of Jimmy Carter. By rebuilding our military strength, he put an end to the Cold War, which was a good investment, IMO. He was also hampered by an unfriendly Congress, who did the lion's share of the spending. If you are going use Reagan as an example, you should know your history. My only quibble with the Reagan years is that, in fact, while he did cut taxes, spending was not cut spending accordingly.

Clinton was, in fact, aided by a Republican Congress in the latter half of his presidency. I would not call him a fiscal conservative, although he by no means was a fast and lose spender. The same goes for Bush 1.

GWB is a big-time spender. You got me there, and my quaterly tax installments prove it!

[forrestkc]

Whoa. Before we re-write history here, part of Reagan's problem was having to rebuild the military, which was decimated by 4 years of Jimmy Carter. By rebuilding our military strength, he put an end to the Cold War, which was a good investment, IMO. He was also hampered by an unfriendly Congress, who did the lion's share of the spending. If you are going use Reagan as an example, you should know your history. My only quibble with the Reagan years is that, in fact, while he did cut taxes, spending was not cut spending accordingly.

Clinton was, in fact, aided by a Republican Congress in the latter half of his presidency. I would not call him a fiscal conservative, although he by no means was a fast and lose spender. The same goes for Bush 1.

GWB is a big-time spender. You got me there, and my quaterly tax installments prove it!

I grade on the curve when I use the term "fiscal conservative" anymore.

Actually congress passed a couple of budgets in the 80s that were lower than Reagan proposed. That said, you are right, Reagan did have to build up the military to show the Soviet Union there was no way they could compete with us in the long run.

Bush Sr. and Clinton were ideologically very similar in terms of economics. Both men were pragmatic in their administrations economic policy. They were both free trade and pro-degregulation. That is the kind of guys you want running things. Every budget Bush Sr. forced congress to agree to only 3% in discretionary growth, and Clinton vetoed billions each year in corporate welfare that the Republican Congress sent him. Bush quit vetoing all the kickbacks and corporate welfare, and then got in Iraq, and the resulting spending increases are the result. Unfortunately, this bunch of Republicans that came in 1994 were not the libertarian Barry Goldwater Republicans, this bunch has consistently out spent even the most liberal Democrats, the only difference being is that instead of pouring money into social programs, they let K-Street lobbysts write all the bills.

I am sick of all of them to be honest with you. Maybe this bunch of Dems coming into power next month will stick to the center and do better. I will believe it when I see it though.

Edited December 20, 2006 by forrestkc

[Marnie]

I thought I'd put this up. Walter Williams is a hero of mine with impeccable credentials. The whole article is here, but below are some excerpts:

There are decent people, without a selfish hidden agenda, who support increases in minimum wages as a means to help low-skilled workers, and there are other decent people, with the identical goal, who strongly oppose increases in the minimum wage. So the question is: How can people who share the same goals, helping low-skilled workers, come up with polar opposite means that produce polar opposite results?

It all depends on one's initial premise. It would do us some good to make our initial premises explicit and check them against reality. One initial premise is that an employer needs a certain number of workers to accomplish a given task. That being the case, increasing the minimum wage simply means that all low-skilled workers will enjoy a higher salary and employers will have lower profits and/or customers will pay higher prices. With this vision of how the world operates, the logic of increasing the minimum wage as a means of helping low-skilled workers is impeccable.

Another initial premise is that there is no fixed number of workers necessary to accomplish a given task. Employers might be able to substitute capital for labor such as using dishwashing machines instead of dishwashers, automatic elevators instead of elevator operators, self-service gasoline stations rather than full-service gasoline stations, online reservations rather than reservation clerks or relocating their operation overseas. People who share this initial premise can still have concern for the welfare of low-skilled workers but argue that increasing minimum wages will cause unemployment for some of them and deny job opportunities for others. Given their initial premise, the logic of their argument is also impeccable.

Thus, the question to decide is which initial premise best describes how the world operates. Is it the one that says there's a fixed number of workers necessary to perform a given task, or the one that says employers have flexibility in the mix of workers and capital they use and where in the world they can choose to manufacture? I think the latter description more properly describes how the world operates.

Place yourself in the position of an employer and ask: If a worker costs me, say, $7 in wages, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, unemployment compensation, sick and vacation leave, making the true hourly cost of hiring a worker $9 an hour, does it pay me to hire a worker who's so unfortunate to have skills that enable him to produce only $5 or $6 worth of value per hour? Most employers would conclude that doing so would be a losing economic proposition.

There are a couple other villains in the piece that force employers to respond to increases in wages that exceed a worker's productivity. If he did hire such workers, he would earn lower profits. Soon, investors would abandon him and put their money where returns are higher.

There's another villain -- the customer. If the employer retained workers whose wages exceeded their productivity, to cover his costs he would have to charge you and me higher product or service prices. I don't know about you, but I prefer lower prices to higher prices, and I'd switch my patronage to those firms who adjusted to the higher labor cost.

Congress can easily mandate higher wages, but they cannot mandate higher worker productivity or that employers hire a particular worker in the first place. Those of us who truly care about the welfare of low-skilled workers should focus our energies on helping them to become more productive, and a good start would be to do something about the rotten education that many receive.

[forrestkc]

The problem with Walter Williams assertion is that productivity increases have far outpaced wage increases for 6 years now. Therefore, productivity increases is obviously not bringing about wage increases, especially on the low end of the scale.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...pshots_20050421

As I keep saying, there is how ideologues on the left and right want the world to work, and there is the reality of how it actually works.

[Marnie]

The problem with Walter Williams assertion is that productivity increases have far outpaced wage increases for 6 years now. Therefore, productivity increases is obviously not bringing about wage increases, especially on the low end of the scale.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...pshots_20050421

As I keep saying, there is how ideologues on the left and right want the world to work, and there is the reality of how it actually works.

Like I said, the Economic Policy Istitute has their own agenda.

Hey, forrestkc...let's see how long we can keep this thread going!!

[forrestkc]

The problem with Walter Williams assertion is that productivity increases have far outpaced wage increases for 6 years now. Therefore, productivity increases is obviously not bringing about wage increases, especially on the low end of the scale.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...pshots_20050421

As I keep saying, there is how ideologues on the left and right want the world to work, and there is the reality of how it actually works.

Like I said, the Economic Policy Istitute has their own agenda.

Hey, forrestkc...let's see how long we can keep this thread going!!

No way, I am sick of it.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. If they raise it or not, it certainly wont be the end of the world anyway.

[Guest LadyC]

i haven't read the two pages worth of responses since my last post, but i've read enough. justinM, you think like me. kansasdad, you're wrong that the cost of living would not have gone up if wages had remained lower than they already are.

how many people here have done an analysis to see the comparative rate of increased cost of living vs. increased minimum wages over the last 20 years? good grief. we aren't running sweat shops in america are we? if a company isn't able or willing to pay a person what they are worth, then maybe the company shouldn't have gone into business in the first place.

[Marnie]

Yeah...time to put this one to bed. At Christmas time, nobody can possibly get paid enough, anyway! lol

[Kansasdad]

i haven't read the two pages worth of responses since my last post, but i've read enough. justinM, you think like me. kansasdad, you're wrong that the cost of living would not have gone up if wages had remained lower than they already are.

how many people here have done an analysis to see the comparative rate of increased cost of living vs. increased minimum wages over the last 20 years? good grief. we aren't running sweat shops in america are we? if a company isn't able or willing to pay a person what they are worth, then maybe the company shouldn't have gone into business in the first place.

Yes that was an over generalization on my part, and Honestly I am not entirely apposed to a minimum wage increase. It actually would affect very few of our employees. I am just saying it will not fix the problem that some think it will. It is a political move and nothing more.

God Bless,

K.D.