Democratic agenda Options

[pebkac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1981688,00.html

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:

· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;

· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;

· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;

· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;

· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;

· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

I suppose the minimum wage thing is debatable, but I like most of the stuff on the agenda (although I really don't know much about the 9/11 committee's recommendations. I do like the last one the best though.

Another interesting part...

In a much-anticipated speech, Mr Bush is expected to reveal his new strategy on the war as early as next week, amid widespread speculation that he intends to bolster the US presence in Iraq in the short term by an additional 30,000 troops.

That troop "surge" and a White House request for an additional $100bn (£51bn) to pay for the war this year are expected to encounter strong opposition from a previously supportive Congress.

This should turn out to be interesting. Wonder what the Dems are going to do if Bush does decide to try a surge.

[jwttu]

i don't think we should raise the minimum wage that much at once, i say phase in gradual raises so it has less of a huge effect across the economy

[impala454]

i don't think we should raise the minimum wage that much at once, i say phase in gradual raises so it has less of a huge effect across the economy

i'm not all that for raising it that high (or maybe not at all), but i'm pretty sure the raise to $7.25 would be over several years, not all at once.

imho raising it to $7.25 (even over time) will skyrocket unemployment. a 40% increase in the cost of minimum wage workers will put smaller companies out of business, and have larger companies raising prices on everything we buy. plus we'll have an all new group of workers (who previously made around $7.25) who were 40% above minimum wage, back to the minimum wage. everyone pays more for everything. minimum wage workers would probably be hurt the worst.

[Billy]

i'm not all that for raising it that high (or maybe not at all), but i'm pretty sure the raise to $7.25 would be over several years, not all at once.

imho raising it to $7.25 (even over time) will skyrocket unemployment. a 40% increase in the cost of minimum wage workers will put smaller companies out of business, and have larger companies raising prices on everything we buy. plus we'll have an all new group of workers (who previously made around $7.25) who were 40% above minimum wage, back to the minimum wage. everyone pays more for everything. minimum wage workers would probably be hurt the worst.

Yeah that seems to be the argument "minimum wage workers will be hurt the worse". That was the argument the last time minimum wage was increased. But yet, if anything, unemployment dropped after the wage increase. So what makes you think there will be the opposite this time?

[impala454]

That was the argument the last time minimum wage was increased. But yet, if anything, unemployment dropped after the wage increase.

I'm not sure where you get that unemployment dropped because of minimum wage increase. I'd be interested to see some actual numbers on that.

So what makes you think there will be the opposite this time?

well I don't necessarily believe your claim that unemployment dropped due to the minimum wage increasing. if you'd like to explain to me how that makes sense in terms of business I'd be interested to hear it.

here's the last few increases
1974: $2.00
1981: $3.35 (55% increase)
1991: $4.25 (26% increase)
1997: $5.15 (21% increase)
2009: $7.25 (41% increase)

now I don't know about you, but if you attribute minimum wage as some correlation to economy (which I don't necessarily believe, as there's tons of other factors, but since it seems to be what you believe I'll indulge you), then we're heading straight for an early 80s economy (which was a bad recession).

[Billy]

I'm not sure where you get that unemployment dropped because of minimum wage increase. I'd be interested to see some actual numbers on that.
well I don't necessarily believe your claim that unemployment dropped due to the minimum wage increasing. if you'd like to explain to me how that makes sense in terms of business I'd be interested to hear it.

here's the last few increases
1974: $2.00
1981: $3.35 (55% increase)
1991: $4.25 (26% increase)
1997: $5.15 (21% increase)
2009: $7.25 (41% increase)

now I don't know about you, but if you attribute minimum wage as some correlation to economy (which I don't necessarily believe, as there's tons of other factors, but since it seems to be what you believe I'll indulge you), then we're heading straight for an early 80s economy (which was a bad recession).

Wikipedia:

The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Krueger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.

Here is a real world example of why unemployment may not necessarily increase: My parents own a struggling business. It is in the service industry which means labor is typically more of an expense than other industries (it's roughly 30% of the expenses). Currently, since every business tries to be as efficient as possible, they only employ as many employees as they need. If minimum wage increases, they can not just start firing people, as that would cause their business to fail.

They are not alone. This is the scenario for many businesses. So what will they do to compensate? Probably raise prices in the short run, not fire people. Why just the short run? As the lower class has more money, spending increases. Companies will eventually realize they are not doomed, and will try to compete in price again, forcing the prices back down.

But that's just one theory. You can argue the validity of that all you want. But what you cannot do, is say with certainty, that if you increase the minimum wage you will increase unemployment. There is no data to support that claim. And using "common sense" on a complicated matter is very foolish, as any engineer knows, common sense isn't always right.

I do think the increase should not be as large as the democrats want all at once. It should be taken in small increments over a period of time.

So the point of this response is not to say "support minimum wage increase". It may indeed be damaging to the economy. But please stop saying as your argument it will increase unemployment. As there is not any hard correlation to indicate so.

[Trespass]

Wikipedia:
Here is a real world example of why unemployment may not necessarily increase: My parents own a struggling business. It is in the service industry which means labor is typically more of an expense than other industries (it's roughly 30% of the expenses). Currently, since every business tries to be as efficient as possible, they only employ as many employees as they need. If minimum wage increases, they can not just start firing people, as that would cause their business to fail.

They are not alone. This is the scenario for many businesses. So what will they do to compensate? Probably raise prices in the short run, not fire people. Why just the short run? As the lower class has more money, spending increases. Companies will eventually realize they are not doomed, and will try to compete in price again, forcing the prices back down.

But that's just one theory. You can argue the validity of that all you want. But what you cannot do, is say with certainty, that if you increase the minimum wage you will increase unemployment. There is no data to support that claim. And using "common sense" on a complicated matter is very foolish, as any engineer knows, common sense isn't always right.

I do think the increase should not be as large as the democrats want all at once. It should be taken in small increments over a period of time.

So the point of this response is not to say "support minimum wage increase". It may indeed be damaging to the economy. But please stop saying as your argument it will increase unemployment. As there is not any hard correlation to indicate so.

I think by its nature an increase in minimum wage would increase inflation on companies who don't already give higher than the proposed new wage. (so if movie theatre has to pay more to employees, ticket prices may rise to compensate).

But honestly i don't think it'll affect much of anything. People will most likely be able to buy the same amount as before (since most already make above it) and it won't effect the economy except for a little inflation which could be compensated for if the FED is on top of it.

I think this i more of an issue that supply and demand handles, and i don't think it'll do much good... or bad. Walmart will still not give employees benifits that people are bitching about, and in general they already pay above that amount for thier starting wage, so no real effect. I'd prefer it stay lower just for inflations sake, but then again if it helps a few people who can't even get to $7/hr live a little easier than its a decent thing to do.