Fast-food minimum wage, lies and lying liars ...

stuff

Let me take this section by section... Trying to debate economic policy with someone who has no background in it, and doesnt want to believe you no matter how many facts you show them is always fun. But what the heck.

The study that you cited notes that the minimum wage was increased in 2004. This was in the during the economic bubble caused by the whole "mortgage secured security" fiasco. As you'll recall, employment was close to an all time high then and wages had out stripped the minimal wage. So, raising it to reflect economic reality would not have had a negative effected on employment. The negative effects only occur when the minimum wage is set above the market clearing level.

You seem to have missed the key points in that quote.
In the seven years following their raising the minimum wage, including during the Great Recession, jobs growth was positive.
They didnt just take a snap shot of 2004 nor were they reporting on only 2004. Im not trying to be insulting, but if you are going to debate economic policy with me in an intelligent manner at least pay attention (reading comprehension) to what Im writing or the sources Im quoting. Otherwise just go ahead and tell me you have your fingers in your ears to block it all out, and I wont bother.
You are correct that negative effects only take place when wages exceed market demands. Given that wages have fallen over the course of 30+ years, and every single municipality raising their minimum wage has still seen job growth, it should be fairly obvious even to you we are no where near that point then are we?

You can start here and here. Or closer to home for this forum, look here.

Using "Google That For You" isnt citing a source, nor do any of the links actually support your assertion that rising minimum wage has had a negative impact on the middle class.
In fact the first link you provide says in relation to why the middle class is disappearing from San Francisco....

“San Francisco’s income mix may be changing for many reasons. We cannot isolate factors that have led to net decline in low and moderate income households,” notes the report, which only posits some possible causes — job opportunities, cost of living and housing prices.

Your next link about the vanishing American Middle Class, actually supports my first post...that this is due to a decline in wages over the past 30 years. So it doesnt actually support you at all.

Laughably your third link about why chefs are leaving San Franciisco ALSO supports my point. The very first article listed says chefs are leaving the city due to....

Salaries fall short

Meaning again business owners arent paying high enough wages to keep up with the cost of living and annual inflation.
http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Econ ... php#page-1

So typical. Your basic assumption is that anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed.

In this instance? Yes, because you have neither the educational nor professional background in this topic. In addition to which EVERY single case study and economic policy study on this issue done by objective sources supports the position that wages over the past thirty years have fallen, as a consequence buying power around the country has declined, and as a consequence short sighted corporate leadership have further slashed American wages thinking that the buying power of populations in emerging markets will cover the loss of sales in the American markets...which hasnt happened.

These are measurable FACTS. Which differ from opinions, which to many people, attempting to debate policy without a background in it, all to commonly confuse.
1. Median household wages over the past 40 years in America is a measurable fact.
2. Annual inflation and cost of living increases is a measurable fact.
3. The decline of unions and our three highest employment sectors in the US (manufacturing, construction, mining/logging) is a measurable fact.
4. That US corporations offshored labor in an attempt to boost company profits and were pursuing emerging markets, is a historical fact.

So sure, you can have a differing opinion in this. In fact if you work for or own a company engaged in offshoring jobs to boost your stock price I would expect it. If you are a politician taking campaign bribes (err "donations) from such a corporation, I would expect it. It doesnt mean your opinion is in anyway actually supported by a single fact.

Edited to add:

Let's say we look into the relative changes in inequity since, say, 1960? And then maybe contrast the changes in inequity between areas that have had nominally progressive vs. economically conservative/libertarian policies since then? That sounds like a fair test to me. What do you think?

Defining if a state's over all guiding economic policies are either progressive or conservative from 1960 onward would be a research project in and of itself. Setting the criteria for such a determination would be fairly subjective and open to lots of interpretation.
Having said that there is a historical record of the increases among income inequality in the various states from 1916/1917 to 2011.
Two sources-
http://www.epi.org/publication/unequal-states/
http://www.shsu.edu/eco_mwf/inequality.html

From both sources the states with the greatest income inequality are both a mixture of what are considered both progressive or conservative states.

An interesting and troubling quote is...

In four states (Nevada, Wyoming, Michigan, and Alaska), only the top 1 percent experienced rising incomes between 1979 and 2007, and the average income of the bottom 99 percent fell.

http://mynorthwest.com/194/2487709/Dick ... -to-15-Now

This was an interesting viewpoint from a very well run and established burger joint in Seattle. Btw way Seattle and Louisville are a little different in terms of cost of living.

A better link: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/dick’s-drive-best-argument-against-government-mandated-high-minimum-wage

stuff

Let me take this section by section... Trying to debate economic policy with someone who has no background in it, and doesnt want to believe you no matter how many facts you show them is always fun. But what the heck.

Just as long as you promise to bow out when you stop having fun. There's no reason for this forum to feel like a job.

The study that you cited notes that the minimum wage was increased in 2004. This was in the during the economic bubble caused by the whole "mortgage secured security" fiasco. As you'll recall, employment was close to an all time high then and wages had out stripped the minimal wage. So, raising it to reflect economic reality would not have had a negative effected on employment. The negative effects only occur when the minimum wage is set above the market clearing level.

You seem to have missed the key points in that quote.
In the seven years following their raising the minimum wage, including during the Great Recession, jobs growth was positive.
They didnt just take a snap shot of 2004 nor were they reporting on only 2004. Im not trying to be insulting, but if you are going to debate economic policy with me in an intelligent manner at least pay attention (reading comprehension) to what Im writing or the sources Im quoting. Otherwise just go ahead and tell me you have your fingers in your ears to block it all out, and I wont bother.
You are correct that negative effects only take place when wages exceed market demands. Given that wages have fallen over the course of 30+ years, and every single municipality raising their minimum wage has still seen job growth, it should be fairly obvious even to you we are no where near that point then are we?

At least you acknowledge that there are negative effects when the minimum wage is raised above market rates.

How are employers able to pay lower than market demands?
Couldn't folks go work somewhere paying market rates?
Why do you think wages are falling for low skill jobs?
Are employers illegally colluding to keep wages down?
During the boom, staring wages rose higher than the mandated minimum wage. Were employers then colluding to pay more than required?

Using "Google That For You" isnt citing a source, nor do any of the links actually support your assertion that rising minimum wage has had a negative impact on the middle class.

It's more then you cited, as you haven't actually cited that study or linked it, just quoted from it. It's possible the wages rose until the bubble burst, and then has been going down since. I don't know, because I can't see it. You did, however, find the time to find links pointing out that if I disagreed with you, that I'm ignorant and uninformed.

In fact the first link you provide says in relation to why the middle class is disappearing from San Francisco....

“San Francisco’s income mix may be changing for many reasons. We cannot isolate factors that have led to net decline in low and moderate income households,” notes the report, which only posits some possible causes — job opportunities, cost of living and housing prices.

Sounds like an opportunity for a good research paper. There might actually be more variables to consider than just raising the minimum wage.

Your next link about the vanishing American Middle Class, actually supports my first post...that this is due to a decline in wages over the past 30 years. So it doesnt actually support you at all.

Why do you think wages have declined?

Laughably your third link about why chefs are leaving San Franciisco ALSO supports my point. The very first article listed says chefs are leaving the city due to....

Salaries fall short

Meaning again business owners arent paying high enough wages to keep up with the cost of living and annual inflation.
http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Econ ... php#page-1

So, it must be difficult to find any struggling restaurants in San Francisco since they are all getting rich underpaying their chefs. I wonder why the chefs don't leave to find a place to work so they can get paid what they are worth?

But wait a minute. San Francisco was supposed to be a workers paradise since that last time they raised the minimal wage? Maybe another negative side effect of a market busting minimum wage is... more inflation? Then, you have to raise the minimum wage again to make up for it, then again later to make up for that. Why don't we just not get on that treadmill in the first place?

So typical. Your basic assumption is that anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed.

In this instance? Yes, because you have neither the educational nor professional background in this topic. In addition to which EVERY single case study and economic policy study on this issue done by objective sources supports the position that wages over the past thirty years have fallen, as a consequence buying power around the country has declined, and as a consequence short sighted corporate leadership have further slashed American wages thinking that the buying power of populations in emerging markets will cover the loss of sales in the American markets...which hasnt happened.

Well, if corporations are underpaying employees, then they are only hurting themselves, as the best and the brightest will go work at small companies or even start their own businesses.

I'm not one to try to explain corporate behavior as they do some stupid and short sighted things,. I'm just not sure that we need the government to make them stop being stupid, especially when small business knows the value of good people and pay them accordingly.

These are measurable FACTS. Which differ from opinions, which to many people, attempting to debate policy without a background in it, all to commonly confuse.
1. Median household wages over the past 40 years in America is a measurable fact.
2. Annual inflation and cost of living increases is a measurable fact.
3. The decline of unions and our three highest employment sectors in the US (manufacturing, construction, mining/logging) is a measurable fact.
4. That US corporations offshored labor in an attempt to boost company profits and were pursuing emerging markets, is a historical fact.

No one is arguing these facts. It's just that forcing companies to pay people more than the free market rate will always increase unemployment and inflation. If we could legislate prosperity, why not make the minimum wage $50, like I suggested? Heck, let's get the Federal Government to print everyone checks today for $1,000,000! Why not? Just think of all the money ready to spend in the economy then? The economy will be flush with money! Why don't we do this? It's the same principal you are using to argue for minimum wage increases.

The reason is that actual prosperity and value is independent of currency. Forcing someone to pay more currency for something doesn't increase prosperity or standards of living, it just devalues the currency.

So sure, you can have a differing opinion in this. In fact if you work for or own a company engaged in offshoring jobs to boost your stock price I would expect it. If you are a politician taking campaign bribes (err "donations) from such a corporation, I would expect it. It doesnt mean your opinion is in anyway actually supported by a single fact.

I have never thought that off-shoring jobs was a good idea for companies. You are basically training your future competition. I have never joined the executive ranks making these decisions, but I have been in the technical trenches working around some of the worse policies. So, I have seen some of the idiocy first hand.

All the leaders for the big companies went to the same few schools, as did all the elite lawyers, as did all the elite politicians, as did all the elite 'thought' leaders. It's amusing that you think that they aren't all on the same side and don't all suffer from the same blindnesses, prejudices, and fads. The minimal wage debate is just more opium, feed to the masses by the usual suspects. True diversity is a thought that didn't start in the halls the Ivy League.

We do agree that massive corporations and industry bodies always subvert the power of government toward their own and politicians advantage. This is why smaller government can be better.

Similarly, the minimum wage debate is another form of government pandering. It's con perpetrated on working poor to keep those same corrupt politicians in office. It's a con, because raising the minimum wage does not improve their lot over the long term and in fact causes increased unemployment and inflation. Removing the power of government to pander to one class of people by manipulating the economy is another reason why smaller government is better.

And anyone who is living on a fixed income is hurt by raising the minimum wage. They are forced to spend more currency without the ability to enter the work force to earn more. This is why devaluing the currency hurts them more than most, well except for the many working poor whose jobs go away.

Defining if a state's over all guiding economic policies are either progressive or conservative from 1960 onward would be a research project in and of itself. Setting the criteria for such a determination would be fairly subjective and open to lots of interpretation.
Having said that there is a historical record of the increases among income inequality in the various states from 1916/1917 to 2011.
Two sources-
http://www.epi.org/publication/unequal-states/
http://www.shsu.edu/eco_mwf/inequality.html

These are interesting links. Thanks!

This is a very useful interactive featurefrom that first one. You can look at historical income inequity for each state. I learned that 'the 1%' of California and New York have higher disproportionate incomes than do'the 1%' of Kentucky and Mississippi.

I would certainly like to see the facts supporting this. While I certainly agree that it may not have overcome the rate of inflation it was certainly much more than 5% for the 30 years in question.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1983 and 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.

In 2012 dollars (meaning they are NOT accounting for inflation) median household income rose in the following age brackets between 1982 and 2012:
25 to 34 years- +5.7%
35 to 44 years- +5.6%
45 to 54- +3.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1983 and 2013 Annual Social and EconomicSupplements. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see <www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/cps/cpsmar13.pdf>.

In 2012 dollars, the median household income for 35 to 44 age group in 1982 was $60,244. In 2012 itself the median household income was $63,629, an increase of 5.6%. Of course we all know that since they adjusted the 1982 income to 2012 dollars rather than the reverse which would have accounted for inflation, there was really an incredible net less not a gain of 5.6%.

Doug, you obviously need an understanding of how to read long-term financial reports. By converting everything to 2012 $s they have factored out inflation so the median income for those age groups actually went up the percentage showing beyond the rate of inflation. Thus the buying power grew over that period of time! If you take the numbers shown and added the inflation index over that period of time you would get the total increase in the income for those age groups!

How are employers able to pay lower than market demands?
Couldn't folks go work somewhere paying market rates?
Why do you think wages are falling for low skill jobs?
Are employers illegally colluding to keep wages down?
During the boom, staring wages rose higher than the mandated minimum wage. Were employers then colluding to pay more than required?

The same way West Virginia and eastern Kentucky still have populations. Sometimes people refuse to move for their own good or for better opportunities. If this werent true no one would live in eastern Kentucky at all. It contains 5 of the worst counties in the entire US in terms of quality of life (infant death rates, education, cancer, drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, etc etc), yet people still live there.
Yes they could move somewhere else, just as most white, conservative, Middle Class and below Americans could stop voting for the GOP, a party that doesnt represent their economic interests in anyway. But they dont. Humans simply are creatures of habit and not that smart.
Wages are falling because manufacturers have offshored so many jobs they have increased unemployment artificially, thereby depressing the labor market. Meaning people are willing to work in near slave like conditions such as at some of Amazon's distributions centers for wages that are at or below the poverty line.
Employers dont have to collude in order for wages to go up or down. HR departments across the country know what the job market is like and where to set wages, thats their job. Which is why Caterpillar was able to move a plant from Canada to Indiana (a right to work state) and pay poverty wages to local workers. While at the same time McDonalds in North Dakota is having to pay $15+ an hour to keep workers due to the local oil boom. There isnt any conspiracy theory in it. Its called capitalism and trying to maximize profit.

It's possible the wages rose until the bubble burst, and then has been going down since.

Except wages havent been going down since 2008 at the start of the recession. They have been going down for 30 to 40 years now.

I don't know, because I can't see it.

I know you dont know and cant see it. Its evident. Again Im not saying that to belittle you, just stating the obvious. I would say maybe you should be trying to learn something from what I have said rather than arguing with it.

Why do you think wages have declined?

Its not why I "think" wages have declined. Its why they have declined. Its a subtle difference but important. Saying "think" implies Im guessing or just basing this on opinion. Where as there are actually thousands of academics around the world who sole job it is to analyze the US economy.
Wages have declined, as I stated earlier in direct response to a decline in employment and jobs. With less jobs its brings competition for those jobs, which means management can afford to offer less pay for the same job, because they know people will accept less. This is economics 101.

pay people more than the free market rate will always increase unemployment and inflation.

No it wont, not "always", which I have attempted to illustrate to you numerous times. I dont know how many more ways I can do it.
Again look at Washington state and Seattle. There are actual academic studies on cities and states with higher minimum wages out there, you dont have to keep repeating talking points with no factual basis in reality. You can educate yourself.
What you are failing to understand is that there is no simple "black and white" or "yes or no" rules in an economy. It doesnt work like that. Taxes, employment, job markets, wages, etc all operate on interlinked sliding scales with each other. But pushing button B (wages) up doesnt ALWAYS push up button D (unemployment), especially not when D was already up due to button C (job market) being pushed down.

Im not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, as it is quite simply pointless. Its like arguing string theory with someone who's never taken a single physics class. I would suggest taking some online courses in macro and micro economics and perhaps a few labor market policy courses. Failing that, at least stop listening to politicians or pundits trying to tell you anything regarding economics and you will probably be better off.

Doug, you obviously need an understanding of how to read long-term financial reports. By converting everything to 2012 $s they have factored out inflation so the median income for those age groups actually went up the percentage showing beyond the rate of inflation. Thus the buying power grew over that period of time! If you take the numbers shown and added the inflation index over that period of time you would get the total increase in the income for those age groups!

You're right I misstated that. Thank you for pointing that out.
There has in fact been the total 5% gain in that time period with inflation factored in. So in a 30-40 year span we have seen a 5% pay raise.
In the shorter term (since 1999) we have now had a -10% decline in the last 15 years from a high median income of $56k down to the present $51k.

How are employers able to pay lower than market demands?
Couldn't folks go work somewhere paying market rates?
Why do you think wages are falling for low skill jobs?
Are employers illegally colluding to keep wages down?
During the boom, staring wages rose higher than the mandated minimum wage. Were employers then colluding to pay more than required?

The same way West Virginia and eastern Kentucky still have populations. Sometimes people refuse to move for their own good or for better opportunities. If this werent true no one would live in eastern Kentucky at all. It contains 5 of the worst counties in the entire US in terms of quality of life (infant death rates, education, cancer, drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, etc etc), yet people still live there.
Yes they could move somewhere else, just as most white, conservative, Middle Class and below Americans could stop voting for the GOP, a party that doesnt represent their economic interests in anyway. But they dont. Humans simply are creatures of habit and not that smart.
Wages are falling because manufacturers have offshored so many jobs they have increased unemployment artificially, thereby depressing the labor market. Meaning people are willing to work in near slave like conditions such as at some of Amazon's distributions centers for wages that are at or below the poverty line.

Who are you to judge these people? Meaning the ones you think are too dumb to order their own lives. Clearly staying put and working at these places is worth it to them. That's part of what sets a market rate.

So, the various chefs work in San Francisco and the wages offered because it is worth it to them. That is pretty much the definition of a market rate. Yet you believe them too stupid to better their own lives. Thank goodness we have you looking out for everyone! Let me know when you submit your next 5-year plan.

Employers dont have to collude in order for wages to go up or down. HR departments across the country know what the job market is like and where to set wages, thats their job. Which is why Caterpillar was able to move a plant from Canada to Indiana (a right to work state) and pay poverty wages to local workers. While at the same time McDonalds in North Dakota is having to pay $15+ an hour to keep workers due to the local oil boom. There isnt any conspiracy theory in it. Its called capitalism and trying to maximize profit.

This is how markets work. Regions with labor shortages have to pay more to attach workers and regions with a labor surplus end up with lower wages. There's no reason to assume that all wages everywhere should be the same.

It's possible the wages rose until the bubble burst, and then has been going down since.

Except wages havent been going down since 2008 at the start of the recession. They have been going down for 30 to 40 years now.

I have a theory. Our economic expectations where set immediately after WW2. This is America's industrial golden age. Any advanced international competition had been laid flat by the war. This allowed American prosperity to explode due to the huge international demand for American industrial products.

The decrease in our relative prosperity in the decades since, is due to a return to mean effect. International competition is fierce now. There's no way that our relative prosperity could remain unaffected. So, no matter would we do, we will never be able to reclaim the relative pay and properity that we obtained in the 50's and 60's. That dream died with Bretton Woods.

It really has nothing to do with the mean capitalists, and everything to do with Europe, Japan, and now China claiming their own share of prosperity. Everything has changed.

And those mean capitalists who owned GM? They lost their whole investment.

I don't know, because I can't see it.

I know you dont know and cant see it. Its evident. Again Im not saying that to belittle you, just stating the obvious. I would say maybe you should be trying to learn something from what I have said rather than arguing with it.

look. I can't see it because you haven't linked it or cited it. You could have just made the whole thing up.

Why do you think wages have declined?

Its not why I "think" wages have declined. Its why they have declined. Its a subtle difference but important. Saying "think" implies Im guessing or just basing this on opinion. Where as there are actually thousands of academics around the world who sole job it is to analyze the US economy.
Wages have declined, as I stated earlier in direct response to a decline in employment and jobs. With less jobs its brings competition for those jobs, which means management can afford to offer less pay for the same job, because they know people will accept less. This is economics 101.

Yes. Wages move up and down with the market rate. Setting them below market rates have zero effects. You have already conceded that setting minimum wages above market rates and negative effects. So, the minimum wage is another way t opick winners and losers and reduce individual freedom.

pay people more than the free market rate will always increase unemployment and inflation.

No it wont, not "always", which I have attempted to illustrate to you numerous times. I dont know how many more ways I can do it.
Again look at Washington state and Seattle. There are actual academic studies on cities and states with higher minimum wages out there, you dont have to keep repeating talking points with no factual basis in reality. You can educate yourself.

Setting a minimum wage above market requires that someone has to pay more currency for something which hasn't increased in value. This is the definition of inflation.

Forcing someone to pay more currency for something, means that less will be purchased. This is basic supply curve stuff.

What you are failing to understand is that there is no simple "black and white" or "yes or no" rules in an economy. It doesnt work like that. Taxes, employment, job markets, wages, etc all operate on interlinked sliding scales with each other. But pushing button B (wages) up doesnt ALWAYS push up button D (unemployment), especially not when D was already up due to button C (job market) being pushed down.

I actually think that the economy is too complicated for anyone to understand. There are some basic economic principles that we can use as a guide, but that's about it.

It's not me who is claiming we can manage the economy. You are the one that claims that we can use the simple "minimum wage" lever and guide a complex economy to a better place. You are the one that assumes setting a minimum wage effective for every person and industry in the country will make the economy better.

The minimum wage assumes every teenager and every entry level person is worth the same amount. The minimum wage has destroyed the teenager workplace. That's why politicians try to carve out exceptions. The thing is, other people suffer too when they can't find a job because the minimum wage is too high.

If anyone is guilty of over simplifying how the economy works, it's you. Clearly, you have forgotten about the Local knowledge problem.

You still haven't answered why we can't have a $50 minimum wage. Why not? Isn't 50$ better than $10 or $15? Why don't you advocate setting the minimum wage to $50?

Im not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, as it is quite simply pointless. Its like arguing string theory with someone who's never taken a single physics class. I would suggest taking some online courses in macro and micro economics and perhaps a few labor market policy courses. Failing that, at least stop listening to politicians or pundits trying to tell you anything regarding economics and you will probably be better off.

As is your privilege.

Just because I'm not an economist, doesn't mean I'm ignorant. There is a fair chance that I understand statistics better than you do, and along with that, the limits of claiming certainty based on 95% CIs and alphas of .05. But that is really besides the point...

Because if you really are an economist, I promise that there is another who is more accomplished and prestigious who disagrees with everything you have posted here. So, your appeals to authority ring hollow.

Doug, you obviously need an understanding of how to read long-term financial reports. By converting everything to 2012 $s they have factored out inflation so the median income for those age groups actually went up the percentage showing beyond the rate of inflation. Thus the buying power grew over that period of time! If you take the numbers shown and added the inflation index over that period of time you would get the total increase in the income for those age groups!

You're right I misstated that. Thank you for pointing that out.
There has in fact been the total 5% gain in that time period with inflation factored in. So in a 30-40 year span we have seen a 5% pay raise.
In the shorter term (since 1999) we have now had a -10% decline in the last 15 years from a high median income of $56k down to the present $51k.

In reality a given job should always pay the same when inflation is factored out. Information provided shows that the wages have increased which means those people have more spending power today than they did previously. It's a very simple economic principle to understand.

So . . . um . . .where do I find the best New York style pizza?

So . . . um . . .where do I find the best New York style pizza?

Apparently not at Papalinos.

[Robin Garr]

So . . . um . . .where do I find the best New York style pizza?

Luigi's downtown does a good job of replicating the cheap by-the-slice joints, often named "Original Ray's," on NYC street corners. It should probably be noted, however, that this is not great pizza, only nostalgic pizza for former New Yorkers.

The Brooklyn expats at Old School NY Pizza, way out in the far East End, do a darn good job of the NY slice. So does Perfetto in Plainview.

Probably for a more serious effort, though, more like an Italian joint in Cobble Hill than Original Rays, I've got to hand it to Coal's. It's really my go-to place for quality pizza.

That, and Caffe Classico, not normally thought of as a pizzeria, where they turn out a heck of an Italian-style pie based on a recipe from a Bosnian immigrant - don't laugh - the former Yugoslavia is right across the Adriatic from Italy, and they carry on the pizza tradition surprisingly well.

I am not a fan of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. It is a form of welfare and gives no incentive for the person receiving the minimum wage to try harder. Let's face it, we need to get back to where working harder is the answer. The problem is we have a large portion of the workforce working jobs that are meant for part-time and youth employees.

This is not to say the restaurants can't charge more and pay more to there employees, without the government. But will the economics of it all allow for the minimum wage be doubled? I don't see it as being a good long-term policy. I would say many places would go out of business with the net effect being less money in the economy.

Maybe we should look at lower cost of living and get away from our throw away society and the constant need for things.

You can throw you statistics and all that out the door. It is not an economic problem. There are plenty of jobs out there that will pay a premium for hard work. I have had a revolving door at my company for years and people just do not like the physically demanding nature of the job, but the pay is $15 per hour and up, plus benefits. In fact, I had a young man come to me last year who was working for 7.65 an hour making pizzas....We started him at $12 and he would have gotten to $15 if he stayed one more month than the 2 months he worked. He is a veteran of the US Army and had a wife and a couple of kids. This work is not flat out physically exhausting but it is tough (I did it for 15 years and I know many that have done it for 40 years). He went back to making pizzas for 7.65.

I can give you more examples but my point remains the same....there are jobs here in America that can allow you to get ahead....you just have to work hard.

Doug Davis....why do you feel the need to talk down to people?

[Robin Garr]

This Internet meme makes a bold point about the macro economics of mimimum wage:

foodstamps.jpg

Just gonna leave this here:

It's cool to be passionate. However the ad hominem is a fallacy. They don't serve your argument. Suggesting things like your interlocutor can't read or needs things to be made simple for them, does not prove why you are right, it only does a disservice to your argument. Had a logic professor give a very sage piece of advice about debate once "take the arguments of others seriously, cause you never know when you're about to learn you're wrong."