Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants defeated in Senate. by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YES! (pumps fist)

If we could get rid of that "anchor baby" Consitutional provision, I'd gladly swap that for outright amnesty. But failing that, I'm of the opinion that we need is to start smacking the corporations that hire illegals... HARD. And raise the effing minimum wage, cause nobody's going to hire an untrained, non-English-speaking employee for more than $10/hour.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I don't know the break down of those companies which even acknowledge illegals on the books, so what good would raising the min wage do? I'm all in favor of fining employers for hiring illegals, just to be clear. And we've seen where once illegals are taken from a job site, those jobs are usually filled immediatly by LEGAL employees. I just see the min.wage is an unnecessary topic which some want to use as a piggy back issue.

Secure the borders first.

Go after the illegal criminals already in our country, and lock them up. Those who are here working and living by the rules ( aside from being here illegally ) , should be registered and allowed to stay, but kept track of if they want to stay.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The minimum wage is ONE way to handle illegal immigration, and it works well for Germany. Living near the border as I do, and handling compliance for a regional regulatory agency, I hear about businesses that move across the border to escape regulation, high wages, taxes, or whatever else irks them. I also get to see some coming back because of the inability to get a quality product from untrained people. I get to see the day laborers who work hard but who are basically unskilled, building some pretty half-assed stuff. We hire a nanny for our daughter, and we've screened out way more than our share of illegals (We insist on someone who speaks English, has a car and insurance, and a SSN so that they can administer our daughter's emergency meds and drive her to the hospital if need be.) The only reason why untrained labor that you can't communicate with (so you can't even train in any detail) is tolerated is because it's CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.

Trust me, if you had to pay your gardner or your nanny or your painter $10/hour you'd be damn sure to hire someone who was worth it: someone with a driver's license and insurance who could say more than "I don spik Inglis" and who did a good job.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:26 PM

Raising the minimum wage would hurt far more honest hard-working Americans then it would affect illegal immigration. In fact, it could very likely increase the employment of illegals at the detriment of legal Americans. Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs. But illegals who largely work under the table would not necessarily be affected. So it’s quite possible that jobs which Americans would be willing to take with a lower pay, but cannot because the law requires an employer to pay a cost-prohibitive salary, would go to illegals who already work illegally.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:07 PM

KANEMAN

No shit.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs.

Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment. I can link studies if you wish.

Quote:
But illegals who largely work under the table would not necessarily be affected.

The only real "underground" economy not subject to enforcement is either household employers or illegal businesses. Most illegals work for licensed firms: contractors, farmers, restaurants, meat packers, janitorial services etc. Take away some licenses and put their heads up on pikes at the city gates.... er, the state contractors license board website... and these firms would have to recalculate the cost versus the benefit of hiring illegals.

The number of enforcement actions against employers is waaay down under Bush. It tends to give people the helpless, handwringing feeling that "nothing can be done" but that's just not the case.
-------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs.
Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment. I can link studies if you wish.

It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out. And proponents of it don’t argue that it is. They argue in term of social justice not economic growth, because there’s no way to make that argument. But it’s no good as a tool to remedy social injustice either because it takes unskilled jobs away first and ends up hurting the people it’s supposed to help. And the entire arena of illegal immigrant workers are underground. If it weren’t then there wouldn’t be any illegal immigrant workers, because it’s against the law. It’s just head-in-the-sand politics to believe raising minimum wage is going to change that. It won’t.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out.

The vast majority of economists are so steeped in ideology that they don't recognize fact when it bites them. Honestly. But the studies bear out that a rise in the minimum wage doesn't have a negative effect on employment.

Quote:
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).

Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.

New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.

A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

Quote:
Both overall employment and retail employment rose in 1997, although at a somewhat slower rate than in 1996. The change in employment growth between 1996 and 1997 reflects a modest general slowdown in the state's rate of economic growth, not the increase in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increase had reduced job growth significantly, it is likely that the trend in retail trade employment would have been significantly worse than the trend in overall employment. The Oregon findings have implications for the debate over raising the federal minimum wage.

www.cbpp.org/529ormw.htm

Quote:
The argument that state minimum wages have had a substantially negative effect on a state's labor market is an extreme repackaging of the perennial claim that minimum wages do more harm than good because they cause many low-wage workers to lose their jobs. While this argument was once more prevalent among economists, recent studies with improved methodologies have reached the opposite conclusion.

www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

That's all well and good signy... but in the mean time, my wages don't even increase every year to keep up with inflation every year. A raise in minimum wage by three dollars effectively means that I'm making 3 dollars less an hour after you figure in the higher costs for the end products, every action having an equal and opposite reaction, particularly for staples such as bread and eggs and milk.

I agree something needs to be done, but I think raising the minimum wage here is almost as bad an idea as a national ID card. I think we need to focus all of our efforts on sticking it to businesses hard when they hire illegals and deport the illegals back to Columbia and let them find their own ride back if they're going to try again. At the same time, much larger tax breaks must be given to small businesses across
America while at the same time we hit large companies such as WalMart, Comcast and McDonalds much harder. This way, small business owners can still turn a profit without having to sell their business when they're forced to hire legal workers and pay all of the benefits and insurance that also entails. That way, though prices will inevatibly rise when we're paying Americans to do jobs in America, I'm not getting hit from both ends when I've got to view a minimum wage quickly creeping up on the wages that I make.

You don't think a company that you work for is just going to give you a three dollar an hour wage increase to offset this, do you?

Anyways, it doesn't matter. It's not long before they get enough mexicans, gays and other minorities sympathetic to illegals "plight" that "we" vote to let them all in. Bunch of beaurocratic asshats... Shit. It doesn't even have to be minorities. All we need is 14 more globalist Bushites on either side sitting in that room and we would have woke up tomorrow living in a much different country.

You're supposed to be a Conservative BJr. Fucking act like one! Aside from mailing us out checks to buy popularity in his first term, that man truly has not done one Conservative thing, and with how bad he's got everybody on both sides hating on him along with the rest of the world, I'd swear he was the Liberal double-agent and he's just there to make the Repugs and Christians look as bad as he possibly can before he leaves. (Incidentally, I've never hidden the fact that I don't believe for one second that Bush worships God)

Congratulations Bush. Mission accomplished! You've effectively and irrevocably damaged our worldwide reputation at the time we need our reputation the most. We're some of the most uneducated and undereducated people in a technological world which is building up around us and our Dollar is going down faster than we'll find our wives children and even our own selves having to do to pay for bread when we've finally hit rock bottom.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:37 PM

I can't seem to find anyone to agree with on this thread. Except maybe..... Finn!?!?

The only thing I can think of as dumb as walling off our country is the minimum wage (or is it flag burning? I get them mixed up...).

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment.

Then we should just make it illegal for anyone to work for less than $50k a year.

The problem with illegal immigration is that we've created powerful incentives for both sides. Poor immigrants want to get here anyway they can because being dirt poor here still beats what their coming from. Employers have incentive to hire the illegals because they're a very compliant work force (it's not like they can go to the authorities and complain), plus they save a lot of money and avoid all the regulatory overhead required for legal employees (like minimum wage, for example).

Those are powerful incentives. If overcoming these incentives can only be accomplished with overbearing regulation and soviet style border policing, we need to consider addressing the incentives.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out.
The vast majority of economists are so steeped in ideology that they don't recognize fact when it bites them. Honestly. But the studies bear out that a rise in the minimum wage doesn't have a negative effect on employment.

I don’t know of many studies that bare that out and dismissing the majority of experts is entirely up to you. But I don’t see any reason to do that.

This is a site from 1995 that cites the large number of studies and papers done that demonstrate that the minimum wage damages the economy including one paper by Prof. William Beranek that claims that minimum wage increases the hiring of illegal aliens.

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- Most people think that adopting three strikes/penalty punishments will reduce crime. I'm not so sure of that because many of the people who commit these kinds of violent crimes have lowered IQ/ brain damage/ mental illness/ poor impulse control and they're not thinking of consequences when they commit crimes.

The ONE kind of crime that responds to anticipated penalities is economic crime, because that's when people think ahead of time about what they might gain versus what they might lose. I'm not really too keen on going after illegals as much as I am about going after businesses, and quite frankly I have absolutely no problem with making business obey the law. It used to be that illegals would show a fake green card and SSN making it very difficult for businsses to know status, but there is is now an online service (which I myself have run afoul of) that allows anyone with inet access to query government databases about SSN and name mismatches. (In my case it was a typoed SSN. But believe me, it works)

AFA going after the cause, I've already said that the USA needs to stop militarily propping up corporate interests in Central and South America. I would go one better and say that labor needs effective international unions so that they cannot be played aginst each other as they currently are. I would also like to see the NAFTA/ CAFTA agreement undone. In fact, I would LOVE to see all the LEGAL advantages that corporations have over individuals (starting with the tax law) rescinded. Then there will be real bargaining in the labor market. It can't be a single-approach solution. But given the current situation of unilateral corpraote power, your opinion of the minimum wage is misguided.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...your opinion of the minimum wage is misguided.

How so? Minimum wage laws are illogical at their core. They basically outlaw low paying jobs. This means that if you don't have the skills or experience to land a job for the current minimum, then you can't work. The higher that minimum is, the more people will be affected. You've acknowledged this effect yourself, in your eagerness to use it as a tool to punish illegal immigrants. But of course that's nonsense because these people are outside the law to begin with. It will primarily punish legal workers and employers who deal in unskilled, part-time labor.

These kinds of head-in-the-sand approaches to solving social ills are what give liberals a bad name. You can't just make poverty go away by making it illegal.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, let us look at your link in detail:

Quote:
Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard.

Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)].

While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%.

Yes, I saw that study referenced. The question is, what happens to overall employment? If an increase in minimum wage pulls adults into that labor market who would not have previously considered those jobs, then all we're seeing is a shift from teenage to adult employment, and focusing strictly on teens becomes misleading. But they never answered that question. So here are the reaminder of the relevant citations (I'm going to skip the ones unrelated to employment since that is what wer'e considering, but my comments apply to all of the cited studies)

Quote:

Summary of Research on the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage reduces employment.
Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969)

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.
Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.
Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.
Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.
Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.
Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.
Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover.
Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.
Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.
Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.
Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).
The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.
Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.
Beranek (1982).

Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.
Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).

First of all these are for the most part very old studies which need revisting. At the time that many of these studies were done, the minimum wage did not cover as large a percentage of the working population as it does today. In addition, monetary policy, study design, unionization, welfare policy, average wages, and other factors have changed, leading to a different economic milieu.

Secondly, as poor as those studies are, most of them contradict the notion that raising the minimum wage encourages hiring illegals. Title after title says that raising the minimum wages hurts the poor, unskilled, racially dispossesed... the essential illegal alien.

I can point to many nations like China, India, most of central and south America and most of Africa with low wages and low unionization who have tremednous unemployment problems. Meanwhile, I can point to nations like Germany, Sweden, etc who have high minimum wages and low unemployment. Clearly, there is more going on than just wages.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

Quote:
The higher that minimum is, the more people will be affected. You've acknowledged this effect yourself, in your eagerness to use it as a tool to punish illegal immigrants. But of course that's nonsense because these people are outside the law to begin with.

But the people and the companies that they work for are NOT.

Quote:
It will primarily punish legal workers and employers who deal in unskilled, part-time labor

See my response to Finn. above.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

You really think it's that easy?

I generally ignore the kind of statistical tit-for-tat you and Finn are engaged in. And in the end I don't care. We could probably spur the economy by making it illegal to drive any vehicle more that five years old - should we do that too?

The fundamental problem is the same as it always is with this kind of crap. You think you can make the world a better place by telling everyone else how to live. I'll always call bullshit on that, whether it's neo-cons trying to remake the middle east, or poverty activists trying to tell us what jobs we can or can't take.

How many times will we have to learn this lesson? You can't just pass laws to make ugly things like poverty go away. You don't like the idea of people working for low wages so you make it illegal. There's still a need for low wage jobs, but now they have to go underground where the folks involved have NO legal rights.

It's the same logic that's driven most of the ill-conceived regulatory efforts that we're currently saddled with. We see the same dynamic in healthcare where we've made it illegal to get cheap healthcare. It's fine for the folks that can afford top-of-the-line care, but the rest of us have do without.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

I think you have a rather biased view of where those profits go. I think you have this vision of fat cats in board rooms lighting cigars with $100 bills. That's not the way it is at all.

In a recent discusion in another forum I learned that around 60% of IBM stock is held by what we in the UK call "Institutional investors" ie pension funds. So the "profits" you are "redistributing" pay the pensions of millions of ordinary Americans.

As to the bigger question. If you raise the miniumum wage then some employers will either absorb the cost or pass it along to their customers -- that's because continuity of business has a value too. You may even see economic benefit as that extra money flows through the system. However, some folks will lose their jobs as a result if their employers are unwilling or unable to fit the increase into their cost/sales structure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:56 AM

If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right?

Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I saw that study referenced. The question is, what happens to overall employment? If an increase in minimum wage pulls adults into that labor market who would not have previously considered those jobs, then all we're seeing is a shift from teenage to adult employment, and focusing strictly on teens becomes misleading. But they never answered that question. So here are the reaminder of the relevant citations (I'm going to skip the ones unrelated to employment since that is what wer'e considering, but my comments apply to all of the cited studies)

No. The question is not “overall employment.” The question is employment of illegal immigrants who are mostly at the lower end of the spectrum, and this lower end is where the minimum wage will impact employment. Teenagers are also in this group, along with much of the poor and many minorities. Whom I might add, you don’t seem to concerned with right now. When poor blacks can’t find work, I guess we’ll just blame it all on “whitey” later, and selectively ignore the damage done to the employment of unskilled laborers by minimum wage laws.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all these are for the most part very old studies which need revisting. At the time that many of these studies were done, the minimum wage did not cover as large a percentage of the working population as it does today. In addition, monetary policy, study design, unionization, welfare policy, average wages, and other factors have changed, leading to a different economic milieu.

Some of them are old studies some of them are from the 90’s. The point of the article is to demonstrate what you have already decided to blanketly dismiss: that for 50 years the majority of economics and the majority of studies have demonstrated that increasing the minimum wage harms the economy and that harm is felt most strongly by unskilled laborers, who are largely poor and minorities.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, as poor as those studies are, most of them contradict the notion that raising the minimum wage encourages hiring illegals. Title after title says that raising the minimum wages hurts the poor, unskilled, racially dispossesed... the essential illegal alien.

No they don’t contradict that notion. What they show is that “poor, unskilled, racially dispossessed” legal employment are disproportionately hurt by increasing the minimum wage. Most of these studies are done in reference to legal employment in the US, not illegal employment. And in fact the one study that was done that focused on illegal immigrants demonstrated that illegal aliens are helped, not hurt, by increasing the minimum wage. And this makes perfect sense, as I’ve already explained. When you increase the minimum wage you increase unemployment among unskilled laborers, but the need for these jobs is not gone; it’s just that companies can no longer afford to fill them, legally. So by increasing the minimum wage, you increase NOT decrease the incentive for hiring illegal immigrants.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

Socialism. Income redistribution. This is the true crux of your whole opinion, I suspect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think you have a rather biased view of where those profits go. I think you have this vision of fat cats in board rooms lighting cigars with $100 bills. That's not the way it is at all.

Yes it is. The CEO/ CFO, P/VP and Board take a huge cut off the top in "salaries", "perks", "bonuses" and severence. THEN they get their stock options. I'll give you an example: the typical for-profit health insurance company has only a 10% profit margin but 30% "administrative" costs. That compares to about a 3% administrative cost for Medicare and non-profit HMOs. Now, you KNOW that the for-profits are not paying their clerks and bean-counters huge salaries, so really, where is the "administrative cost" money going? It's prolly in that Lamborghini sitting in the parking lot, the $10 million dollar mansion on "The Point" and the private jet. On top of that there IS that 40% of stocks held by "non-institutional investors". Where do you suppose THAT money goes? That often goes to speculation in gold, fine art, currency, and other "bigger fool" investments.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right? Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?

Not really. Lots of European countries have done it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Socialism. Income redistribution. This is the true crux of your whole opinion, I suspect

Yep. Take the money away from people who do nothing except light cigars with $100 bills and distribute it to people who do something productive. That sounds fair to me. What about you?

Quote:
Some of them are old studies some of them are from the 90’s. The point of the article is to demonstrate what you have already decided to blanketly dismiss: that for 50 years the majority of economics and the majority of studies have demonstrated that increasing the minimum wage harms the economy and that harm is felt most strongly by unskilled laborers, who are largely poor and minorities

MOST of the studies are from the early 80's and before. As I pointed out before, there was a different economic milieu. Back then the minimum wage law only covered about 60% of the work force and exempted about 40%. Today, it covers a little over 90%. Also, study methods differ. Many of the studies back then didn't distinguish between the effect of an increase in minimum wage and the effects of other economic trends that may have been going on at the same time. In addition, there was a robust middle class back then. Today, not so much.

Quote:
No. The question is not “overall employment.” The question is employment of illegal immigrants who are mostly at the lower end of the spectrum, and this lower end is where the minimum wage will impact employment. Teenagers are also in this group, along with much of the poor and many minorities. Whom I might add, you don’t seem to concerned with right now. When poor blacks can’t find work, I guess we’ll just blame it all on “whitey” later, and selectively ignore the damage done to the employment of unskilled laborers by minimum wage laws.

If 12 million unskilled jobs open up at less than starvation wages, a whole lot of people will be a whole lot happier. Illegal immigrants are working (key word here) illegally. Simple law enforcement should be able to stop that.

I guess your question to me is: Do I care about the people working illegally in the USA?

My answer is: Not really.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:11 AM

Executive salary isn't "profit" it's payroll and considered an operating cost. You could tax profits at 100% and the CEO's takehome would remain the same.

I also thought we were talking about minimum wage jobs here, so what HMO's have to do with things I have no idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I know. It's not just profits, it's income distribution. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of taking money away from the guy who does squat and giving it to the folks who do real work.

BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:53 AM

JONGSSTRAW

It really didn't take any knowledge of the provisions of the proposed bill; it didn't take even any knowledge of current events, or economics, or socio/geo-political awareness to defeat this....the mere fact that Ted Kennedy liked it should have been a bright red flag from the onset that this thing was a lemon....and then to have Bush praise & hawk it side by side with Kennedy, the guy who screamed at the top of his lungs that Bush lied to America & cooked up the whole Iraq War...well for me it's a bit beyond the realm of believability.

I say we must accept reality.....no illegal is voluntarily gonna go back to Mexico to try to get back to America legally. We should grant immediate amnesty to all illegals, as long as they have not committed any crimes while in America...ship the criminals back, keep the working-family folk here, seal the borders tight & back up with National Guard or many more Border agents. No one else new gets in, unless it's through the legal and traditional process. If 11.5 out of the 12 million illegals are not criminals, that should be more than enough to pick our tomatos and lettuce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, there's that too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

About the bill - whenever someone tries to stampede action (hmmm ... just like the USPATRIOT Act) - saying NO TIME TO THINK ! NO TIME FOR DEBATE ! VOTE FOR IT NOW !! - it makes me suspicious.

If it's that important, why not take the time to do it right ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I know. It's not just profits, it's income distribution. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of taking money away from the guy who does squat and giving it to the folks who do real work.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

And I'm sure there are blue collar guys that clock in and spend 4 hours reading the paper every day. The point is that people being people there will always be folks that game the system.

A more pertinent question is why the board of some companies feel the need to pay these multimillion dollar packages? Do they really believe that the guy's they hire bring that much value to the company? If they can prove that he does add several million to their bottom line that's one thing but if he can't, well what were they thinking.

The argument I've heard is that you have to pay market rates to secure top talent. I can sympathise with that, but there is a cost benefit component too. I'm sure that if hire an accountant you probably pay the market rate for his services. That rate may be appropriate if he works for a bank because of their cost structures. You would not imagine paying him bank wages to run the checkout at Walmart though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right? Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?
Not really. Lots of European countries have done it.

Really? Then how about $130K. That'd be even better, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep. Take the money away from people who do nothing except light cigars with $100 bills and distribute it to people who do something productive. That sounds fair to me. What about you?

No, not so much. It’s already been tried with horrible consequences. And all those people who “light cigars with $100 bills” also pay the salaries for most people in the country. So their money is already productive and going to people who are productive. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only works in fairy tails. In reality, unearned incomes from government entitlements and welfare do not produce incentive to be productive. Earned incomes do. Furthermore, the more money you steal from the rich the less willing they will be to invest it in employees and the economy. So I want those rich people producing jobs and paying salaries. I don’t want the money coming as entitlements. I like my capitalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If 12 million unskilled jobs open up at less than starvation wages, a whole lot of people will be a whole lot happier. Illegal immigrants are working (key word here) illegally. Simple law enforcement should be able to stop that.

Then simply law enforcement is all we need and there’s no reason to consider minimum wage increases. And even if it did prevent illegal immigrant workers, which is unlikely, it would still have damaging collateral effects on Americans workers. And the more likely scenario would be that jobs that Americans would lose would go to illegal immigrants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, Perhaps you can 'splain how someone can do enough to 'earn' an income of $200 million per year. (In persepctive, if the average worker made 200M in a lifetime - roughly 40 years of work, that is 5M per year.)

I also suspect you have a double standard: fear of starvation drives workers to be productive, while greed drives the rich to do whatever it is they do for their money.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:10 AM

Human nature and reality are what they are. I don’t claim to able to explain it. What I do know is that you will not get rid of rich people no matter how much you try. All you will do is hurt the poor people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bull. "Human nature", especially "greedy human nature", is one of the biggest myths foisted on us. Human nature being what it is, there will always be some sociopaths who spend their entire lives thinking how to screw the 99% others. It is our societal systems which run amuck by rewarding and encouraging sociopathic behavior.

Quote:
no, not so much. It’s already been tried with horrible consequences.

Actually, it has with GREAT success. Labor was miserable in Victorian England until unions came about and demanded a higher portion of the wealth. Same with the USA. Same with ANY nation.

Quote:
And all those people who “light cigars with $100 bills” also pay the salaries for most people in the country. So their money is already productive and going to people who are productive.

What the f*ck are you talking about. Capitalists do not "give" labor money, labor demands it. That's the negotiation.

Quote:
Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only works in fairy tails. In reality, unearned incomes from government entitlements and welfare do not produce incentive to be productive. Earned incomes do.

Yes, and that's why raising the minimum wage is such a good idea because it's not an "entitlement" or "welfare".

Quote:
Furthermore, the more money you steal from the rich the less willing they will be to invest it in employees and the economy.

Fine with me.

Quote:
So I want those rich people producing jobs and paying salaries.

Rich people don't produce jobs and pay salaries. DEMAND produces jobs and pays salaries. You may be a historian but you're clueless about economies.

Quote:
I don’t want the money coming as entitlements.

Gee, if I had been talking about entitlements you might have a point.

Quote:
I like my capitalism.

You don't even know what capitalism is. Some day I should explain it to you starting with Adam Smith.

So, have you figured out what nations with low wages have high unemployment, and naitons with high wages have lower unemployment?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch- the guys get the salaries, perks, and stock options that they do because .... guess what... they get to vote on it!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep Sarge, I'm with you. $130K is MUCH better!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bull. "Human nature", especially "greedy human nature", is one of the biggest myths foisted on us. Human nature being what it is, there will always be some sociopaths who spend their entire lives thinking how to screw the 99% others. It is our societal systems which run amuck by rewarding and encouraging sociopathic behavior.

Seems to me the true myth is that rich people are sociopaths. There’s nothing greedy about being rich. There’s nothing sociopathic about wanting to be rich or being successful or skilled and there’s nothing greedy about accomplishing your goals. Rich people are not all evil bastards plotting to take over the world. In fact the vast majority of them are not. Now certainly rich people have their own interests at heart and have the money to secure those interests where as poor people may not. And I’m not saying it’s necessarily fair. I’m just saying you won’t change it. If you try, you’ll just become one those sociopaths screwing the poor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I would say that you don't know any rich people. So yes, they DO plot on how to "take over the world". And yes, it IS evil to gun down unionists at home or to have the government send armies to intervene on your business' behalf in foreign countries. AFA screwing the poor- I'm not the one telling folks to bend over and enjoy. It seems to me that people should be representing their own interests, not the interests of the guy who's got more money that God. You're all brave excpet when it come to facing real power, and then you turn into a wimp.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You now, when less money went to the poor and more to the rich there was a major depression.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Speaking of "human nature" and morality (AntiM, you around?):

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2179/

We have a pending fortuitous marriage of science and morality of the most profound sort.”

The non-profit Edge Foundation recently asked some of the world’s most eminent scientists, ”What are you optimistic about? Why?” Neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni cited the new experimental work into the neural mechanisms that reveal how humans are hard-wired for empathy. Recall that empathy is more than compassion or sympathy with another’s situation. Empathy requires being able to ”put oneself in another’s shoes,” make a distinction between self and other, and then act on that perception. Empathy recognizes the other’s humanity.

We now know from brain imaging and psychological experiments that the same brain circuits are mobilized upon feeling one’s own pain and the pain of others. We know that separate neural processing regions then free up the capacity for an appropriate response. And scientists at the National Institutes of Health have discovered that altruistic acts activate a primitive part of the brain, producing a pleasurable response. Morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains.

Overwhelming evidence also indicates that the roots of prosocial behavior, including moral sentiments like empathy, precede the evolution of culture. Some 40 years ago, the celebrated primatologist Jane Goodall wrote about chimpanzee emotions, social relations, and ”chimp culture,” but experts remained skeptical. That’s no longer the case. According to the famed primate scientist Frans B.M. de Waal, ”You don’t hear any debate now.” The feelings of empathy identified in monkeys and apes are both the roots and counterpart to human morality, a natural inheritance from our closest evolutionary relatives.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well 'cause stealing from the poor to give to the rich works so much better! In any case, it's a helluva a lot easier cause you've got the power on your side!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You don't even know what capitalism is. Some day I should explain it to you starting with Adam Smith.

And some day I won’t care.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nevermind.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

See Finn, when you talk about "human nature" you're talking about one particular set of learned behaviors in a particular structure. Like the chimps that fought over fruit in a pile but resumed their normal ways when the fruit was spread out, humans many be reacting to resource cornering with aberrant behaviors, not the other way around.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:30 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See Finn, when you talk about "human nature" you're talking about one particular set of learned behaviors in a particular structure. Like the chimps that fought over fruit in a pile but resumed their normal ways when the fruit was spread out, humans many be reacting to resource cornering with aberrant behaviors, not the other way around.

Maybe. In fact, probably. If there were no scarcity, then we’d all be happy chimps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

Which seems like a glib response but is essentially accurate. The problem with Sig's worldview is that it presumes that there is just one component to economic activity and that is labour. Once you get beyond basic agriculture and resource extraction you need capital in order to be able to use the labour that's there. The reason that there are unemployed people in Africa is that in general nobody invests there, because they lack the stability/education and infrastructure to make that happen.

It is not the case that a $1/day worker is always a good deal, not if you have to spend billions building roads/factories and schools to get to a position where you can actually exploit that cheap labour. Places like China and India have spent government money on education and infrastructure to make that happen. Once you have an educated workforce, once you have political stability and basic infrastructure, thenyou will get investment == jobs == less people unemployed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

Maybe. In fact, probably. If there were no scarcity, then we’d all be happy chimps.
_______________________________________

There is no scarcity. The only things that have absolute limits are enviromental - arable land, fresh water, trees, oceans, air, ores. Every other scarcity is due an economic system which does not have people work in order to fill human needs.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:38 PM