A proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, an underpinning of President Obama’s economic agenda and an issue that Democrats hope to leverage against Republicans in the midterm elections, failed in the Senate on Wednesday.
The vote was 54 to 42, with 60 votes needed to advance the measure.
All but one Republican voted to sustain a filibuster against the measure, saying that the increase would damage the fragile economy and force businesses to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Democrats were mostly united behind the bill.
Think about that. Republicans bothered to filibuster a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to just $10.10 an hour—despite the fact that this bill was almost certainly never would have reached the floor in the Republican controlled House. That’s how much Republicans are opposed to raising the incomes of working people.
There is class warfare being waged in our nation, and Republicans are not on the side of the vast majority of Americans.
prevalent Republican strategy: accumulate money by which to manipulate the vote to win in order to accumulate money…
prevalent Democratic-party strategy: present an inclusive progressive platform sufficient to contrast with the above to manipulate the vote to win in order to accumulate money…
the latter is harder path, particularly when so often failing to follow so many progressive promises (“honesty as a campaign tactic? pff.. do you live in some sort of disneyland or what?? have you even heard of the supreme court?”)
In other news,
U.S. Economy Slows to a Crawl in First Quarter of 2014
http://time.com/82434/gdp-econ.....rter-2014/
It’s harder to hire the unemployed if the employed are costing you more money.
@2…
In a consumer driven economy if low wage earners have no discretionary dollars and don’t spend, the economy contracts.
You’re a lousy excuse for a capitalist if you don’t get that.
@ 3
The economy could contract for any number of reasons. Winter weather might have been your best response to the ’14 Q1 numbers but you chose another reply, which is fine.
Something to consider, though:
The ‘vast’ majority of Americans who want pay raises paid for by someone else isn’t so ‘vast’ when they’re also told that it might cost them, or someone they love, their job:
But their views changed when told of a recent government estimate of the effects of such an increase on poverty and employment, according to findings from the poll released Tuesday.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last month that moving to a $10.10 minimum wage would increase the earnings of about 16.5-million low-wage workers, but also cause the loss of about 500,000 jobs.
Presented with that information, 57% of the 1,001 respondents said the trade-off was unacceptable. About a third — 34% — said it was acceptable.
http://articles.latimes.com/20.....l-20140312
That was a Bloomberg poll reported last month.
So my reply to Goldy is that Republicans DO seem to be on the side of a majority (which would be the 57% mentioned above) of Americans when it comes to keeping jobs that already exist.
Sometimes, Rujax!, being a smart capitalist means playing a good game of defense. A sliding economy calls for that.
re 4: In what sector(s) of the economy would these job losses occur? Obviously,in the low wage sector.
Many illegal workers would be forced to go back to their land of origin. The free market in action, no?
Just keep propping up this unsustainable capitalistic nightmare, pally. The implosion is inevitable.
2, 4 – You seem to think wages are a gift.
@6 No, there won’t be an implosion. What will happen as real wages move ever closer to zero is government will provide more subsidies to low-wage workers in the form of EIC, food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, daycare assistance, etc. Republicans will try to keep this aid as small as possible, and will try to shift the taxes to pay for it to middle class workers as much as possible. They really don’t care all that much who pays their businesses’ labor costs, as long as it’s someone else.
@ 5
Actually, not obviously at all.
Here’s the report (you can download from the link):
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
Things people don’t talk about:
1. Job losses could be as high as 1,000,000, not 500,000. The number 1,000,000 is actually in the table under ‘likely range’. I didn’t use the word ‘likely’. CBO did.
2. After all of this displacement of workers and injury to employers, the net benefit in real income to ALL workers, nationwide, is only $2B. So it’s clearly a redistribution but without a ton of net benefit. If giving lower-wage workers is supposed to be a net benefit for the economy it’s going to be hard to see an increase if only $2B more is pumped into the economy, which is probably why the CBO says they really don’t see a long-term benefit, vs. detriment. Boeing dumps $25M into the Puget Sound area and the HA types deride it for doing so. But lifting the minimum wage by a substantial amount only dumps $2B nationwide? Either Boeing’s contribution is much more impressive than HA admits or the effects of a minimum wage increase are far less impressive than HA and Harry Reid would have you believe. Of course, it’s not to actually make a difference. It’s to get through the 2014 election. Isn’t it.
3. After all that redistribution:
“Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.”
So by causing possibly ONE MILLION job losses, only 19% of the higher wages will go to the people you want it to go to. And 29% of it goes to people well out of your target range.
And then you’ll wonder why income inequality continues to get worse, and demand yet another wholesale change in how things are done, in the name of ‘fairness’.
I’m making about $1,750 in the stock market today. last time I looked. I didn’t commute to a job this morning. In fact, I slept in, and got out of bed about half an hour ago. Yet I’m being paid the equivalent of $218.75/hr. to do no work, produce nothing, and contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Why? Because I’m a Capitalist, and America worships Capitalists. The rest of you are expected to kiss my feet as you shuffle by.
Hey, don’t look at me, I didn’t invent this crazy system! It’s Capitalism! It was already here when I showed up; I’m just along for the ride. Don’t ask for a raise to $10.10/hr. if you’re presently making $7.25/hr. because that will bankrupt the Capitalists! You get EIC, Medicaid, and food stamps, don’t you? You should learn to be happy with that.
@ 7
No, wages are not a gift.
Although I allege you seem to think wage INCREASES are free money. They are not. They come with a cost and that cost @9, to some, may be substantial.
The economy is the way it is because capitalist propaganda has talked people into consuming stuff they don’t need instead of saving and investing their money.
The capitalist system would collapse if you stupid humans stopped going into debt to buy stuff you can’t afford and don’t need, like big houses and flashy cars.
I don’t have a McMansion, and I drive a 10-year-old clunker. All I have is a bunch of stocks that pay dividends. If you have enough dividends coming in, you don’t have to work.
What’s more, dividends get raises every year. Raises of 8% are common and 50% not unheard-of. When was the last time you got a 50% raise, or even an 8% raise, at work?
The Republicans in Congress don’t block my raises. Why should they? They own shitloads of stock, so if they did, they’d be blocking their own raises! They’re not against their raises or my raises. They’re only against your raises.
Work is obsolete. America’s remaining workers are exploited, disrespected, and abused. That’s because work isn’t useful anymore. Workers are just a pain in the ass, because they insist in having jobs, whereas Capitalists make more money by destroying jobs.
You humans should stage a revolution, but not the way the Bolsheviks did it. They were stupid. They seized the means of production and turned them over to the state. What they should have done was bought the means of production, like I’ve been doing, and lived off the dividends, like I do.
Think of the advantages: No civil war, no violence, no disruption to the economy, things go on just as before, except we’ll all be Capitalists now! No one will work or pay taxes, and everyone will be rich.
It’s not the Capitalist system that creates our problems. The problem is the people don’t become Capitalists. If everyone was a Capitalist, there would be no problems!
re 9: ” After all that redistribution:”
The word that you use, “redistribution”, is very telling because it gets to the core of the matter. The money for the additional wages will come from corporate profits.
If you are opposed to reasonable profits over windfall profits (due to weak enforcement of labor laws), then you can just cry me a river because that’s where all of this is headed.
You do realize that ‘capitalism’ didn’t even exist until the 19th century?
@8,
Of course it’s going to implode. We increasingly have an economy based on not much more than pure fantasy since the majority of people can’t afford to consume anything without amassing debt or to save anything. The only way to have economic growth in this model (especially the 4 percent growth capitalists demand) is by inflating bubbles. Bubbles burst, and every time they burst regular people lose what little wealth they have left, and the wealthy gobble it up.
How is that not a one-way trip to eventual implosion?
@11 If you owned a business that was losing money, would you stay in business or close your doors?
We’re all entrepreneurs, my friend. Working is a business, too. And working for $7.25/hr. is a money-losing proposition, because no one can live on that or provide their labor for that. Labor, any labor, costs more than $7.25/hr.
So why do you expect workers to provide their labor at below cost, when you wouldn’t expect any business owner to run a money-losing business?
What you don’t seem to grasp about low wages is that when employers pay less than subsistence, government — i.e., us taxpayers — have to make up the difference. If you’re paying your workers $9.35/hr., and it costs them more than that to live, and they’re getting the difference from public benefits, then taxpayers are subsidizing your labor costs.
Which makes you a fucking leech. So please explain to me why I should pay taxes to support your business?
Whenever the minimum wage is discussed, some moron says, “Why not $20/hr.? Why not $5,000/hr.?”
The answer to the question, how much should the minimum wage be, is: Not less than what it costs the worker to satisfy his/her basic living expenses.
Of course, I’m not in favor of minimum wage at all. I don’t think any business should pay minimum wage. I believe everyone should do well.
There’s absolutely no reason to dicker over how much waitresses should be paid, or whether tips should be deducted from the legal minimum, etc.
The answer is, there should be no waitress jobs, period. Then these silly arguments will stop.
I believe every waitress in America should be an entrepreneur. She should set up her own hospitality consulting business, and provide hospitality services to restaurants and other businesses on a B2B basis. Like all businesses, she would charge a set rate for the business services she provides — say, $50 an hour. That’s her gross. From that she pays all of her business expenses, including uniforms, transportation, her own benefits such as health insurance and retirement, etc. In other words, she should manage her labor as if it were a business service, which it is, and charge a business rate for it, which no one is doing and which is why we’re embroiled in these unproductive debates and conflicts over minimum wage. If every worker managed their work as a business, and charged business rates for it, there would be no minimum wage debate. Everyone would be making plenty of money, and businesses would simply pass through their hospitality consulting expenses and other business expenses (such as cooking consultant and dishwashing consultant) to customers.
Everyone would be rich and happy.
@15
Not everyone lives in Seattle. 2014 poverty level for a single person is $11,670.
Minimum wage is around, what, $14,500, annualized?
So someone living in a flyover state, single, is being paid $3k more than minimum wage. Your statement that ‘no one can live on that’ is false.
And to respond to your comments about subsistence and government contributions, if you look at the CBO report and the fact that NET nationwide income increases only $2B with an increase to $10.10, and if you assume that the increase, as Lucy says @13, is paid by wealthier people who will then earn less, then does the economy actually benefit from this large increase in minimum wage?
CBO cannot say that it does. CBO says (link above)
“CBO concludes that the net effect on the federal budget of raising the minimum wage would probably be a small decrease in budget deficits for several years but a small increase in budget deficits thereafter. It is unclear whether the effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits.”
If redistributing income is such a great idea, wouldn’t it lower the budget deficit because people are earning more and we are subsidizing them less? Or is all of that offset by lower taxes paid by employers who find themselves earning less and less motivated to hire employees that will cost them more per head?
I don’t disagree with an increase in minimum wage. I just think that the benefits are far less than suggested by most people here, that the deleterious effects may be far greater than allowed by most people here, and that it would be nice if a more balanced discussion occurred.
@17 How is paying workers what it costs them to provide their labor “redistributing income?” The real redistribution of income occurs when taxpayers have to support workers because employers don’t pay enough for workers to live on their wages.
The fact our government spends billions a year on income supplement programs gives the lie to your assertion that the existing minimum wage is adequate subsistence.
@17 “I don’t disagree with an increase in minimum wage.”
You sure as hell give that impression in your comments.
So what we have here is another troll who, when confronted with facts and logic, backpedals from his bullshit comments.
@17 When we talk about the city of Seattle’s proposal to raise the citywide minimum wage to $15, we’re relating that to the cost of living in Seattle. What it costs to live in Arkansas or Mississippi is irrelevant to Seattle workers.
The current state minimum wage of $9.35/hr. translates into $1,620/mo. — if the employer provides 40 hours a week of work. (But many minimum wage jobs are only 36 hours, or 32 hours, or 28 hours, or even less.)
People who rent tell me you can’t find apartments in Seattle for less than $1,200/mo. and the average market rent is more like $1,500 to $1,800.
How can someone earning $1,620 before taxes pay $1,200 rent? That leaves $420 a month for everything else — transportation, clothing, food, health care, taxes, etc.
The unavoidable conclusion is that $9.35/hr. is not enough to pay for a worker’s minimum subsistence needs in Seattle.
If your business can’t pay your workers enough for them to live, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.
@ 19
http://horsesass.org/a-simpler.....nt-1259255
@ 20
Please point out the facts you have confronted me with in this thread. Were they any better than the links about Q1 GDP, a Bloomberg poll, and the actual CBO report I’ve brought up before you arrived?
I own a small manufacturing business. My workers live and work in Snohomish County, where the cost of living is a bit lower, and they make at least $15 an hour. I’m not making anything, but that’s okay, because I have other sources of income. I don’t need my business to be profitable. It’s enough for me that it’s providing a living wage to a couple of people who lost their jobs in the recession and would otherwise be unemployed. What’s more, most of my product is being exported, so I’m making a positive contribution to America’s trade balance, albeit a very small one.
@22 I think if you delve into the minimum wage issue, as some of us have, you’ll find there are many studies of the impact on the economy and jobs of raising the minimum wage, and that these studies disagree. Studies from relatively objective sources, such as academic researchers and the CBO, tend to conclude that raising the minimum wage has little effect on employment and results in few if any job losses. Most, if not all, of the studies arguing that raising the minimum wage will result in mass layoffs of low-wage workers come from rightwing think tanks and other partisan sources that have been proven wrong in the past.
The cost of living obviously varies geographically. Under the current system, Congress sets a federal minimum wage that applies to the whole country, and states at their discretion may set a higher minimum wage for their state, and some states (generally in higher cost of living regions of the country) have done so.
The proposal to set a citywide minimum wage above the state minimum wage, which is above the federal minimum wage, is merely an extension of this schematic. Seattle has the highest cost of living in Washington, so it makes sense to have a higher minimum wage in Seattle.
The federal minimum wage has been raised many times in the past, and none of those increases were followed by mass worker layoffs. The federal minimum wage was last raised in 2009, five years ago, and we’ve had inflation since then — especially in housing costs and food prices. A monthly income of $1,250 isn’t adequate anywhere today, except maybe in a handful of rural areas where nearly everyone is poor.
If you are willing to go along with an increase, which you now say you are, what would you support in terms of an updated minimum wage level for: Federal? Washington state? City of Seattle?
@ 21
When we talk about the city of Seattle’s proposal…
The thread topic is the national proposed minimum wage increase.
It’s disingenuous to talk about the national minimum wage @ 15 and then when called @ 17 on your false statement expect us to believe that what you meant was @ 21 Seattle.
You’ve called me a troll. You’ve supposedly confronted me with facts and logic @ 20 but the truth is that in this thread you have demonstrated neither.
Do we believe that 500,000 jobs will be lost or is that a corporate lie to reduce support.
Seems we can prove this to some degree.
Ever time the minimum wage rose in WA State was there a corresponding job loss? Can anyone find real numbers?
@ 26
See link @ 9
“Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.”
Congressional Budget Office.
Sure you can prove it. Implement it and see what happens. For people already out of a job, hey, not much to lose, right? Especially if they’ve been out of a job for quite awhile.
My question to you, Better: Did you really think that number wasn’t from a neutral source? Or does the fact that conservatives are very concerned about that number and liberals dismiss it make you think it must be some sort of corporate lie? Because if it were a real number, liberals would be concerned about possibly losing that many jobs, too, wouldn’t they?
Wouldn’t they?
re 25: So, you’re not going to answer the question….
In order to avoid the spectre of being ‘disingenuous’ (cute), we have to talk ONLY of the minimum wage situation in Seattle?
re 27: You seem to be missing the point that minimum wage jobs can’t supply a worker with enough money to pay his/her bills and that the slack is being taken up by government subsidies to the workers (thereby subsidizing the employer). Free stuff? I think so.
But, I have it on good authority, that many minimum wage jobs are also part time jobs.
These are the jobs that would be lost.
The minimum wage worker in the new situation with a higher hourly wage would have one full time job. Hence the dire warning from many employers that workers would have to work ‘longer hours’.
You cannot make an hour longer than it is, so I believe these employers are being disingenuous when they say that.
My goal was to use the word ‘disingenuous’ at least 3 times in my comment, and I don’t think that I’m being disingenuous or off topic when I point out that I have succeeded!
The effects on domestic manufacturers of raising the minimum wage could be ameliorated by simultaneously increasing the tariffs on similar goods produced in Asia.
The consumer’s choice would then be based on price AND quality — not merely price.
What American manufacturer would disagree?
@27 “Sure you can prove it. Implement it and see what happens.”
That’s what the president is more or less proposing we do, and I agree with him. Let’s raise the federal minimum wage of $7.25 to $10.10 and see what happens. Based on past experience, I think it’s extremely unlikely we’ll lose 500,000 jobs or anywhere close to that number.
@29
Lucy, is it worth it to see perhaps as many as one million people lose their jobs so that 19% of the redistributed income will flow to those below the poverty line, while 29% of the redistributed income flows to workers well above the poverty line, workers who weren’t the stated intended recipients of that new money?
Is that worth it to you? Because that’s in the ‘likely range’ according to CBO.
Job losses primarily lower-wage, I agree with you and with CBO. Would like to see your good authority provide a link that they will be part-time jobs, please.
If people below poverty level see 19% of the redistributed money but as many as a million more low-wage workers sink deeper into poverty, do you call that a successful program? Or, as with so many well-meaning programs intended to rob Peter to pay Paul, do we see greater income disparity within the lower end of the income scale?
@17 Travis, you indicated @17 that you would support an increase in the federal minimum wage. Care to give us a specific amount? How much of an increase are you willing to support?
I didn’t work today, but I made $241.75 an hour for not working. I made $1,934 in the stock market today. I did absolutely nothing to earn it. All I did was own stock. We capitalists get paid for owning, not working. Everyone should be a Capitalist! Then no one would work, and we wouldn’t argue over how much to pay workers.
@ 30
So the tariffs would be an offset to problems created by a wage increase, then.
Why isn’t there some sort of offset proposed as part of the national minimum wage increase, then? Or are you suggesting that, after raising the minimum wage and then seeing that it is backfiring, we’ll real-quick slap tariffs onto foreign imports, raising prices for consumers, because we think that will plug the dike after it starts to leak?
If you think that there should be something done to minimize what happens that we don’t like if we suddenly and very substantially raise employer costs, then maybe we should do that first, or at the same time, whaddyathink?
I am at least pleased to see that you are thinking about the adverse effects of a policy you advocate. Not much of that going on around here.
Bloomberg.com says, “When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.” (1)
http://cjonline.com/blog-post/.....e-job-loss
Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....-jobs.html
re 32: “Lucy, is it worth it to see perhaps as many as one million people lose their jobs…?”
Travis, is it worth it to see an individual who is working 3 part time jobs ‘lose’ two of those part time jobs (consolidated into one), make more money, be less tired and prone to accidents and disease, etc…?
You just don’t get the point. I’ll capitalize so you can readily understand what I’m saying: MANY OF THE PART TIME JOBS LOST ARE BEING PERFORMED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL (many people perform up to three or more part time jobs to make ends meet). THE JOBS BEING LOST ARE PART TIME JOBS.
UNEMPLOYMENT DOES NOT INCREASE.
How can you be so obtuse?
@32 “Lucy, is it worth it to see perhaps as many as one million people lose their jobs …”
A few posts ago you said 500,000. That’s incredible inflation.
Travis, you haven’t answered my question @33. Are you willing to support any minimum wage increase, and if so, how much?
Our cute little troll is so sure of his sources that his estimate of job losses from raising the minimum wage changes from 500,000 to 1 million in just 25 minutes.
@ 38 @ 40
The CBO centers a likely range at 500,000 and gives a two-thirds probability of job losses between trivial and as many as a million. And your thread track record @ 25 isn’t getting any better.
re 40: I envision Travis as perpetually running around with his hair on fire. I don’t think that he realizes that I’m tossing metaphorical matches at his hair.
For someone like Travis, numbers are more like exclamation points!!!!! The more he wants to make a rhetorical point, the more alarming the numbers become.
re 41: So, Travis, you are just going to ignore the implications of the lost jobs being part-time jobs because it doesn’t fit your hair-on-fire fake message.
@ 43
I’m going to give it less credence because you mentioned it without a reference, I asked for one, and you haven’t provided it. What is it you are so fond of saying, Lucy? Oh, yes. I recall now.
“Prove it.”
re 35: “I am at least pleased to see that you are thinking about the adverse effects of a policy you advocate. Not much of that going on around here.”
I think that you are mistaken if you think that that is the case. Everyone here is well aware of the duality of good and evil in this world and that the seeds of each are found in the other. Hope that’s not too poetic for you, but if you doubt me, there’s a fine sociological treatise on the subject written by Bob Jones University adjunct professor, Max Weber.
Thank G-d, at least there is a smidge of sanity in the Senate.
Google Search — jobs lost to wage increase are part time jobs — About 163,000,000 results (0.46 seconds)
The conservative mind-set is to deny what you don’t want to hear. You could easily have found this information yourself in less than 1/2 second. Why should I waste my time with another climate change denier?
@ 47
Then you should have little difficulty picking out a relevant link to share. I actually spent some time picking over the CBO report and didn’t see it. If it is so obvious, why would CBO not mention it?
So I’ll ask you again to kindly provide me with a link. Please.
@48 He’s not your secretary. Don’t you know how to use the internet?
Whatever the R’s motives for voting against a minimum wage increase, I doubt it has anything to do with saving the jobs of low-wage workers. They don’t give a rip about jobs. They only care about profits.
Of course, the best thing to do is stop consuming, pay off your debts, and accumulate capital so you don’t need a job! If you’re not a worker, Republicans can’t do anything bad to you. Unless you’re a woman, a minority, a kid, an immigrant, a voter, a senior citizen, a baby, a bus rider, or a dolphin.
Now if you want to talk about real job loss, let’s talk about those 50,000 factories that were shut down and moved to China. With millions of good paying full time jobs gone with them. And now the RETHUGS have this new found concern for job losses.
I would have more confidence in the CBO job loss predictions if they crunched the data from previous minimum wage increases and their results matched the actual historical data. A simple proof of their computational model, really.
Our new little troll tells us raising the minimum wage will cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs. I have some conceptual issues with this, though. To wit:
If businesses are that strapped for cash, then isn’t it reasonable to assume they’ve already cut staffing to the bone, and couldn’t run their businesses if they laid off all these workers?
Let’s use the restaurant example. If you lay off cooks and servers, how the hell can you prepare and serve meals to customers? Aren’t those employees there because they’re necessary?
Let’s say you’re a restaurant manager and you have to pay the cooks and servers more. So you lay off the dishwasher. Fair enough. But are you going to wash the dishes yourself, or make your customers eat off unwashed dishes? Explain to me how a restaurant can keep its doors open without a dishwasher.
If raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would cost the U.S. economy 1 million jobs, wouldn’t the loss of so many jobs force a lot of small businesses to shut down? How could those businesses stay open with 1 million fewer employees?
Wouldn’t the owners of those businesses do everything possible to keep their doors open? After all, if they close their doors, they don’t have jobs either. So wouldn’t laying off all those employees be a desperate last resort? Wouldn’t they try raising prices first? Why do people assume they would respond to a wage hike with knee-jerk layoffs?
If all those restaurants close, where will their customers go to get a meal? China? Or to another restaurant down the street that raised prices instead of closing its doors? And if they’ll pay higher prices down the street, why wouldn’t they pay higher prices at your restaurant, too?
While we’re talking about restaurants, has anyone noticed that food prices have gone through the roof? Have you priced steaks in a supermarket recently? Or hamburger? Or chicken or bacon? Are restaurants closing because of these higher food prices, or passing along their higher ingredient costs to customers through price increases?
And if restaurants can raise their prices because of higher food costs, why can’t they raise their prices because of higher labor costs? What’s so special about labor that workers can’t raise the price of their labor even when the cost of everything else is going up? If we don’t kick pigs or chickens around because they cost more, why do we kick workers around because they cost more, too? Why the double standard for cattle and humans?
Frankly, the troll’s spiel sounds like bullshit to me. What’s more, it sounds exactly like the same canned spiel we’ve gotten from the Cheap Labor Conservatives for 50 years, every time the minimum wage was raised, even though none of the terrible things they said would happen have ever happened. It’s just bullshit, nothing more.
This article came from a website called “Conceptual Guerrilla,” and I don’t think he’ll mind my reposting it here; but if he does, he can sue me for copyright violation. It really lays things out, it explains who the Cheap Labor Conservatives are, and what they’re all about, and helps you understand why they take the positions they do:
“Defeat The Right In Three Minutes
by Conceptual Guerilla
Have you got three minutes. Because that’s all you need to learn how to defeat the Republican Right. Just read through this handy guide and you’ll have everything you need to successfully debunk right-wing propaganda.
It’s really that simple. First, you have to beat their ideology, which really isn’t that difficult. At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of “haves” and “have nots” that I call “corporate feudalism”. They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a “respectable” sounding ideology. That ideology is pure hogwash, and you can prove it.
But you have to do more than defeat the ideology. You have to defeat the “drum beat”. You have to defeat the “propaganda machine”, that brainwashes people with their slogans and catch-phrases. You’ve heard those slogans.”Less government”, “personal responsibility” and lots of flag waving. They are “shorthand” for an entire worldview, and the right has been pounding their slogans out into the public domain for getting on forty years.
So you need a really good slogan – a “counter-slogan” really, to “deprogram” the brainwashed. You need a “magic bullet” that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their “drum beat”. You need your own “drum beat” that sums up the right’s position. Only your “drum beat” exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy – the reality their slogans are meant to hide. Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. That’s why it works. You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it’s so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a “scarlet letter”.
Is there really a catch phrase – a “magic bullet” – that sums up the Republican Right in such a nice easy-to-grasp package. You better believe it, and it’s downright elegant in its simplicity.
You want to know what that “magic bullet” is, don’t you. Read on. You’ve still got two minutes.
Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell
When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just “dime-store economics” – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don’t really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don’t. It all gets down to two simple words.
“Cheap labor”. That’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy “catch phrase” that describes them perfectly. You’ve heard of “big-government liberals”. Well they’re “cheap-labor conservatives”.
“Cheap-labor conservative” is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it’s exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you’ll work, and the more power those “corporate lords” have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a “wannabe” like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
Don’t believe me. Well, let’s apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.
Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like social spending or our “safety net”. Why. Because when you’re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you “over a barrel” and in a position to “work cheap or starve”.
Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you “over a barrel”.
Cheap-labor conservatives like “free trade”, NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are “over a barrel”, and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman’s right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women “over a barrel”, forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like unions. Why. Because when labor “sticks together”, wages go up. That’s why workers unionize. Seems workers don’t like being “over a barrel”.
Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about “morality”, “virtue”, “respect for authority”, “hard work” and other “values”. Why. So they can blame your being “over a barrel” on your own “immorality”, lack of “values” and “poor choices”.
Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
The Cheap-Labor Conservatives’ “Dirty Secret”: They Don’t Really Like Prosperity
Maybe you don’t believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and “cheap labor”. Consider these facts.
Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the “golden age” of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good – at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.
These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like “liberals are destroying America.”
In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930’s all the way to the present. You can go to “Free Republic” or Hannity’s forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to “Stalinism”.
Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country’s development going right back to the American revolution.
Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to “resegregate” the public schools.
Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any “social spending” – which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .
Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being “fiscally conservative” – may count as the biggest con job in American history.
“Free Trade”, globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide “corporate playground” where national governments serve the interests of corporations – which means “cheap labor”.
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like “bottom up” prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.
So there you have it, in one easy-to-remember phrase. See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are – desperate for any job they can get – the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.
Try it. Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative in letters to the editor, or an online discussion forum, look for the “cheap labor” angle. Trust me, you’ll find it. I can even show you the “cheap labor” angle in things like the “war on drugs”, and the absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.
Next, make that moniker – cheap-labor conservatives – your “standard reference” to the other side. One of the last revisions I made to this article was to find every reference to “conservatives”, “Republicans”, “right-wingers”, and “righties”, and replace it with “cheap-labor conservatives”. In fact, if you’re a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent.
If enough people will “get with the program”, it won’t be long before you can’t look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase “cheap labor conservatives” – and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day of 2004, every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a “cheap labor conservative” is, and what he stands for.
Now if you stop right here, you will have enough ammunition to hold your own with a cheap-labor conservative, in any public debate. You have your catch phrase, and you have some of the facts and history to give that phrase meaning.
But if you really want to rip the heart out of cheap-labor conservative ideology, you may want to invest just a little bit more effort. It still isn’t all that complicated, though it is a bit more detailed than what we have covered so far.
Less Government and Cheap Labor
“Less Government” is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it’s all about “cheap labor”.
Included within the slogan “less government” is the whole conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the “free market” and government’s role in that market.. In fact, the whole “public sector/private sector” distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the “private sector” exists outside and independently of the “public sector”.
The public sector, according to cheap-labor ideology, can only “interfere” with the “private sector”, and that such “interference” is “inefficient” and “unprincipled”.
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it – “cheap labor”.
For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes “big government tyranny” and what doesn’t. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that “government can’t do anything right” – except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.
Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the “Warren Court” “handcuffing the police” and giving “rights to criminals”. It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials – you know, the ones who cant do anything right.
Cheap-labor conservatives support the “get tough” and “lock ’em up” approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it’s the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today – a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth – they say our justice system is “too lenient”.
Cheap-labor conservative – you know, the ones who believe in “freedom” – say our crime problem is because – get this – we’re too “permissive”. How exactly do you set up a “free” society that isn’t “permissive”?
Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn’t like.
Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.
Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other “black bag” operation the CIA can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.
Cheap-labor conservatives support “domestic surveillance” against “subversives” – where “subversive” means “everybody but them”.
Cheap-labor believers in “freedom” think it’s the government’s business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.
Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these “secret tribunals” with “secret evidence” and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are “Stalinists”.
And let’s not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to “protect our national symbol” from “desecration”. They also support legislation to make the Pledge of Allegiance required by law. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda. [Ouch! That was one of those “hits” you can hear up in the “nosebleed” seats.]
Sounds to me like the cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of “freedom”. I mean, just what do these guys consider to be “tyranny”.
That’s easy. Take a look.
“Social spending” otherwise known as “redistribution”. While they don’t mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is “stealing”.
Minimum wage laws.
Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
Labor unions, who “extort” employers by collectively bargaining.
Environmental regulations and the EPA.
Federal support and federal standards for public education.
Civil rights legislation. There are still cheap-labor conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of “Jim Crow” – including conspicuously Buckley’s National Review.
Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were “tyranny”, but segregation itself was not.
Public broadcasting – which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley’s Firing Line. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of “the culture”. The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. “It’s tyranny I tell you. Enough’s enough!”
See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it “tyranny” if government does something for you – using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:
150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.
300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt – payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders, and buy us absolutely nothing. Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq – which didn’t need rebuilding three months ago. [i.e., before we invaded. – Ed.]
That’s all in addition to the Defense budget – large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.
Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. it’s “social spending” on people who actually need assistance that they just “can’t tolerate”. And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.”
Goldy, 5 minutes isn’t enough editing time. I couldn’t even get all the paragraph separations inserted in 5 minutes.
I liked the article you referenced.
http://conceptualguerilla.com/.....e-minutes/
Cheap-labor conservative is good term for people who fight the minimum wage.
@57 Yep, it’s all about “cheap labor.” Everything Republicans do ties back to that.
I haven’t been around much – pretty busy.
I have to say – I find it terribly amusing that cheapshotbob is back – now in the guise of ‘Travis Bickle’ – creepily apt nom de plume referring to a schizotypal paranoid insomniac bent on cleansing the world of those he finds unworthy. Very apt.
Bob = SerialConservative = Travis Bickle
I also find it hysterical that he’s back at his old game – smarmy condescending finger-wagging and trying to sound erudite despite a very, um, malleable devotion to fact and a tenuous grasp of numeric evidence.
Who can forget this AWESOME takedown of cheapshot by Darryl over bob’s hilariously wrong interpretation of a scholarly paper concerning charitable giving patterns?
I’ll always love that thread, not least because it gave us this:
The dead giveaway was the other day, when he trotted out one of his favorite canned retorts that he seems to find compelling…
.
With all this posting, he’s either retired or been fired.
What? Radiology up on Whidbey not that rewarding Bob?
59, 60 — Nice catch! Another forgery exposed by first-class detective work!
@60
Some things never change, do they? I noticed a certain white-privileged liberal was not happy with US Senator Tim Scott in this blog
http://horsesass.org/open-thre.....nt-1258554
just recently. What was that demographic to which that person referred? Was that really yet another reference to the skin color of a person with whom one disagrees?
It’s almost like there’s a pattern of the use of skin color as a weapon. When it’s convenient.
I bet you’re just salivating at the thought of what you’ll be able to say about Mia Love this Fall. You’ve got skin color AND gender to smear her with – a twofer.
I said this about Tim Scott:
and
Want to accuse me of something, Dr. Bob? Then quote me rather than making smarmy insinuations. Oh, wait…that’s how you got your nickname…cheapshotBob.
The modern right-wing/Republican cabal, in which you comfortably recline, is built on hatred and fear of anything not old-white-straight-male and those who defer to them, all of this in misguided service to the big money boys. Anyone not fabulously wealthy who serves that agenda is selling themselves out, and the rest of us, for something – personal petty advancement, stroking of tribalist identity, something.
We’re all hurt by such a system, though some of us benefit from institutional male-privilege, or white-privilege, or straight-privilege, or all of the above. Some of us criticize and try to change such structural injustice, and some like you, retreat into the comfort of such privilege and make pot-shots at those trying to craft a better system.
So, Dr. Bobby, you can call me a racist all day long, if you like. It’s another one of your slimy assertions that falls apart on cursory examination – like just about everything you write here.
@ 63
Just think, Lib Sci….
If I pick up on your use of skin color in your overt derision of minorities you don’t like, and you do this in a public forum in which your guard is (or should be) up, Lib Sci,
how much are your kids picking up about the way you address skin color and minorities you don’t like, when you’re at home and feel you’re among friends?
Ask yourself this, about Tim Scott and the item in question: Wouldn’t it have been enough to point out that a Republican skipped that event? What else did you gain by pointing out his skin color as well?
It was unnecessary. You did it anyway. It’s a repetition with you.
We notice.
I don’t doubt your children notice, as well.
@61
Aw, thanks, Roger. I was worried I was stating the obvious. Once I saw that one line I quoted, it all fell into place – the voice, the diction, the attitude – it’s pretty transparent.
@ 65
If you were really that on-the-ball you would have figured it out over the weekend when Darryl called my rationale ‘sloppy’.
Alright, which one of you guys is responsible for making NTfF believe @ 26 that a potential loss of 500,000 (middle of the likely range) jobs if the national minimum wage goes to $10.10 is a ‘corporate lie’, rather than a direct statement by the CBO?
And is it just my perception or did Rujax! actually up his game a little in the past several months?
re 47: “So I’ll ask you again to kindly provide me with a link. Please.”
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Frequently Asked Questions
Employment Situation Technical Note
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Access to historical data for the “A” tables of the Employment Situation Release
Access to historical data for the “B” tables of the Employment Situation Release
re 47: “So I’ll ask you again to kindly provide me with a link. Please.”
To be more specific:
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss
Travis Cheapshot Bob, paid your debt yet? How about made more jokes about the appearance of African American girls?
Interesting what he aspires to.
In the American Film Institute’s AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Heroes and Villains, Bickle was named the 30th greatest film villain of all time.
@ 67, 68
To my eye those references do not state that the job losses that might occur will be part-time losses. That has been my request, that you substantiate what you alleged.
Your reference that the up-to-a-million job losses that might occur will be disproportionately PT jobs, please?
@70 Typical Cheap Labor Conservative response. Delay, deflect, nit pick, but never ever advance the discussion or admit to his real agenda. Do nothing if could help workers.
A living wage is better than non living wage. Period.
@ 69
You forgot to allege I’m paid by the word to hang around here and that the Kochs and Rove are my funding source.
NTfF, do you think that you would mistake a CBO study for a ‘corporate lie’ if your information sources had more balance?
Nice chatting with you again, BTW.
Is this the argument?
20 people with part time work, getting government assistance to make up the difference
vs
15 with living wages and 5 unemployed, getting government assistance to make up the difference but at a cost of lower corporate profits?
Cheap Labor Conservatives know who their donor lords are and that’s how they vote.
@ 71
Actually, on a national level I think a minimum wage increase is called for, and on a Seattle level I have no objection.
I am concerned about the magnitude and the rapidity. I’ll cop to that. And tying it to the rate of inflation pretty much reinforces that inflation will always occur, but I can live with that as well.
I just think there needs to be greater awareness about the negative consequences that might be seen. Is that a bad thing?
@ 73
No, that’s not the argument. Not mine, anyway.
The argument is that the distortions created by a too-large, too-fast increase will end up hurting people, overall, more than help.
Think Cash for Clunkers. Ostensibly a way to stimulate purchases of new American cars, right? We borrowed to do it.
The result? Most of the new cars were sold by Toyota or Honda, not by American-based companies, the ones that were teetering on the brink. The supply of used cars dropped precipitously, which drove up used car prices, and made it more difficult for people who cannot afford a new car to afford a used one.
It was a major distortion that had an overall unhelpful outcome relative to cost. It wasn’t the only intervention that didn’t help and had a substantial cost – think $$ given to first time home-buyers, enabling them to buy houses that were underwater several months later.
I have not much objection, and perhaps even none, to a size-weighted and gradually implemented increase in the minimum wage.
Do you have an insistence upon a very sudden and massive increase?
@62 Oh brother. Here we go again.
@66 Looks like you just got it shoved up your ass @67. And @68.
@74 As I recall, Bob, I asked you yesterday what you think the minimum wage should be at the federal, state, and city of Seattle levels. And I don’t recall your answer. I don’t believe there was one. You’re still dancing around the question.
@75 I’m under the impression that both Toyota and Honda have U.S. plants employing American workers.
@75 “I have not much objection, and perhaps even none, to a size-weighted and gradually implemented increase in the minimum wage.”
And that means what? $10 an hour, 100 years from now? Besides, who gives a rip whether you object or not. We intend to do this with or without your assent.
I just think there needs to be greater awareness about the negative consequences that might be seen. Is that a bad thing?
Yes, when it’s used by Cheap Labor Conservatives as a club to stop anything from happening, to stop any action on ACTUALLY raising wages.
It’s like global climate change. Only 98% of scientist agree there is man made climate change and that it’s a problem, so we should do nothing because there needs to be greater awareness about the negative consequences of anything we might do to address the problem.
It’s the same class of argument.
Delay, Delay, Delay.
Cash for Clunkers was not a wild success but in balance it was better than nothing.
And that’s what Cheap Labor Conservatives keep calling for. Nothing. Ever.
re 70: “To my eye those references do not state that the job losses that might occur will be part-time losses. That has been my request, that you substantiate what you alleged.”
Most minimum wage jobs are PT jobs. If you raise the minimum wage and a lot of jobs are lost, what jobs do you think they’ll be losing — white collar jobs in the financial district?
In addition, you fail to consider your audience when you ask for proof positive from me (in the form of a ‘link’)for “… job losses that might occur will be part time jobs.” So, you speculate, linklessly,I might add, that they won’t be part time jobs, but anyone who disagrees with you about job losses that ‘might’ occur has to provide you with convincing data that the jobs that might be affected won’t be part time.
You provide me with a link that proves that the jobs that ‘might’ be lost won’t be part time, and we’ll talk.
@ 83
If you raise the minimum wage and a lot of jobs are lost, what jobs do you think they’ll be losing — white collar jobs in the financial district?
Actually, I would wonder if FT jobs become PT jobs so that
1) benefits could be cut
2) people could be kept on the payroll in case it got busier
Since you are now trying to rationalize that the cut jobs would be PT I assume that means that you don’t, in fact, have the reference that supports your contention. Otherwise you wouldn’t be rationalizing.
@84.
headless lucy has already provide a link to a site with many studies that show raising the minimum wage does not cause significant job cuts.
I give links of how raising the minimum wage in Washington did not cause significant job cuts.
Cheap Labor Conservatives will ever have enough data, or the right data. They delay and deny and deflect and stall.
At some point we must just dismiss them and act without them.
@85 ‘will ever have ” = “will never have”
Why do I see I have the wrong word AFTER the time has expired! (sigh!)
re 84: “Actually, I would wonder if FT jobs become PT jobs so that
1) benefits could be cut
2) people could be kept on the payroll in case it got busier”
Benefits? Surely, you jest. There is a third alternative that people who’ve studied the French Revolution are familiar with. And the reply that “another ruling class will rise” is answered by the observation: “Maybe, but it won’t be you.”
re 85 — “At some point we must just dismiss them and act without them.” Excellent point. But answering Travis is alot like a well-fed cat toying with a mouse.
The mouse will run a little distance and stand motionless, but the moment it moves, you pounce again.
@66
CheapshotBob whines…
I actually noticed a week or two ago…didn’t bother to comment, not really worth the time…your performance today, though, was so reminiscent of your trying to criticize a quantitative academic paper – and failing badly – that I had to pipe up.
You really are that transparent.
And stupid.
@64
cheapshotBob whines…
and
What is it with you and my children?
You did this incessantly the last time you spent any time around here, in your guise as Serial Conservative.
Really, really creepy, but that’s par for the course with you.
cheapshotBob, somewhere above…
Um, no.
(An aside: it keeps coming up, are you stupid, or disingenuous?)
You seem to be trying to lead with the John Roberts-esque fairy tale of “post-racialism” or “colorblindness” … as if any discussion of racism is tantamount to racism. In his able hands it’s a neat, if unsuccessful trick; in yours it’s ham-handed and ridiculous.
The right desperately wants to delegitimize any discussion of race.
The right desperately wants the mere mention of race to be cause for embarrassment.
They want to box it all up and tie it with a bow and set it aside….because it’s a core weapon they wield.
Unless you’re a genuine plutocrat, if you support the contemporary right-wing, whomever you are, you’re selling yourself and your people, and the rest of us, out. It’s just a little more obvious with identifiable groups that are particularly left out of the various privileges: white, straight, male, etc.
Even then, however, most white straight males are not beneficiaries of right-wing policies, yet they’re fooled into voting against themselves, based on the belief that they’re richer than they are, or that their religious tribe will be promoted, or their special gun will be protected and they’ll be able to wield it against those they hate, or any of a number of hollow appeals crafted by the big money boys.
Now, is that racist of me, against white people, cheapshot?
People of color are disproportionately injured by our system in terms of health, wealth, upward mobility, freedom from incarceration, freedom from harassment…as are women, as are non-straight people, as are immigrants, as are religious minorities.
Was it shameful that Nikki Haley, or Huckleberry Graham, or Mark Sanford, or Tim Scott boycotted the memorial celebration of a jurist who put a critical wound in the evil of Jim Crow?
Absolutely.
Perhaps you have a point…I should have pointed out the Haley is also a person of color, and Graham is gay, and they, along with Tim Scott are aiding and abetting a regime dedicated to the widespread hatred of people like them. The white guys who didn’t show up are nominally part of the aristocracy…but that’s a lie too, isn’t it?
The aristocracy is about money and power – and while most of that is in the hands of old white (outwardly) straight men, they have no real allegiance to others of that demographic – it’s just a useful conceit that is great for manipulating hordes of non-plutocratic straight white men to do really stupid things…like support Republicans.
Just like you do.
@84 “Actually, I would wonder if FT jobs become PT jobs so that 1) benefits could be cut 2) people could be kept on the payroll in case it got busier”
And I would wonder why businesses haven’t already done that, if there’s any advantage in it for them, as no law is stopping them.
Gawd, you are a blockhead …
@86 Because 5 minutes isn’t enough.
@91 “their special gun will be protected and they’ll be able to wield it against those they hate”
I can think of a couple angry white males in the news recently
who will be spending the rest of their lives behind bars because they overestimated how much latitude “stand your ground” laws gave them to start shooting people.