# The Dems: Simply saying you're better for the working poor don't make it so. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2005, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178 "2005-01-05T08:40:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/41 "2005-01-05T23:12:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I repeat - what do you know, IN DETAIL, about Halliburton’s supposed overcharges? From real news sources? I doubt anyone here is going to be able to prove that Halliburton is charging more then another company in the market would have. In fact, I think asking that question doesn’t really make sense: When you only consider a single source for a service, _there is no market_. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/42 "2005-01-05T23:34:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Your cite doesn’t back that up. All it says is approximately how many jobs their economic model _says_ would be cost by the minimum wage hikes of the mid to late 1990s. You don’t cite data that show how many jobs actually _were_ lost as a result of those hikes. > > [According to economist Brad DeLong](http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/OpEd/minimum_wage.html), writing in 1997, the lower the real value of the minimum wage, the smaller the negative effect of raising it on employment: > > > [@](#): > > > > Thus it should be no surprise that with the minimum wage so low it is hard to find evidence of destructive effects. Economists David Card and Alan Krueger have recently carried out seven studies of various changes in the minimum wage, focusing on teenagers, restaurant employees in general, and fast-food employees in particular. In all seven cases increases in the minimum wage have led to positive and statistically significant increases in the earnings of workers. In none of the seven cases have increases in the minimum wage led to estimated decreases in employment. > > And here’s what he says the consensus was then: > > Very little has changed since then, really: even by early 1997, the boom was just beginning to make a difference for workers. We’ve still got an economy with a lot of money sloshing around at the top, and now we’ve got fewer people employed than there were four years ago, which means workers - especially those at the bottom - aren’t in a good position to ask for more pay than is being offered. Some jobs would undoubtedly be lost if the minimum wage were to be raised to, say, $6/hour, but what DeLong’s numbers suggest is that employers are paying less than what they feel employees are worth, simply because they can. Why would they do otherwise? Card and Krueger’s study, the basis for the claims of your cite, has been discredited. [url=“[http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/illusion.htm](http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/illusion.htm)”] > [@](#): > > Card and Krueger interviewed fast-food restaurants on both sides of the Delaware River. They posited that any differences between New Jersey and Pennsylvania could be explained solely by the minimum wage. What they found was that New Jersey restaurants hired more employees over the period of the study than Pennsylvania restaurants. > > The results of the study were extraordinary. Card and Krueger seemed to have discovered a refutation of the law of demand. Economists were stunned. Because of these extraordinary results, they debated the results. Many economists argued that the differences between New Jersey and Pennsylvania were more than simply differences of minimum wage rates. Other economists argued that the study design was flawed. > > Other economists were able to review the study using better data with devastating results for the Card-Krueger study and the Administration argument. Card and Krueger gained their data by asking one question. “How many full-time and part-time workers are employed in your restaurant, excluding managers and assistant managers?” Depending upon the answer, they interpolated employment trends. It is clear from this question that their report was deeply flawed. > > First, the person answering the phone was allowed to interpret this question differently. Did they mean how many people this week, this month, this shift? Who is a part-time worker? Varying interpretations of this question allowed different answers from the same restaurant over the period of the study. The data Card and Krueger collected show incongruous results. For example, a Wendy’s restaurant went from 35 employees (zero full-time, 35 part-time) to 65 employees (35 full-time, 30 part-time). Other restaurants show strange results as well. > > Second, they simply divided the number of part-time employees by two and added them to the number of full-time employees. This method of estimating employment effects cannot accurately estimate the effects of higher minimum wages. Restaurant managers simply could have responded to a higher minimum by forcing employees to accept fewer hours. > > The best data Card and Krueger could have obtained from these restaurants were hours worked. However, they did not obtain that data. **Another set of economists, Dr. David Neumark and Dr. William Wascher, obtained the payroll data from the restaurants Card and Krueger surveyed. When Neumark and Wascher calculated the numbers, using the identical statistical methodology of Card and Krueger, they found the exact opposite of Card and Krueger.** Card and Krueger found that restaurant employment in New Jersey rose, while restaurant employment in Pennsylvania fell. Neumark and Wascher found that employment in Pennsylvania rose more rapidly than employment in New Jersey. A Presidential Commission found in 1980 that teenage employment fell one to three percent for every ten percent hike in the minimum wage. The difference between Pennsylvania and New Jersey was exactly within that range. Secretary Reich relied heavily on the conclusions of the Card/Kreuger study, and as such, those conclusions regarding the lack of detrimental effects of an increase in the minimum wage, were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/43 "2005-01-06T00:03:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I became a big non-fan of Edwards after seeing him in his debate with Cheney (not that Old Nick was any better). He just had “lightweight” written all over him. His continual thumbs-upping was also supremely annoying. > > But you raise a good point. Edwards’ “two Americas” rhetoric was OK as far as it went, but it was hard to imagine how all that talk would be backed up with life-altering policy. > > The Pubs, on the other hand, add to their rhetoric concrete actions like the tax cut. It’s bread and circuses, to be sure, but guess what wins elections? Until the Dems offer promises that are > > A. Rhetorically and emotionally appealing > B. Possible to imagine coming to be in a concrete way > > they will remain stuck in the jakes. I think the Dems need follow the Pubbie playbook and develop two programs – a well thought out, logical, effective program, much like the one I proposed, that they can post to their websites and put out position papers on, and a program strictly for TV and radio broadcasts, consisting of inane soundbites. Doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not, so long as it’s very simple and is emotionally appealing. Something along the lines of “I want to bring the economic recovery to EVERY American!” or “No American who’s willing to work hard will be left behind!” The gucks who get all their news from radio and TV soundbites will either never hear of the written program, or if they do, they won’t understand it. Dems pick up votes on both fronts. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/44 "2005-01-06T00:46:09Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think the Dems need follow the Pubbie playbook and develop two programs – a well thought out, logical, effective program, much like the one I proposed, that they can post to their websites and put out position papers on, and a program strictly for TV and radio broadcasts, consisting of inane soundbites. This is how it works, sad but true. It’s a layered approach with a stratum for each intellectual capacity. Bush, of course, has one-size-fits-all, but he’s captured the dumbass market, and that’s enough to win. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/45 "2005-01-06T01:03:40Z")
No, not necessarily. He also has a considerable portion of the upper class vote, since his policies so much favor the prosperous. Happily, he does not garner all of that vote, there is some portion of humanity the sees beyond their own avarice and self-indulgence. What precisely that portion is, I wish I knew. What he has a lock on, or had a lock on, can best be described as the sentimental patriot vote, people for whom emotional imagery is strongest. These people are not necessarily unintelligent, its merely that their intelligence is not the directive capacity, as it were. After 9/11, when The Leader came into his Destiny, a great many people who were otherwise rather luke-warm towards GeeDubya formed an attachment (his numbers weren’t all that hot, if you can remember history from before The Day…) Emotions ran high, to say the least, and he garnered a massive amount of approval by doing bold, leaderlike stuff: walking around, hugging firefighters, delivering platitudes, the sort of scripted behavior that everybody expects in those situations. (Want to be considered a Leader of Men? Wait for a truly hideous thing to happen, and do exactly what’s expected of you. Look deep, furrow your brow a lot, say a lot of determined and forceful sounding stuff. Never fails. Barney Fife could have done almost as well.) To some degree, this has worn off, as the Emperors stark nekkidness becomes more apparent. But it takes a _long_ time, even without professional care and nurturing, which he’s got, in spades. But the excitement is over now, and all you can hear is the flutter of wings, as the chickens come home to roost. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/46 "2005-01-06T01:19:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Raising the minimum wage, for example, does not simply guarantee that everyone working at minimum wage will make more money. It causes job losses, especially for minorities and younger workers, and especially for those employed by small businesses… Not true. From the Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #150, “Employment and the Minimum Wage: Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends,” by Jeff Chapman, [http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers\_bp150:](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150:) > [@](#): > > Despite the necessity of a minimum wage that allows low-wage workers to meet basic needs, there is still strong opposition to minimum wage increases, especially from those who don’t view the weak labor market as an imperative to raise minimum wages, but rather as a reason to oppose them. In particular, opponents of state-level minimum wage increases claim that these increases are the cause of weak labor markets, especially in the form of high unemployment rates. > > That argument, however, rests on the simplistic observation that some of the states with high minimum wages also have high unemployment rates. Without more examination, this observation is as useful in understanding state job markets as noting that joblessness has been on the rise in New York since the last time the Yankees won the World Series. It might be true, but it doesn’t mean one is causing the other. > > 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. In general, there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory. > > A more careful look at state labor markets reveals that minimum wages are clearly not the cause of labor market pain in the states. Much more dominant forces, especially the unrelated decline in manufacturing employment, better explain state economic circumstances. > > **Three states in focus** > Three states have been the primary focus of claims that high minimum wages cause weak labor markets: Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. For example, in newspapers in all three states, Craig Garthwaite, research director at the Employment Policies Institute (EmPI), claimed, "it is perhaps no coincidence that the three states with the highest minimum wages in the nation—Oregon, Washington, and Alaska—are among the five states with the highest unemployment rates in the nation."1 > > Contrary to Garthwaite’s oversimplification of the employment picture in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, some key facts about these states show that a number of factors unrelated to minimum wage increases are actually responsible for high unemployment rates: > > Alaska’s job growth has been among the strongest in the country since the recession hit. Persistently high unemployment in Alaska is the result of growth in the labor force, not layoffs of minimum wage workers. > > Weakness in Washington’s labor market has primarily been caused by the severe decline in manufacturing employment (19.7% from 2000 to 2003), a relatively high-paying industry largely unaffected by the minimum wage. > > In Oregon, minimum wage increases have not coincided with increases in the unemployment rate. The large uptick in Oregon joblessness occurred in 2001, although the state minimum wage had not increased since 1999. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/47 "2005-01-06T01:44:56Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > On the job destroying nature of higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, and strict regulations, I’m not sure I need to prove common sense. You do. With cites and stats. ---
**Author:** ![coleridge78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@coleridge78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coleridge78)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/48 "2005-01-06T01:49:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The second example of “taking money from the government” is a tax cut to benefit the wealthy. This assumes, somehow, that the money is the government’s, and a tax cut “gives” money to the recipient. No. The money was earned by the recipient. A tax cut TAKES LESS AWAY from him. The government gives him nothing. I know you’ve been told this before, and I’m a nobody and saying it again will do no good for you, who are already lost; but in case any new folks are out there reading I’d like to point out that this is totally fatuous and inane (if not actually a “lie”). Nobody makes and keeps money (through any non-violent means) without a structured civil society, which, you guessed it, costs a lot of money to maintain. Those who have the most are obviously benefiting the most, and should therefore… wait for it… give the most to keep maintaining said civil society. Let’s all stop paying taxes, and we’ll see how long it is before the slaves murder you and take everything you own. That “rich” person would have nothing without a very expensive social and infrastructure apparatus. Really–it’s a juvenile conceit, can we please get past it and have a real debate? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/49 "2005-01-06T02:03:28Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The way to solve the problem is to focus our economic and social programs on developing and building a strong middle class, rather than a strong upper class. How do you do that? (I would assume you’re talking about something entirely different than minimum wage hikes and health care reform.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/50 "2005-01-06T02:04:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The reality is that _after_ a minimum wage hike, you can do studies to see how many jobs were _actually_ lost, rather than simply making the same projection after the fact as you could do beforehand. See post #46. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/51 "2005-01-06T02:11:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not true. From the Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #150, “Employment and the Minimum Wage: Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends,” by Jeff Chapman, [http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers\_bp150:](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150:) Bunk. These two authors, along with one other economist, are the ONLY RESEARCHERS ever to reach this conclusion… and on suspect data: > [@](#): > > But [EPI] based that conclusion on just six months of data; researchers for the Employment Policies Institute found that adding just three more months of data reversed that conclusion. [Cite.](http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/employmentandunemployment/thinktank.shtml) Here is comment rebutting that study in detail, a peer-reviewed published study that finds the opposite conclusion - higher minimum wage increases unemployment: [Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment](http://www.econ.jhu.edu/people/Barnow/neumarmw.pdf) And here: [The Effects of the Minimum Wage on Teenage Employment](http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190e.html) And all over the place: > [@](#): > > 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 helped South African whites at the expense of blacks: > > Bauer (1959). > > 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 hurts small businesses generally: > > Kaun (1965). > > The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training: > > Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981). > > The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings: > > Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973). > > The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits: > > McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980). > > The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices: > > Trapani and Moroney (1981). > > The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas: > > Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981). > > The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare: > > Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978). > > The minimum wage hurts the poor generally: > > Stigler (1946). > > The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty: > > Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987). > > The minimum wage helps upper income families: > > Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981). > > The minimum wage helps unions: > > Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982). > > The minimum wage lowers the capital stock: > > McCulloch (1981). > > The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure: > > Adams (1987), Brozen (1966), Gramlich (1976), Grossman (1983). > > The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates: > > Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (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). > > The minimum wage has had a massive impact on unemployment in Puerto Rico: > > Freeman and Freeman (1991), Rottenberg (1981b). > > The minimum wage has reduced employment in foreign countries: > > Canada: Forrest (1982); Chile: Corbo (1981); Costa Rica: Gregory (1981); France: Rosa (1981). > > Characteristics of minimum wage workers: > > Employment Policies Institute (1994), Haugen and Mellor (1990), Kniesner (1981), Mellor (1987), Mellor and Haugen (1986), Smith and Vavrichek (1987), Van Giezen (1994). From [Here](http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm) Sheesh. This one’s not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/52 "2005-01-06T03:18:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, not necessarily. He also has a considerable portion of the upper class vote, since his policies so much favor the prosperous. Happily, he does not garner all of that vote, there is some portion of humanity the sees beyond their own avarice and self-indulgence. What precisely that portion is, I wish I knew. Well said, well said. To many people out there, the Dems are like a dented can at the supermarket. No matter how low you price it, no matter how little botulism you say is within, they ain’t gonna buy it. Hell, it could be truffles in spring water, but they are instead going to buy the GOPs grade C peas in the nice, new can with the RW&B label and the endorsement, “By appointment to His Majesty, Jesus H. Christ.” To further the analogy (it’s lame, but bear with me a sec), the dent in the can is the Dems dreary, beige secularism. People don’t want that shit! They really don’t. The GOP smiles big, waves the flag, and salutes Lord Jesus. America the Great and marriage is atween a man and a womun! Ask children whether they’d like an two-egg omellete with truffles and a side of steamed white asparagas or a chopped-pork-ass hotdog and a frosted cupcake. No contest! Not that the Dems are actually truffles (more like mushy hearts of palm), but Kiddie Corp America will always have the cupcake, and the GOP is having a bake sale. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/53 "2005-01-06T03:31:14Z")
Is your point that there should be no minimum wage at all? If so, BS. I’ll argue the point with you if that’s what you really believe, however. If you’re point is that a sufficiently high MW will do more harm than good, no one is going to argue with that. The question, then, is what that number is. Nobody can know for certain. I can’t believe some of the libertarian droning going on this thread. Wah wah wah, heard that all before. The US is already a socialist country by the standards of the past, and it’s time that people faced up to that fact. And one other fact: every major economy in the world is now socialist by the standards of the past (say, 1930). The chief reason being that you can’t run a large, modern state (Singapore is not large!) without significant wealth redistribution and government programs, inasmuch as the “market” sufficies not as a mechanism to preserve the environment and provide people a minimally acceptable lifestyle at individual or collective low tides. But the bar for socialism keeps moving. Whatever the US actually becomes, the righties define it as “capitalist,” concede (though not openly) that the battles heretofore fought are lost, and spend their energy beating up on the next program coming down the pike (Hillarycare, etc.), lest the US become “socialist.” I worked in the drug industry. In 2000 a consultant gave a presentation, and one fact contained therein is that, through Medicare, Medicaid, veterans programs, and a myriad of other programs, the US fedgov already provides the health insurance of about 45% of the country. That’s socialism. All that works in the same way that “capitalism” worked before it was even called “capitalism.” And if it doesn’t work, be done with it. A lot of it is trial and error. But the rightie market fundamentalism to be observed in this thread is just childish BS. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/54 "2005-01-06T03:31:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bunk. These two authors, along with one other economist, are the ONLY RESEARCHERS ever to reach this conclusion… and on suspect data: > > [Cite.](http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/employmentandunemployment/thinktank.shtml) > > Here is comment rebutting that study in detail, a peer-reviewed published study that finds the opposite conclusion - higher minimum wage increases unemployment: > > [Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment](http://www.econ.jhu.edu/people/Barnow/neumarmw.pdf) > > And here: > > [The Effects of the Minimum Wage on Teenage Employment](http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190e.html) > > And all over the place: > From [Here](http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm) > > Sheesh. This one’s not even close. **Bricker,** the first cite you linked (“Think Tank Wars and the Minimum Wage,” by Doug Bandow, from the Liberty Haven website) is dated April 1999. The second, from the _American Economic Review,_ is dated December 2000. Neither of them “rebuts” the study Jeff Chapman cites in his briefing paper for the Economic Policy Institute (not to be confused with the Employment Policies Institute, to which Bandow refers) – which is dated May 11, 2004. Read before you post. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/55 "2005-01-06T03:35:40Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The US is already a socialist country by the standards of the past, and it’s time that people faced up to that fact. And one other fact: every major economy in the world is now socialist by the standards of the past (say, 1930). OTOH, America today is anything but “socialist” by the standards of America in, say, 1965. LBJ (not a socialist by any means, until you compare him with Clinton, Kerry, etc.) must be spinning in his grave. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/56 "2005-01-06T06:26:32Z")
The Democrats _used_ to be better for the working poor; nowadays, they’re too busy trying to be Republican Lite™ to do an effective job at it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/57 "2005-01-06T15:53:28Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Is your point that there should be no minimum wage at all? Yes. > [@Aeschines](#): > > If so, BS. No. > [@Aeschines](#): > > I’ll argue the point with you if that’s what you really believe, however. OK. > [@Aeschines](#): > > If you’re point is that a sufficiently high MW will do more harm than good, no one is going to argue with that. Yes. > [@Aeschines](#): > > The question, then, is what that number is. Nobody can know for certain. No. It is possible to determine what the “correct” wage is at any level. The correct wage at any level is whatever people are willing to work for in a free market. Any MW over that level involves costs, usually hidden or denied costs. Economics involves decisions. All such decisions, without exception, involve both costs and benefits. There are no economic decisions that involve only benefits. Raising the minimum wage also involves costs and benefits. Please understand that this is not a moral question. The market is completely amoral - not **im** moral, **a** moral. It is like the law of gravity. It operates whether you want it to or not. Sometimes you want it to work, and it does. Sometimes you don’t, and it still does. The market is like that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/58 "2005-01-06T16:11:25Z")
Precisely so. The “free market” is amoral. Hence, the free market system favors an amoral system, favors placing people in the thrall of an amoral “system”. The distinction you wish to make between “immoral” and “amoral” is sheer sophistry. Any system that values property above humanity is repugnant, it is slavery with lipstick. The proper order is thus: people possess property. The reverse is anathema. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/59 "2005-01-06T16:25:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Precisely so. The “free market” is amoral. Hence, the free market system favors an amoral system, favors placing people in the thrall of an amoral “system”. I don’t follow. Can you clarify how an amoral system necessarily places people in thrall to it? Seems to me that the system just “is” and we use it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178/60 "2005-01-06T16:27:40Z")
People posses property. I agree with that. They may freely exchange their property for other property. Now you come along and want to force me to part with more of my property than I wish to. That’s the part I don’t cotton to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-simply-saying-youre-better-for-the-working-poor-dont-make-it-so/283178.md?page=4)