Not so fast Sen. Reid

You are certainly right but these are extremely complicated issues that will take time to resolve. I hope that the dems can walk and chew gum at the same time, the things they want to get done right away are relatively straightforward, easy, yet very important, the things you are talking about (Iraq, immigration, trade policies) will take months or years to resolve, I do expect them to start working on these issues immediately but we have to be realistic about it, we won't see results for months.

 

November 24, 2006, 0:30 a.m.
The Phony World of the Minimum Wage

By William F. Buckley Jr.


Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, has told us that she will call up as maybe the very first order of business increasing the minimum wage. Here are the relevant facts:
The federal minimum wage, enacted in 1938, was last raised in 1997. From that point on, with certain exceptions, you could not lawfully hire someone to work without paying him or her at least $5.15 per hour. Paying that much would yield $206 per week, or $10,712 per year. A different federal agency defines poverty as annual earnings of $9,827 or less for a single person. The mathematics of the above informs us that the existing federal minimum wage barely keeps a single worker out of poverty.

Of course, many states and localities have enacted higher minimum wages than the federal one. In San Francisco, you need to pay a worker $8.50 an hour; in New York State, $6.75; in Wisconsin, $5.70.

We learn that 60 percent of minimum-wage earners — two-thirds of them women — are working in restaurants and bars; 73 percent, by the way, are white, and 70 percent have high-school diplomas. Nearly 60 percent work part time.

Now we can leech from these figures several observations:

(1) It can be very difficult to tell what a minimum wage worker is actually making. Many of those who work in restaurants and bars receive tips; then again, the minimum wage is substantially lower for people in that situation.

(2) A high-school diploma will not in and of itself give the worker merchandisable skills o'erleaping the minimum wage.

(3) Since there are part-time workers who receive only the minimum wage, a moment's reflection makes it obvious that they receive, by whatever means, income that makes life possible.

Now on the matter of what to do about it, we should begin by acknowledging that any argument for circumventing the market wage is sophistry. The market will tell you, even in San Francisco, what you need to pay in order to hire an hour's labor. But sophistry is sometimes in order. We do not allow child labor — except in certain circumstances: Peter Pan, at the neighborhood theater, is allowed to work even if he is only 12 years old.

Monopolies are not permitted to set prices. The idea is that in a free society, you must not tolerate any constriction in production. But again, sophistry is permitted, because labor unions, in many fields of endeavor, practice exactly that — a monopoly on the price of labor. What do we do about that? Exactly what we do about waiters who don't list their tips: We ignore it.

We learn that one individual American last year received compensation of $1.5 billion. This leads us indignantly to our blackboard, where we learn that the average chief executive officer earns 1,100 times what a minimum-wage worker earns. What some Americans are being paid every year is describable only as: disgusting. But that disgust is irrelevant in informing us what the minimum wage ought to be. The one has no bearing on the other.

We are bent on violating free-market allocations. Doing this is not theologically sinful, but it is wise to know what it is that we are doing, and to know that the consequence of taking such liberties is to undermine the price mechanism by which free societies prosper.

Milton Friedman taught that "the substitution of contract arrangements for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the serfs in the Middle Ages." He cautioned against set prices. "The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum-wage laws." Those laws are "one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."

Professor Friedman is no longer here to testify, but his work is available — even in San Francisco.



http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0Ng==

 

I hear ya' d, but it ain't complicated for that poor s.o.b. gonna' get his ass blown off today. He's puttin' it on the line and for nothing, and you can believe he damn well knows it. Been there, done that! I swear, I hate these fuckin politicians with a passion.

 

Puhleeze, we're bent on violating free-market allocations when we flood the country with illegal cheap labor, thus artificially and disproportionately increasing the supply (of labor) while keeping the demand (american companies that are hiring) stagnant. We're bent on violationg free-market allocations when we allow outsourcing which again increases the supply to 6 billion workers while keeping the demand (american companies) stagnant.

Why is it that conservatives want american working people to be just as poor as people in India, China, Mexico?

 

Well, in fairness to the Dems, they never ran on a platform like the Republicans did in '94 with their Contract for America. Some Dems want an immediate withdrawl from Iraq while others want a "timetable" on withdrawl or to "re-deploy" our troops. I think the reality is that they won't get ANYTHING passed. Think about it. It takes 60 votes in the Senate. Doesn't matter what their majority is in the House, they only have a 2 vote majority (I'm including Leiberman) in the Senate, and that is not enough for the type of legislation they want. Don't forget the veto, which Bush is more likely to use now.

Bottom line, I think you will just see a parade of investigations and hearings. Basically it's a stalemate, but with some fun teevee to watch. There is nothing better than watching a bunch of self-righteous liberals on parade.

 

What I am trying to say is that the Democrats had set their priorities before the elections and the electorate had their say. If Ms. Pelosi had made Iraq her top agenda, then her feet should be held to the fire on that. Why are you attacking the Democrats for trying to keep their pre election priorities?

 

Because those priorities don't mean shit. Are you going to tell me that when people stepped in the booth they gave a shit about stem cells and minimum wage issues? Had the idiot Rush not made such an ass of himself, the stem cell issue wouldn't have been a front burner deal. The voters said, "F" this war and do something about immigration. I don't deny Dem leaders set their platform up on the issues of reform. Everybody is always coming in to "clean house". It's just really weak, and I think anyone that's honest about it knows the majority of voters were casting votes against the war first and foremost.

 

So, you are suggesting that the Democrats renege on their set agenda and priorities?

 

Yes! If I have a priority to save a thousand bucks by the end of the year, and at the same time the doc tells me I have cancer, while the thousand bucks would be nice, it takes a back seat.

 

Look, Pelosi and Reid are committed to their first 100 hours plan they publicly announced and campaigned on. 100 hours is less than five days, imagine the stink the right-wing smear machine will raise if god forbid Pelosi is one minute late in delivering what she promised...Let's give them their five days to do what they said they would, we've been waiting for six years, we can wait for five more days, right?