DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on January 04, 2007, 02:35:20 AM
-
The Public Versus Bipartisanship
by Matt Stoller, Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:37:51 PM EST
Via politicalwire I came upon this CNN poll. These are policies listed by favor/oppose/no opinion.
Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1
Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1
Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1
Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2
Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3
Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4
Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10
Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6
Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6
Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2
Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5
[.........]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/3/203751/2333
-
A good definition of the Democratic agenda.
>Whatever the latest Poll says<
-
Psssssst!
The basis of democracy is the government doing the will of the people.
As opposed to doing whatever the Hell they want and then spinning it until it SOUNDS like what the people might approve of.
-
>Whatever the latest Poll says<
Isn't that what we elect the bastids for - to carry out the will of 'we, the people'?
-
If they are following us they really shouldn't refer to themselves as "Leadership".
BTW is there no distinction to be made between poll results and the will of the people? I think that polls are pretty malliable.
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070104/asay.gif)
-
If they are following us they really shouldn't refer to themselves as "Leadership".
Part of being a good leader is listening. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the GOP doesn't track opinion polls as much as the Democrats. That's just a part of belonging to a political system that sends you to elections every two years.
In these days where the political parties are so similarly situated on positions and policies, the real battle is in framing the issues towards your argument. That's why the Democrats control the Congress and Senate right now. Bush lost the ability to frame the arguments in his favor.
-
As for the cartoon, why is the "compassionate businessman" paying his employees minimum wage anyway? Or is he paying them so low that he feels an upward pressure on wages from a minimum wage increase? Either way the employees will be better off than from a one-off bonus, which was the unlikely result of the small profit anyway.
-
Bush lost the ability to frame the arguments in his favor.
Bush wasn't running in the midterms.
The GOP lost because their credibity took a hit.
Now the dems are making promises.
Let's see how their credibilty stands.
-
BTW is there no distinction to be made between poll results and the will of the people? I think that polls are pretty malliable.
Isn't an election merely a poll that actually counts for something? Theoretically, anyway.
-
The very concept of "representative democracy," like so much else in our political culture, necessarily implies a structural (that is, purposely created by the Founders) dynamic tension between public sentiment, a more volatile phenomenon, and the "wise" leadership of an elite (those elected), a supposedly more principled benchmark. The stuff of democracy is how these often opposing vectors of powers play out: hence, "the art of politics."
-
A truly dumbass toon, Sirs.
The boss was going to give his "small profit" to his employees, but now that he might have to give them a <gasp!> dollar an hour raise, he has to FIRE one of them.
Oh dear! What would Jeezus do?
-
A truly dumbass toon, Sirs.
The boss was going to give his "small profit" to his employees, but now that he might have to give them a <gasp!> dollar an hour raise, he has to FIRE one of them.
Actually, it doesn't say that he has to fire someone because he had to give them a raise. What it says is that he has to fire someone because "business expenses" have gone up. This could be because of a direct expense (like a rise in minimum wages) but is more likely to be because of indirect expenses (minimum wage raises at his suppliers have increased the costs of his purchased materials and supplies).
A minimum wage increase impacts more than just the wages of employees and their direct employers - it impacts everyone who purchases products made by those employees or utilizes services provided by those employees.
And, actually, weren't the Dems talking about a >$2/hour raise? Something like $2.20/hour?
-
The Democrats are talking about a raise to $7.15 per hour in three phases.
Nothing that would cause this ersatz imaginary toon gaboon to fire anyone.
-
The Democrats are talking about a raise to $7.15 per hour in three phases. Nothing that would cause this ersatz imaginary toon gaboon to fire anyone.
"Obviously" someone who has no frellin clue as to what it takes to effectively run a business, and work with other companies that also run businesses
-
The Democrats are talking about a raise to $7.15 per hour in three phases.
Just looked it up.
Actually, it's a raise to $7.25/hour in two phases. Since it's currently at $5.15/hour, that is a raise of $2.10/hour or 40.78%. Both phases would be completed by next year.
-
wonder why they want to phase it in.
Soften the effects on the economy?
-
Soften the effects on the economy?
Nah, can't be that.
XO just assured us that it won't affect the economy.
-
Most be lack of political courage then.
-
Some people produce a lot of value with their jobs , the more their work produces money the more an employer wants to hire them .
I suppose that there are a lot of people on the margin , people who do not produce a lot of value but who do make enough to justify their job if their pay is low enough.
The Minimum wage will move this margin , makeing anyone who produyces less than the new minimum unemployable.
-
Actually, it doesn't say that he has to fire someone because he had to give them a raise. What it says is that he has to fire someone because "business expenses" have gone up. This could be because of a direct expense (like a rise in minimum wages) but is more likely to be because of indirect expenses (minimum wage raises at his suppliers have increased the costs of his purchased materials and supplies).
A minimum wage increase impacts more than just the wages of employees and their direct employers - it impacts everyone who purchases products made by those employees or utilizes services provided by those employees.
Of course he checked his overhead, supply costs, and insurance - so it is safe to assume that he already knew of those costs. In fact, being the "good" businessman he is, he should have already known about any potential increase in the minimum wage. So it was relatively safe for XO and others to assume that the reaction was strictly confined to minimum wage raises within his company or wage pressure at slightly above minimum wage levels.
Moreover, there are few minimum wage employees in the United States relative to the minimum wage level (though it has increased with the lack of an inflation level minimum wage hike over the Bush years). So the effects aren't likely to be quite as dramatic as you claim. Also, a dramatic increase in the costs from the "good" businessman's supplier is likely to be met with a better offer from another vendor. Therefore yours and Sir's assumption is even less likely to be true.
"Obviously" someone who has no frellin clue as to what it takes to effectively run a business, and work with other companies that also run businesses
Actually, I find that many of the right wing who make this remark quite often have "no frellin clue" themselves. It seems to be a standard freeper reply though.
-
Bush wasn't running in the midterms.
The GOP lost because their credibity took a hit.
Bush's lack of credibility with the voters made issues like Iraq a top voter issue, especially amongst swing demographics.
The GOP lost because they lost the ability to frame the issues. They became the fringe party whereas the Democrats looked like the competent centrists. Don't believe me? Check out the final desperation campaign by the GOP - which was to frame Pelosi, et al as fringe nutters.
This is modern politics between two parties that no longer have a great deal of difference between them, especially on economics. It is a race to the center like moths to the flame.
-
the tipping point was the corruption charges and the foley episode. I think iraq played out to a draw because the dems didn't offer their own plans, and cut and run didn't resonate.
-
"Obviously" someone who has no frellin clue as to what it takes to effectively run a business, and work with other companies that also run businesses
Actually, I find that many of the right wing who make this remark quite often have "no frellin clue" themselves. It seems to be a standard freeper reply though.
Knee jerk response I'd opine in pulling out "freepers". Dare I say that even though I'm no economist, I have a better grasp of the economic impact raising the minimum wage has, than someone who opines that it won't effect it all.
-
Dare I say that even though I'm know economist I have a better grasp of the economic impact impact raising the minimum wage has than someone who opines that it won't effect it all all
Why? And why does that make you an expert on running a small business succesfully? There are many economists who wrote excellent papers on how Clinton's raising of the minimum wage and subsequent states' raising of the minmum wage has not aversely affected their economies. How would you argue with them?
-
Moreover, there are few minimum wage employees in the United States relative to the minimum wage level (though it has increased with the lack of an inflation level minimum wage hike over the Bush years).
Actually, the numbers at minimum wage level have decreased during the Bush years. According the the BLS, in 1997 there were 4.8 million minimum wage workers. In 2004, there were 2 million minimum wage workers.
-
the tipping point was the corruption charges and the foley episode. I think iraq played out to a draw because the dems didn't offer their own plans, and cut and run didn't resonate.
That only furthers my point. I see it as more a game of image than policy. The Republicans offered no real policies. For example, Bush campaigned for Lincoln Chafee, someone who basically opposed many of his own views even over the Iraq War and Abortion. Whereas he also campaigned for Bob Corker who supported the war and opposed Bush on amnesty plans for illegal residents. There's no cohesion of policy, it is just a bungled mix of whatever works at the time.
Therefore image trumps policy.
The Democrats were no different. Look at the differences between Harold Ford Jr. and Nancy Pelosi. Policy is trumped by image. The Democrats won the fight for the center. They won the framing of the issues.
Cohesion of policy (even a basic tenet of policy) is a joke. Image is what matters. That's why Presidential candidates spend millions on public relations firms and hire image consultants. Yeah, there are a few Congressmen in safe districts that have wildly different views, but the parties themselves move towards consensus on basic issues.
-
Actually, the numbers at minimum wage level have decreased during the Bush years. According the the BLS, in 1997 there were 4.8 million minimum wage workers. In 2004, there were 2 million minimum wage workers.
Thanks for the correction. And recall that some states increased their minimum wage during this time too.
Regardless, as a small percentage of the work force we're really not talking about the massive impact many of the right are using as a scare tactic. I think you'll find that the massive impact on suppliers, etc will not come to fruition.
A similar scare tactic was used when Blair introduced the minimum wage to Britain and it too has not hampered business. In fact, many business owners even admitted that they were wrong about it.
-
Regardless, as a small percentage of the work force we're really not talking about the massive impact many of the right are using as a scare tactic. I think you'll find that the massive impact on suppliers, etc will not come to fruition.
Also, on the flip side, since the numbers of workers at minimum wage has dropped (and continues to do so), is there really a need to increase the minimum wage, other than for show?
-
Also, on the flip side, since the numbers of workers at minimum wage has dropped (and continues to do so), is there really a need to increase the minimum wage, other than for show?
I think that is the real question. There are arguably far greater measures that could be taken to help the working classes than to raise minimum wage. Raising EITC values would probably be more beneficial to those who really need it, as one example. Strengthening labor unions would certainly help more people as opposed to a minimum wage hike.
-
Also, on the flip side, since the numbers of workers at minimum wage has dropped (and continues to do so), is there really a need to increase the minimum wage, other than for show?
And Again, why a two stage implementation?
-
Dare I say that even though I'm know economist I have a better grasp of the economic impact impact raising the minimum wage has than someone who opines that it won't effect it all all
Why? And why does that make you an expert on running a small business succesfully?
Who said that? I'm simply indicating that the notion of a minimum wage increase (especially the amounts being discussed by the Dems) will have an impact, largely negative, on the economy. There are economists and pundits who've researched this, and have reached conclusions, equally as excellent as the one's you'd post, that demonstrate how such hikes hurt the lowest wage earners the most. So basically I'd argue expert on expert.
Let's look at the Former Head of the Ecnomics Dept at George Mason University, Dr. Walter E. Williams PhD:
There are decent people, without a selfish hidden agenda, who support increases in minimum wages as a means to help low-skilled workers, and there are other decent people, with the identical goal, who strongly oppose increases in the minimum wage. So the question is: How can people who share the same goals, helping low-skilled workers, come up with polar opposite means that produce polar opposite results?
It all depends on one's initial premise. It would do us some good to make our initial premises explicit and check them against reality. One initial premise is that an employer needs a certain number of workers to accomplish a given task. That being the case, increasing the minimum wage simply means that all low-skilled workers will enjoy a higher salary and employers will have lower profits and/or customers will pay higher prices. With this vision of how the world operates, the logic of increasing the minimum wage as a means of helping low-skilled workers is impeccable.
Another initial premise is that there is no fixed number of workers necessary to accomplish a given task. Employers might be able to substitute capital for labor such as using dishwashing machines instead of dishwashers, automatic elevators instead of elevator operators, self-service gasoline stations rather than full-service gasoline stations, online reservations rather than reservation clerks or relocating their operation overseas. People who share this initial premise can still have concern for the welfare of low-skilled workers but argue that increasing minimum wages will cause unemployment for some of them and deny job opportunities for others. Given their initial premise, the logic of their argument is also impeccable.
Thus, the question to decide is which initial premise best describes how the world operates. Is it the one that says there's a fixed number of workers necessary to perform a given task, or the one that says employers have flexibility in the mix of workers and capital they use and where in the world they can choose to manufacture? I think the latter description more properly describes how the world operates.
Place yourself in the position of an employer and ask: If a worker costs me, say, $7 in wages, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, unemployment compensation, sick and vacation leave, making the true hourly cost of hiring a worker $9 an hour, does it pay me to hire a worker who's so unfortunate to have skills that enable him to produce only $5 or $6 worth of value per hour? Most employers would conclude that doing so would be a losing economic proposition.
There are a couple other villains in the piece that force employers to respond to increases in wages that exceed a worker's productivity. If he did hire such workers, he would earn lower profits. Soon, investors would abandon him and put their money where returns are higher.
There's another villain -- the customer. If the employer retained workers whose wages exceeded their productivity, to cover his costs he would have to charge you and me higher product or service prices. I don't know about you, but I prefer lower prices to higher prices, and I'd switch my patronage to those firms who adjusted to the higher labor cost.
Congress can easily mandate higher wages, but they cannot mandate higher worker productivity or that employers hire a particular worker in the first place. Those of us who truly care about the welfare of low-skilled workers should focus our energies on helping them to become more productive, and a good start would be to do something about the rotten education that many receive.
Competing Premises (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/wage.html)
(http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0105cd.jpg)