Where to begin?
Easiest first: @ Junkie-- A voice of reason as always.
I don't have
that much problem with the statute as passed for the very reasons you stated. I understand it only goes into effect if the federal minimum wage is repealed, and that's not about to happen. My invective is towards the concept of battling sluggish economic growth and high unemployment by cutting wages for the working poor, which I find not only morally reprehensible, but economically damaging in the long run.
@ tmthforu: Don't worry about my analysis as GM. First off few of the bills passed recently have much economic impact (e.g. gun control, DUI reform, etc.). Secondly, I'll grade any bill fairly re: its likely economic impact whether I like it or not. Yes, a reduction in the minimum wage
may result in a small, short term reduction in unemployment, but will do nothing to produce consumer spending and resulting GDP growth. Any long term damage from weakened consumer purchasing power probably won't be felt until you're all long out of office.
Regardless, I definitely wear different hats for my role as GM vs. outraged Mideast citizen.
@ Wormy: First, we're not talking about paying Wal-Mart greeters "$12/hour". We're talking about a minimum wage of only $8.50/hr. Huge difference.
Second, the maps you present show no discernable pattern to support your argument. I found the minimum wage chart you used on Wikipedia and noticed the distinctions between the "other colors", most predominantly being blue which designates a state with minimum wage laws matching the feds. Look at lower wage states like TN, SC, MO & MN (Minnesota?
I wouldn't have expected that); they suffered poor to $hity growth, while higher minimum wage states like VT, CO, DC and WA did relatively well. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the county, but still had less economic decline than the vast majority of states.
For that matter, look at the article A-Bob posted. The same lack of relation is present (see below). It appears one needs to look deeper among state differences than mere minimum wage. Does one think that Ohio is in the lowest quintile of growth in part because its state minimum wage is
5 cents an hour more than the federal rate?
The bottom line is this fails to show any meaningful relation between lower minimum wages and economic growth:
@ A-Bob: The article you linked lists low minimum wage states TN and SC as among the top 10 best states for business, but also lists higher minimum wage states CO and NV among the top 10 as well. The greatest improvement in business friendly rankings was Washington, the highest minimum wage state in the country. Among the top 5 losers in ranking were low minimum wage AL and MS. Yes there are states listed the other way, but the point here is no relationship is shown between lower minimum wage and economic growth.
Second, I hardly failed to recognize passage of the recent abortion reduction act. Quite the contrary I was glad to see it pass. What I think the right wing of the Assembly (i.e. everyone but Junkie
) fails to recognize is that abortions are undertaken by women who are
desperate, and cutting the ability of the working poor to earn even a barely livable wage only encourages the very (sad) outcome that conservatives profess to so abhor.
@ Cathcon: First, the minimum wage doesn't apply in every situation. It never has. It basically applies to individuals running an continual employment of a person for an ongoing business venture of the employer. One doesn't need to pay the kid next door minimum wage for mowing your grass.
Secondly, your subsequent post about poor women getting pregnant is pure HP which you should be ashamed to believe. It is exactly this all-too-pervasive attitude that I justifiably directed my invective towards previously. You're apparantly Christian from your user name; could you picture Jesus taking that dismissive an approach to a broke pregnant mother struggling to keep a roof over her family's head?
Here's a reality check: People are going to have sex, and sometimes birth control won't be used or will fail. This applies to everyone equally, both the wealthy and no less <horrors!> the poor too. An attitude of "well, the bit$h should've kept her legs together if she couldn't afford a kid" is neither realistic or merciful social policy.
BTW: LOVE the disconnect between extolling preventing unwanted pregnancies and one sentence later denigrating birth control. But sadly,
that is hardly unknown in this body. @ everyone: <sigh> My point here is that "compassionate conservative" needs to have as much compassion as conservatism, or else its simply a meaningless slogan to sway swing voters. And sadly I'm seeing it take over here. Yes, lets try reducing abortion by putting women in prison, but heaven forbid we try increasing resources for social services and promote birth control. Let's absolutely try reducing unemployment by cutting wages to the working poor, but perish the thought we actually employ people and improve the business climate by seriously investing in infrastructure, education and job training. It just seems now that our regional assembly has reached an unprecedented level of right wing control with one moderate assemblyman and 4 conservatives, plus a conservative governor, the priorities here just seem similarly backwards, and I'm not the only Mideasterner who has (at least privately) expressed so.
A number of us would like nothing more than to see legislation equally compassionate and conservative. The recent abortion bill is a good example. But there are justifiable concerns that isn't going to last long. So there's the challenge:
Prove this belief wrong. Both to me and the rest of the region. Please.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to head home to the family. I hope you'll all understand if after such a long post (into which I was
clearly goaded
) finishing my assessment of the regional budget will have to wait until after the weekend.
