Democrats hold 50/49 advantage in Senate.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree. He was in office way too long. It's ridiculous. Anyone over 3 terms (senate) is ridiculous.

 

Speaking of too long when's the party of small government going to ditch the welfare delegation from Alaska?

 

I don't know. Maybe the Dems can do it now.

[tvashtarkatena]

Overpriced, unnecessary building projects in WV signed off by your senile, former Klansman octagenerian senator, who has seniority and influence, well that is another matter...

 

Cantwell is over 80? Shit...I've got to get her diet secrets.

[tvashtarkatena]

He probably pays strippers too.

 

Everyone needs a job.

[tvashtarkatena]

Overpriced, unnecessary building projects in WV signed off by your senile, former Klansman octagenerian senator, who has seniority and influence, well that is another matter...

 

 

 

It's too bad Strom Thurmond is dead.

 

Over ninety and still wantin' Aunt Jamimi...

 

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

Webb has been declared the winner over Allen in Virginia.

[cj001f]

MACACA!

[tvashtarkatena]

Holy fields of fire, batman!

[Dechristo]

MACACA!

 

Telling mommy that you've poopied your britches, again?

[tvashtarkatena]

Mo-meeee...I santorumed...

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

If the fu***ers raise the tax rates across the board, and cut into the Roth IRA limits (which have been raised every year or two under the Reps)...

 

The Roth IRA limits were set under the Clinton administration in conjunciton with the Republican Congress, not the current Congress.

 

The current democratic wave was a strong repudiation of the hardball, right wing tactics of the current administration. Pombo and Santourm are my favorite ousters. Some decent moderate Republicans got caught up in the tidal wave, but they did not have the stomach to stand up to their party leaders when it counted, so the public wanted a big change.

 

The strangle hold that the republicans had on the legislative process was what allowed them to pass some really crummy laws and blow up the budget while keeping the party lockstep. And it was their ultimate downfall.

 

I think the dems proposed laws for their early days, minimum wage, negoiated drug prices for Medicare, and stem cell research are good starts. Lets see if the republicans go along with the modest proposals and if Bush still wants to appeal to the Christian base with a veto.

 

And hoorah!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

Lets see if the republicans go along with the modest proposals and if Bush still wants to appeal to the Christian base with a veto.

 

 

A third of the evangelical vote went to the Democrats.

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Winter]

So where's Fairweather when the going gets rought to stand by his prediction that the GOP would retain the Senate and all would remain the same in DC?

[tivoli_mike]

Still time for martial law to be declared before the congress is sworn in :-)

[chucK]

To declare martial law, it's usually best to have the support of the military first.

[JayB]

If the fu***ers raise the tax rates across the board, and cut into the Roth IRA limits (which have been raised every year or two under the Reps)...

 

The Roth IRA limits were set under the Clinton administration in conjunciton with the Republican Congress, not the current Congress.

 

The current democratic wave was a strong repudiation of the hardball, right wing tactics of the current administration. Pombo and Santourm are my favorite ousters. Some decent moderate Republicans got caught up in the tidal wave, but they did not have the stomach to stand up to their party leaders when it counted, so the public wanted a big change.

 

The strangle hold that the republicans had on the legislative process was what allowed them to pass some really crummy laws and blow up the budget while keeping the party lockstep. And it was their ultimate downfall.

 

I think the dems proposed laws for their early days, minimum wage, negoiated drug prices for Medicare, and stem cell research are good starts. Lets see if the republicans go along with the modest proposals and if Bush still wants to appeal to the Christian base with a veto.

 

And hoorah!!!

 

I have a good compromise on the minimum wage issue would be for the people who believe this actually results in a sustained increase in total real-wages to the least skilled and educated people, and has no effect their ability to get jobs.

 

Since the real issue here is income, rather than wages, stipulate what you think the minimum income for anyone working a full-time job should be. Instead of forcing employers to pay higher wages, establish a minimum income, and have the government kick-in the difference between the minimum income and what the people who earn the lowest wages actually make.

 

This would accomplish the social goals that most well-intentioned people who support a minimum wage are after, without directly resulting in a bunch of unintended consequences that actually hurt the people that a minimum wage is supposed to help, and would help overcome some of the social objections to welfare. It would also make the bill for this kind of policy clear and concrete, and this would make it easier for people to weight the costs and benefits of the policy.

[tvashtarkatena]

You've just removed the incentive for low paid workers to win raises. Essentially you've pegged them at the minimum income level for what could be a long period, while any raises their employers granted would, at least initially, be meaningless.

 

We haven't had a minimum wage increase in forever. Employers know they've gotten a good deal up to this point, and so should be fully prepared for the inevitable. If they're not, well, their lack of planning should not be the government's concern.

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Winter]

And where does the money come from to supplement the social ills of a free market in the way that you describe? Tax the middle class? Capital gains tax? What's an acceptable living wage in Portland vs. NYC? Who determines that and how much does that process cost? Seems like your proposal requires increasing taxes, implementing a new bueracracy and a whole bunch of uncertainty and transaction costs instead of just directly regulating the labor market, which is the whole point.

[JayB]

You are assuming that there are no costs associated with regulating the labor market in this manner. I don't think that most economists would agree with you.

 

The costs associated with fixing the price of labor above the real value of the said labor are significant, but are not easy to measure because they are obscured by other variables and widely dispersed. The costs are also disproportionately borne by the poorest and least educated people in society.

 

The benefit of my idea is that it makes it easy to directly calculate these costs. If people who see the real bill for this policy think it's too expensive, then they'd have the opportunity to asses whether or not they think that mandating a minimum income is still a good idea, and if so, how much they are personally willing to pay for it through higher taxes on themselves. People might also take an interest in figuring out how to raise real wages for people at the bottom of the social ladder, instead of advocating for policies that make them less employable and quickly inflate away the nominal value of their increased wages.

[Mr_Phil]

Since the real issue here is income, rather than wages, stipulate what you think the minimum income for anyone working a full-time job should be. Instead of forcing employers to pay higher wages, establish a minimum income, and have the government kick-in the difference between the minimum income and what the people who earn the lowest wages actually make.

 

Then businesses will start paying low end workers $1 per year.

[JayB]

This would only affect employers who offer wages that result in an income below the minimum, and could pretty easily be addressed by leaving the minimum wage where it is.

[Mr_Phil]

Then what is the benefit to your plan?

 

Either set the minimum wage to achieve the "minimum income" level, or have no minimum wage.

 

No minimum wage means no regulation. No?

[Winter]

You are assuming that there are no costs associated with regulating the labor market in this manner. I don't think that most economists would agree with you.

 

The costs associated with fixing the price of labor above the real value of the said labor are significant, but are not easy to measure because they are obscured by other variables and widely dispersed. The costs are also disproportionately borne by the poorest and least educated people in society.

 

The benefit of my idea is that it makes it easy to directly calculate these costs. If people who see the real bill for this policy think it's too expensive, then they'd have the opportunity to asses whether or not they think that mandating a minimum income is still a good idea, and if so, how much they are personally willing to pay for it through higher taxes on themselves. People might also take an interest in figuring out how to raise real wages for people at the bottom of the social ladder, instead of advocating for policies that make them less employable and quickly inflate away the nominal value of their increased wages.

 

I didn't assume anything about the costs of raising the minimum wage. I just questioned the assumption that your proposal will not be accompanied by "unintended consequences" or that its "easy to directly calculate" the costs of your proposal. Again, how much will it cost simply to administer the tremendously large buearacracy you propose and why would it be any easier than any other social program for the public to understand these costs? Furthermore, what's the economic impact of taking money from the middle class as opposed to imposing a minimum wage on businesses?

 

The picture you paint is far too simplistic.

[Mr_Phil]

The costs associated with fixing the price of labor above the real value of the said labor ... are also disproportionately borne by the poorest and least educated people in society.

Explain. [i'm assuming I cleared the clutter accurately.]

[JayB]

Then what is the benefit to your plan?

 

Either set the minimum wage to achieve the "minimum income" level, or have no minimum wage.

 

No minimum wage means no regulation. No?

 

Edmund S. Phelps says...

 

 

Read Me

 

And me...

 

And Me...

 

The main benefits from my perspective is that it makes the cost of these policies clear, which should foster some clear thinking about the costs and benefits associated with guaranteeing a minimum income, and transfers the costs away from the poorest, least skilled people and onto society as a whole.

[JayB]

The cost would be the difference between the sum total of wages earned by the people who earn less than the minimum income. The existing welfare bureacracy could administer the program. The employers that pay wages lower than those necessary to generate the minimum income report the wages, the government calculates the difference between the said wages and the minimum income, and issues a check for the difference.

 

I didn't say that the program would be without costs or consequences, but those would be clear from the outset. If you want to establish a minimum income, be prepared to pay for it through higher taxes or fewer services, or both. This would probably focus people's thinking on ways to help people gain the skills and education necessary to earn a "living wage" on their own, rather than passing laws that make it harder for them to earn any wage at all.