It seems that the only feather in the cap of our Democrat-controlled Congress is about ready to molt:
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
“The federal minimum wage will rise to $6.55 an hour on Thursday, the second of three annual 70-cent increases passed by Congress last May. With housing markets collapsing, financial markets in disarray and the economy at a standstill, what may have been a reasonable plan a year ago seems ill-timed today,” writes an associate professor of economics in an opinion column today.
It can be argued, she writes, that surging grocery and gas prices make it especially important to help low-income families.
But higher minimum wage isn’t going to help people who can’t find a job because employers have cut their payrolls, she writes in part. She believes it is better to focus on giving firms tax incentives to hire low-skilled workers and then using the Earned Income Tax Credit to boost the earnings to boost the earnings of such workers to help low-income families.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/22/minimumed.html
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell, she uses circular logic. Something that you do all the time. Glad to hear about the increase, though, even if "employers have cut their payrolls."
It seems that the only feather in the cap of our Democrat-controlled Congress is about ready to molt:
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
“The federal minimum wage will rise to $6.55 an hour on Thursday, the second of three annual 70-cent increases passed by Congress last May. With housing markets collapsing, financial markets in disarra ...[text shortened]... income families.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/22/minimumed.html
Originally posted by scherzoIt's better for one person to have a job that overpays him relative to market value with everyone else unemployed than everyone to be able to prove themselves at work! Right, Arab?
Well, she uses circular logic. Something that you do all the time. Glad to hear about the increase, though, even if "employers have cut their payrolls."
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWe got all that guff here about how the minimum wage (or subsequent increases to it) would mean employers would cut jobs.
It seems that the only feather in the cap of our Democrat-controlled Congress is about ready to molt:
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
“The federal minimum wage will rise to $6.55 an hour on Thursday, the second of three annual 70-cent increases passed by Congress last May. With housing markets collapsing, financial markets in disarra ...[text shortened]... income families.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/22/minimumed.html
It simply didn't happen.
Originally posted by RedmikeThey didn't cut jobs, they just didn't hire teenagers and people like scherzo, who desperately needs to learn the value of work.
We got all that guff here about how the minimum wage (or subsequent increases to it) would mean employers would cut jobs.
It simply didn't happen.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not Arab, either, I'm Arab-American.
I'm not Irish.
You can't mandate economic reality. Are you familiar with a supply-demand curve? Price for something goes up, less of it is purchased (or in this case, hired). It's basic economics.
Yes, I'm aware of supply-demand. But that doesn't excuse poor wages.
Originally posted by scherzoYou're not an Arab? What the hell is an Arab American who's not an Arab?
I'm not Arab, either, I'm Arab-American.
Yes, I'm aware of supply-demand. But that doesn't excuse poor wages.
I'm half Celt, but I'm not Irish. If you want to call me by racial terms call me a Celt (or a chicano).