Liberalism in America

So, your ultimate attack on my essay is (1) to call me an idiot yeah, thats contributing to a "thoughtful political discussion"), (2) saying I don't think, and (3) attack Ann Coulter. Brilliant. Of course, although I purposefully did not cite or wholly rely upon anything she's authored about liberals, you drug her into the discussion and proved one of the things she devoutly advocates - that when liberals see they lose in the market place of ideas and logical discussion, they revert to personal attacks and assasination. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Right. If it doesn't conform to some idiot's bullshit straw-man verion of liberalism, then it must not be liberalism. Way to contribute to thoughtful political discussion. Next time try to actually put some thought into it.

---

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck….well, I’m sure everyone gets the picture. Trying to call my essay an "idiot's bullshit straw-man ver[s]ion of liberalism" despite rather pungent arguments clearly identifying what modern liberals in America are isn't quiet sufficient to debunk it, bud. In fact, it only further supports one of my original points "Ever notice how liberals are so quick to say things like "The fact of the matter is..." or simply make statements as if they should be accepted as true, without every having any factual data or research to back them up?" Thanks.

Then, you go on some rant about Ann Coulter AGAIN. Reading your diatribe made me laugh. Apparently, as Ann asserts, liberals still can't tell when someone is using humor to illustrate a point. Even if Ann Coulter has been wrong (which I'm not conceding), that in no way addresses my initial essay! Again, thanks for twisting the focus to try and push some anti-Ann Coulter agenda. Although liberals aren't the only group to use this debate tactic, liberals (and your post) is classic when you say "Almost every historical anecdote she relates is either wrong or so removed from context that the conclusions she draws from them are dubious at best." I dealt with this broad-stroke approach to character assassination before. I have yet to see any proof from you where she is guilty of doing the things you've accused her of. In fact, although I'm sure you won't, I recommend "How toTalk to a liberal". Its a classic of example of exactly what you're attempting to do - where peoples have accused of her of lying without any factual basis, and then she pops them one in the mouth with the -actual- facts underlying her statements. Wow, the truth hurts.

Quote:

---

You didn't explain any of the core values of liberalism. Liberals hate the United States? Liberals think that religion is evil? Free-market capitalism drives liberals nuts? All of this must come as a surprise to liberals who, by and large, are overwhelmingly patriotic, religious, and who are enthusiastic participants in the world's most powerful capitalist economy. I am further out to the left than most liberals and while I mistrust jingoism and cheap patriotism, I don't hate my country.

---

Yes, I did explain the values. You may not (1) agree with what I stated or (2) like what I stated, but that doesn't moot the points I illustrated. While you try to classify yourself as "further out to the left than most liberals", perhaps you're understanding of your own ideaology is misplaced. Holding onto a characterization of yourself, despite views to the contrary, does not make you a "liberal." And what is "cheap patriotism"? Is this just another liberal term which is meant to attack conservatives, make pro-US and pro-military people seem "less" or "cheap", or otherwise demean those people who tend to be much more "patriotic" than modern liberals?

Quote:

---

While I don't feel that organized religion has anything worthwhile to offer me, and while I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state and believe that to do otherwise is to demean both religion and politics, I don't hate religion.

---

Well, I haven't attacked -your- views on religion, church, and the state. I've identified the prevailing modern liberalism view. You might not have that view (but it seems you do). Again, you completely confuse and mix (although I don't know whether you do this on purpose or because you don't know the difference, which I doubt) the terms religion and church.

Liberalism has taken the original phrase "separation of church and state" (which again, the framers of the Constitution purposefully did not include), and expanded it to mean that government should be devoid of any religious influence. Although I don't know who first developed the term "Religious Right" (as compared to Falwell's creation of the "Moral Majority in 88-I think), the media today overwhelming uses it in a pejorative fashion. For example, its impossible to count the number of newspaper, magazine and tv articles and shows that discussed the "Religious Right" in the 2004 election and how almost all of them portrayed the "religious right" as (1) conservative, (2) unthinking (hmm...I am beginning to see a correlation), (3) ignorant (Idiot?....again, hmm), (4) seeking to make the United States some sort of church-state. The undertone or explicit rejection of the views expressed by liberal outlets and people was that - religion has no place in politics or government. Hell, the separation of "Church", ie, the formal, organized structure that sets doctrine and ceremony for a religious domination, isn't even discussed any more. Primarily because - no nationwide church exists any more! The Founders -never- intended for politics and government to be void of religious influences; they wanted to ensure that the government (the state) would never be CONTROLLED by a Church. To that extent, I wholeheartedly agree. And you know what, there is NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to such a risk in the US today. NOTHING. In fact, among protestants, non-denominational churches (ie, those churches which don't have centralized bureaucracy or organized structure) are the fastest growing “group” within Christianity in The US. (See www.barna.org for various research surveys.)

Again, this discussion deserves it entire own thread for discussion. But let me go on...

Quote:

---

You clearly missed the weeklong big sloppy wet kiss that the NYT gave to the late Pope John Paul II. Ditto for the coverage of the Pope on NPR. You must have also missed the numerous religion-friendly cover stories that Newsweek (another "liberal" publication) has run over the last several years. Again, do some looking in to these things.

---

As compared to (1) the massacre the NY Times unleashed on the "religious right", and politically active Christians during the 2004 elections, (2) the attack on the Catholic Church as a whole during the priest-abuse scandals (ie, the whole church is bad because of some morally irresponsible fucknuts in Boston and Louisville) (btw, I think the arch-bishops should have been reamed, but attacking the Church as a whole was completely off base; or (3) the search I did -today- for "religious right" on www.nytimes.com., where
a review of the first 12 or 16 articles I could read clearly demeans the "religious right."

So, the NY Times finally gives some homage to Pope John Paul II and this erases and suddenly converts years of anti-religious fervent that runs rampant throughout their op-eds, letters to the editors, books reviews, and articles? What I find most troubling is that anyone who is now "religious" is being labeled as an "extremist" or “radical religious right.” No, suicidal muslims who kill 3000 Americans are extremists and radical. People who bomb abortion clinics are extremists. People who hold conservative and/or religious values and wish to see the government and politics reflect those values are not "extremists” nor “radical”. They are traditionalists.

Quote:

---

Don't just repeat O'Reilly. Here's a bit of a math puzzle for you: well over 90% of americans claim to hold some religious belief. How exactly do you argue that liberals hate religion, given that they make up well over 10% of the American population and given that some of that heathen minority is distributed among libertarians and neo-cons?

---

First, my discussion was about liberalism, the core of its value system. And, I'm not just
"repeating O'Reilly." I really tire of your attacks on me reverting to basically "you're an idiot if you happen to have the same view as OReilly or Coulter" (which I don't always; also, so much for the (supposed) notion of freedom of speech). Of course, thank you again for the personal attack. I've never identified a percentage of the american public that has adopted pure liberalism as their ideology. In fact, your citation helps me prove another point - assuming that my initial discussion is correct, and that you are correct that 90% of americans are "religious" (which Barna reports) (and even accepting that more than 10% of the population has one or more "liberal" ideologies), this would help explain why those with more "liberal" viewpoints are losing (1) presidential races (2) US senate races, (3) US House races, (4) state gubernatorial races, and (5) state legislature races. The American public has identified that true modern liberalism in American is against what they believe in, and they vote to reflect this.

Generally speaking, I think individuals subscribe to various aspects of different ideologies, very rarely fitting in the exact niche of an ideology (again, which is why this topic was raised about LIBERALISM IN AMERICA). The identification of liberalim's core values, as I have seen them and illustrated, explains, at least to me, why liberalism is being rejected in the US. Of course, there are some liberalS (people who subscribe to some, most or all of the tenets of liberalism, the ideology), who aren't going to agree with it.

Also, I've never stated that liberalism has any sort of majority or even large plurality today (and in fact I believe the opposite). Further, you say that bringing religious values and faith into politics and government is demeaning to religion? HOW?! Religion is a worldview that dominates, drives and motivates one's entire life, viewpoint, activities, and culture (or at least it should be a major factor if you're serious about religion). By subscribing to and advocating that religion has no place in the realm of politics and government YOU demean the value of faith and religion. The basic presupposition is "Religion is ok to do in your home or in a church; but don't bring it into education, government or politics." Thus, the idea is advanced that religion is somehow less important and should be completely barred from the public arena.

So, I'll ask you - how does RELIGION (not The Church) being involved in politics demean religion and politics? And of course, there will be heathens in all political groups, but that doesn't defeat my initial statement. (Basically, your argument is akin to this: Alligators are reptiles with full snouts, sharp teeth and long tails. And you object "There are reptiles that have pointed snouts though!" Of course there are, Kharum. Just like there
are conservatives who are atheists.) One of the sad things is, groups like the ACLU (www.aclu.com), People for the American Way (www.pfaw.org), theocracywatch.org, posit that they want “government [to leave] religion alone.” You can ready ANYTHING on their websites or review their positions and what they –truly- advocate is for religion to leave government alone. For example, do a Google search for “cross emblem aclu”. You’ll get about 41,000 hits (and you can read the first 10 and see the truth). How in the world does a “cross” as a symbol on governmental entity emblems equate to the government trying to dictate religion? It doesn’t! (This is especially ironic because in the L.A. case, the emblem had pagan symbol on it, of course, over which the ACLU didn’t threaten legal action). The truth is, the ACLU (and similar liberal groups that I’ve identified) want ALL religious impact, ideas, symbols, markings, though, teaching removed from ANYTHING in education, government or otherwise public. (And, this is clearly contrary to the plain language of the establishment clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.”)

Anyways, I don’t want all the forum readers to miss the forest for the trees.

Let me go back to a basic premise about liberalism and, its competing force, conservatism. Classic liberalism (ie, Bentham, Mills, Hobbes, Locke, Smith and other “individual liberty” theorist) was a product of the Enlightenment. It promoted the idea that people were born with certain rights that could not be taken away and “Signifie[d] an openness to change and respect for individual liberties within a societal framework in which all have equal opportunity." http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/glossary.html . Modern political development reflects that this is no longer case. Liberalism no longer demands "equal opportunity", they demand “equal results” for –certain- minority classes (ie, blacks and women). Affirmative action as it exists today is clear indicator of this. Aristotle posted a thread on which this can be seen and discussed further.

Finally, you state:

Quote:

---

I'm not attacking conservative pundits, just pointing out that if you want to have any reasonable discussion about liberalism then you are going to have to do something other than simply ape their misinformed drivel. Think for yourself, man. A simple perusal of any of the major liberal publications is sufficient to debunk every single one of your points. If you want to debate the merits of liberalism, that's fine. But actually have the balls to debate liberalism, not just some sham caricature of it.

---

So, stating my opinion on what modern liberalism in America is “ap[ing] their misinformed drivel.” Again, thanks for the attack on my freedom of speech aimed at my character instead of the merits of my position. And yes, I do think for myself. In fact, I held these ideas LONG before FoxNews became big, before I read anything from Ann Coulter, or even before I graduated from High School. In fact, I was elated to learn that liberalism and its lies weren’t as prevalent as high school and college professors led me to believe. And, thus, to end, I do “have the balls” to debate liberalism” despite your attempts to (basically) get me to shut up simply because you don’t agree. You can disagree all you want, but overall, your retorts are aimed at attacking me personally or people who have similar views. And Pazon, thank you for pointing out a distinct difference that certain people seem to ignore or reject – social libertarians, while they may have similar views on certain topics, have not adopted modern liberalism as their core philosophy.

I could go on, and I might in another post, and demonstrate how one group, and perhaps the most liberal of them all, the ACLU propagates the values I stated in my initial post. If you’re interested, just visit its website and review its plethora of position papers. I’ll led you conclude for yourself the result.


[One super-final thought, as Aristotle posted while I was writing this note, this article most certainly does NOT defend Modern Conservatism in America. Perhaps that will be another note for me to draft for your reading pleasure.]

Thank you.

Quote:

---

So what do we conclude from this? We are nicely fucked, no?

---

Agreed. The Canadian political system is equally fucked as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zimri
Trying to call my essay an "idiot's bullshit straw-man ver[s]ion of liberalism" despite rather pungent arguments clearly identifying what modern liberals in America are isn't quiet sufficient to debunk it, bud.

---

You're right on one point, your arguments were rather pungent.

To recap, you claim:

1. First, the Truth does not matter. Ever notice how liberals are so quick to say things like "The fact of the matter is..." or simply make statements as if they should be accepted as true, without every having any factual data or research to back them up?
   
   Oddly enough, the above describes some of the most popular conservative pundits. The notion that liberals are any less interested in the truth than conservatives is patently absurd. What is it about the liberal viewpoint that would explain such a thing? Debunking this would be as futile as trying to debunk someone's claim that the sky was not blue. Read Joe Conason's [i]Big Lies[/s], David Brock's Blinded by the Right, or Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? if you doubt that liberals are lazy about using rigorous research and factual data to back up their arguments. Read Thomas Friedman or Nicholas Kristoff or Paul Krugman if you think liberals just spout their positions without making real efforts to elaborate the arguments supporting those positions. You may not agree with what they have to say, but any serious reading of any of them should make it blatantly clear that they have considerable interest in trying to find the truth.
   
2. Second, your money (but not mine) is someone else’s.
   
   This is the only point you make that is even remotely accurate. There is no question that liberals and conservatives have, in general, very different views about the role of taxation and government spending. However, if you want to discuss such issues, try presenting them in terms that are more accurate and reflect the actual philosophical premises behind both sides of the argument. While I don't question at all that liberals generally would like a government that requires higher taxation than that which conservatives would like to see, it is not as simple as liberals thinking that government knows how to use our money best or believing that any problem can be solved just be throwing money at it. Yes, there have been plenty of irresponsible politicians who have legislated as if this were so, but I think it is now become quite clear that fiscal irresponsibility is largely to be a trait of the party in power at any given time rather than just a flaw of any one particular ideology.
   
3. Third, there is no objective morality. Liberals hate the notion that some objective right and wrong, good and evil exists.
   
   As I've already explained, this is not a tenant of liberal ideology. Most liberals, like most Americans, seem to just assume an objective morality. But, as I've also pointed out, this is really irrelevant, because the lack of a belief in an objective moral system is not, as certain conservatives have argued, indicative of a lack of a system of values. All too often, when conservatives question liberals' lack of values, what they are questioning is a value system with which they happen to disagree (particularly on issues surrounding sexuality and reproductive rights).
   
4. Next, human life is not inherently valuable.
   
   Your argument here is just as specious as would be my argument if I were to say, "The overwhelming conservative support for the death penalty and the war in Iraq clearly demonstrates that conservatives don't believe that life is inherently valuable." Proponents of the death penalty and the war in Iraq will generally justify both on the grounds that they serve some greater good. Likewise, proponents of legalized abortion and the right to die, believe that such measures ultimately serve a greater good and enhance and improve the lives of us all. Again, you can debate whether the views of either side are right or wrong, but to simply argue that "liberals" support abortion because they don't value life is absurd. If liberals don't value life, why have they generally been much more active in worldwide campaigns for the promotion of human rights?
   
5. Finally, liberals hate the United States.
   
   I've already thoroughly demolished this bit of bullshit. Liberals adhere to their ideology for the same reason that conservatives (or moderates or libertarians) adhere to theirs, because they believe it expresses a system of values that will make their country a better place. Your assertion on this score alone is almost enough to lead me to dismiss you as a worthless troll with no real interest in holding any sort of meaningful discussion. Again, I ask, if liberals hate this country why do they serve in its military? Why do they participate in the electoral process? Why do they participate in its religious and civic life? Why aren't they the ones forming militias and blowing up federal office buildings?

Zimri,

I was going to respond to you by addressing some of the points you made in your first post. I’m having a lot of difficulty working out what is opinion, what is assertion of fact and what is humor. For example, in point 2 you say:

Quote:

---

Further, they believe that if they can continue to pour money (yes, your money, not theirs) at social problems (ie, poverty in the inner cities), these people will continue to support them politically (ie, elections) (In reality, this is called economic slavery – where liberals own the poor through welfare. Funny how liberals advocate “freedom” so long as its freeing you from your money and enslaving some else with it). Of course, as recently elections have demonstrated, this is no longer happening as poorer communities have actually began voting more conservative as a percentage than in the past (imagine that, poor people have a brain and can SEE that welfare doesn’t work. Further, these poor communities are often very religious in nature, straining the liberal argument that religion is bad).

---

“(yes, your money, not theirs)” - You have not established that liberals don’t pay taxes, so I’m not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. If you have evidence that liberals don’t pay taxes could you please provide a cite? If not, could you explain how this is not emotive hyperbole?

“In reality, this is called economic slavery – where liberals own the poor through welfare” – You appear to be using the terminology “economic slavery” in a way I’m not familiar with. Could you elaborate on this definition and describe how the liberals “own” a person because that person chooses to vote for a party that emphasises welfare?

“Funny how liberals advocate “freedom” so long as its freeing you from your money and enslaving some else with it” – Is it funny, or are you being snide? You’ve certainly not made the case that Liberals like to enslave people in the name of freedom.

“poorer communities have actually began voting more conservative” – You state earlier in the paragraph that liberals throw money at “poverty in the inner cities”. It would be fair to assume, since you don’t state otherwise and it was the only example you provided, that the “poorer communities” you refer to are the inner city poor. Would you provide a cite that illustrates your assertion that the inner city poor are voting against liberals on the basis that “welfare doesn’t work”?

“imagine that, poor people have a brain and can SEE that welfare doesn’t work.” – Are you suggesting that poor people who vote to retain welfare don’t have a brain?

“these poor communities are often very religious in nature, straining the liberal argument that religion is bad” – I don’t understand your point here. If I were to say “poverty is bad”, that does not mean I’m saying “poor people are bad”. Similarly if I were to say “religion is bad”, that does not mean I’m saying “religious people are bad”. Further, are you suggesting that people should only formulate policy on the basis of whether they find their constituents morally worthy?

Would you be able to rewrite your five points using cites, explaining your definitions, making fewer generalizations and removing the pejorative language?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

“In reality, this is called economic slavery – where liberals own the poor through welfare” – You appear to be using the terminology “economic slavery” in a way I’m not familiar with. Could you elaborate on this definition and describe how the liberals “own” a person because that person chooses to vote for a party that emphasises welfare?

---

I might be able to partially address this one.

Concepts like raising minimum wages, affirmative action, welfare, most food stamp programs (that give money, not food) and the like are traps. They do not actually help people. They doom and consign them to a hopeless eternity of poverty and failure. However, these people sadly believe that what meager existence they eek out is only possible because of these government hand outs.

Thus, crafty politicians who support such twisted programs are able to enslave certain minorities and the poor by ensuring they are never able to pull themselves out of a state of squalor that would allow them to actually decide for themselves whether or not such government hand outs are a good thing.

Let us take the hue and cry to raise minimum wage as an example. This is a cruel trick. Raising minimum wage does not help people. It does not help poor people. If anything, it hurts them.

Labor is a product input just like anything else. It is a base cost that is factored into every good and service. If the government forces businesses to pay 10% more than what they are currently paying, that 10% goes right into the cost of the product or service, and raises the price.

What does this mean for the person making minimum wage? It means they earn 10% more but every thing they need money for costs 10% more. Furthermore, increases in minimum wages motivate even more businesses to take their jobs elsewhere, which could mean the people who were earning minimum wage are now earning nothing.

What does this mean for people who make more than minimum wage? For example, what does this mean for someone who is trying to get ahead, has been responsible, and kept the same job for a few years (and is thus making a few dollars over minimum wage)? These people get completely hosed. Take someone who was making 20% more than minimum wage because they worked hard at the same job and took periodic raises. When minimum wage goes up 10%, there is no guarantee that they will even get a similar raise (and most likely, they will not). Now, we already know prices will go up on all goods and services as a result of the increase in minimum wage. So this person is making no more money, but now everything is more expensive. Such people get really screwed.

Despite the clear economic fact that raising the minimum wage REDUCES the purchasing power of the individuals it is supposedly helping, and that it motivates businesses to take jobs out of the country, there are still politicians who will use this issue as a way to trick poor people into voting for them. This is economic slavery of a very insidious type.

A wage rise doesn't necessarily translate into inflation. While some companies might increase prices, other companies might absorb the wage costs through their profit margins. However it is not fair to say that either would be necessary as can be seen in the comparison between Walmart and Costco in a 2004 edition of Business Week.

Quote:

---

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

---

The U.S. Department of Labor states the following:

Quote:

---

... there remains a sizable group of full-time workers who live below the poverty threshold. In 2000, among those who participated in the labor force for more than half the year and who usually worked in full-time wage and salary jobs, almost 3.4 million, or 3.1 percent, were classified as working poor. (See table 8.)

---

"Poor" in this context, means that they do not have enough money to support themselves or their families. Ohio State University’s Poverty Fact Sheet Series - The Working Poor seems to indicate that the working poor use welfare to supplement their wage. To my mind, this means that tax payers are subsidising companies (whether that means keeping them afloat, protecting their profits, or making them attractive to the stock market) that do not pay a living wage to their workers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
A wage rise doesn't necessarily translate into inflation.

---

Except for the fact that every single time the minimum wage has been raised, it created inflation.

As for your Costco example, that just proves my case. The only reason Costco is able to attain a competitive advantage from paying their workers more is because it is actually MORE than someone else. That is healthy competition which is a good thing. By not having the minimum raised, a smart employer is able to bid for better labor by offering a higher wage. That is an example of capitalism working properly and efficiently.

If you raise the minimum wage, then someone like Costco no longer has the flexibility to compete for good workers by offering higher pay- since now the ceiling is already raised up to what they feel they can afford.

Quote:

---

"Poor" in this context, means that they do not have enough money to support themselves or their families. Ohio State University’s Poverty Fact Sheet Series - The Working Poor seems to indicate that the working poor use welfare to supplement their wage. To my mind, this means that tax payers are subsidising companies (whether that means keeping them afloat, protecting their profits, or making them attractive to the stock market) that do not pay a living wage to their workers.

---

Which should not be happening. People should not expect to live above poverty working at the MINIMUM wage. Minimum wage should be earned by teen-agers and part time employees.

Anyone who is trying to earn a living should be responsible, show up to work on time every day, and stick with the same job long enough to earn raises. Every job I know of that starts at minimum wage increases significantly if you stay at the same place for an extended period of time.

Neither a government mandated minimum wage nor welfare should supplement people who carelessly blow off their job, don't show up reliably, don't stay at the same place for very long, etc.

The fact is that minimum wage increases do not work. Every time they are increased, they do not improve the plight of the poor. They cause prices to go up, they lower the actual purchasing power of the people earning them, and they REALLY hurt people that have worked hard to earn slightly higher than minimum wage (since they get no increase but still suffer the same loss in purchasing power).

The apolitical laws of economics ensure that increasing the minimum wage will not help, and will more likely hurt.

This does not stop some very dishonest politicians from using it to enslave these same poor people into voting for them.

Quote:

---

Lang, Kevin. 1995. Minimum Wage Laws and the Distribution of Employment. Washington: Employment Policies Institute Foundation.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage leads fast food establishments to replace adult workers with younger workers, and to replace full-time workers with part-time workers.

---

Quote:

---

Peterson, John M. 1957. Employment Effects of Minimum Wages, 1938-50. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 65 (October): 412-430.

One of the first empirical studies to show that minimum wages reduce employment.

---

Quote:

---

Leffler, Keith B. 1978. Minimum Wages, Welfare, and Wealth Trans-fers to the Poor. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 21 (October): 345-358.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in welfare rolls. Argues that advocates for the poor may favor higher minimum wages in order to increase the number of people on welfare, because welfare benefits may exceed the income from work.

---

Quote:

---

Meyer, Robert H., and Wise, David A. 1983a. The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment and Earnings of Youth. Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 1 (January): 66-100.

Estimates that abolition of the minimum wage would have led to significantly higher employment among youth, especially black youth. Finds no evidence of higher earnings from the minimum wage.

Meyer, Robert H., and Wise, David A. 1983b. Discontinuous Distributions and Missing Persons: The Minimum Wage and Unemployed Youth. Econometrica, vol. 51 (November): 1677-1698.

Finds that if the minimum wage did not exist in 1978, employment among out-of-school young men would have been 7% higher. Also, the average earnings of youth would have been higher.

---

Quote:

---

Meyer, Robert H., and Wise, David A. 1981. Discontinuous Distributions and Missing Persons: The Minimum Wage and Unemployed Youth. In Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981), vol. 5, pp. 175-201.

Finds that abolition of the minimum wage would increase employment by out-of-school youth by 6%.

---

Quote:

---

Cox, James C., and Oaxaca, Ronald L. 1986. Minimum Wage Effects With Output Stabilization. Economic Inquiry, vol. 24 (July): 443-453.

Finds that the minimum wage causes unskilled wages to be 15.7% higher than they otherwise would be, and that this causes employment to be 11.2% lower than it otherwise would be.

---

Quote:

---

Linneman, Peter. 1982. The Economic Impacts of Minimum Wage Laws: A New Look at an Old Question. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 90 (June): 443-469.

Finds that the disemployment effects of the minimum wage fall mainly on blacks, females, restricted individuals, residents of small cities, those with low education, the old, and non-union members. Beneficiaries of the minimum wage mainly are males and union members.

---

Quote:

---

Gramlich, Edward M. 1976. Impact of Minimum Wages on Other Wages, Employment, and Family Incomes. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (No. 2): 409-461.

Finds that raising the minimum wage leads to increased compliance costs, higher unemployment, workers forced to leave full-time work for part-time work, more benefits for high-income families, and inflationary effects on prices.

---

Quote:

---

Gregory, Peter. 1981. Legal Minimum Wages as an Instrument of Social Policy in Less Developed Countries, with Special Reference to Costa Rica. In Rottenberg (1981a): 377-402.

Finds that the minimum wage has been ineffective in reducing income inequality.

---

Quote:

---

McKenzie, Richard B. 1980. The Labor Market Effects of Minimum Wage Laws: A New Perspective. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 1 (Fall): 255-264.

Argues that increases in the minimum wage, which apply only to money wages, will lead to a reduction in non-money wages, such as fringe benefits. Thus employers can respond to a higher minimum wage by lowering benefits by the same amount.

---

Quote:

---

Al-Salam, Nabeel; Quester, Aline; and Welch, Finis. 1981. Some Determinants of the Level and Racial Composition of Teenage Employment. In Rottenberg (1981a): 124-154.

Notes that in 1954, black teenage males were more likely to be employed than white teenage males. Since that time, the proportion of black teenage males employed has fallen sharply, while employment for white teenage males has risen. Expansion of coverage of the minimum wage appears to be a major factor in this trend. Further notes that more than half of all teenagers would earn more in the absence of a minimum wage.

---

Quote:

---

Behrman, Jere R.; Sickles, Robin C.; and Taubman, Paul. 1983. The Impact of Minimum Wages on the Distributions of Earnings for Major Race-Sex Groups: A Dynamic Analysis. American Economic Review, vol. 73 (September): 766-778.

Finds that the minimum wage has helped white males and females while hurting black males and females.

---

Quote:

---

Bell, Carolyn Shaw. 1981. Minimum Wages and Personal Income. In Rottenberg (1981a): 429-458.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage would benefit few families with incomes below the poverty level. Much of the benefit would accrue to upper income families with secondary earners, such as wives and children.

---

Quote:

---

Beranek, William. 1982. The Illegal Alien Work Force, Demand for Unskilled Labor, and the Minimum Wage. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 3 (Winter): 89-99.

Finds that the minimum wage increases the employment demand for illegal aliens, who are less likely than legal residents to report violations of the labor laws.

---

Quote:

---

Bonilla, Carlos E. 1992. Higher Wages, Greater Poverty. Washington: Employment Policies Institute.

Finds that the 1991 increase in the federal minimum wage actually reduced the income of some single parents, after welfare and taxes are taken into account.

---

Quote:

---

Brandon, Peter D. 1995. Jobs Taken by Mothers Moving from Welfare to Work and the Effects of Minimum Wages on this Transition. Washington: Employment Policies Institute Foundation.

Finds a decrease in work by women on welfare in states raising their minimum wages and an increase in time on welfare in such states.

---

Quote:

---

Brozen, Yale. 1962. Minimum Wage Rates and Household Workers. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 5 (October): 103-109.

Found that increases in the minimum wage drove low-wage workers into uncovered occupations, such as household work. Predicts that broadening of coverage to such occupations will increase structural unemployment.

---

Quote:

---

Brozen, Yale. 1969. The Effect of Statutory Minimum Wage Increases on Teen-age Employment. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 12 (April): 109-122.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage only speed up wage increases that would have occurred over time. However, in the interval between an increase and the time when productivity catches up to it results in higher unemployment and business failures. In the case of teenagers, many who are barred from jobs suffer long-term effects from the failure to gain job skills, thus injuring them permanently.

---

Quote:

---

Colberg, Marshall R. 1960. Minimum Wage Effects on Florida's Economic Development. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 3 (October): 106-117.

Finds that after an increase in the minimum wage unemployment increased most in the areas where wages were lowest and least in areas where wages were highest beforehand.

---

Quote:

---

Colberg, Marshall. 1981. Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Economic Activity. In Rottenberg (1981a): 247-263.

Examines votes on the minimum wage and finds heavy support for it in high wage states of the North and opposition from low wage states in the South. This suggests that the North was attempting to reduce the South's competitive advantage in wages.

---

Quote:

---

Corbo, Vittorio. 1981. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Industrial Employment in Chile. In Rottenberg (1981a): 340-356.

Finds substantial job losses from the minimum wage in Chile.

---

Quote:

---

Cunningham, James. 1981. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Youth Employment, Hours of Work, and School Attendance: Cross-sectional Evidence from the 1960 and 1970 Censuses. In Rottenberg (1981a): 88-123.

Finds that minimum wages discourage part-time work and lowers school attendance.

---

Quote:

---

Currie, Janet, and Fallick, Bruce. 1993. A Note on the New Minimum Wage Research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4348 (April).

Finds that employed individuals affected by the increases in the minimum wage in 1979 and 1980 were 3% to 4% less likely to be employed a year later.

---

Quote:

---

Datcher, Linda P., and Loury, Glenn C. 1981. The Effect of Minimum Wage Legislation on the Distribution of Family Earnings Among Blacks and Whites. In Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981), vol. 7, pp. 125-146.

Finds that an increase in the minimum wage increases white family incomes more than black family incomes. Also, middle- and high-income families benefit more than low-income families.

---

Quote:

---

Douty, H.M. 1960. Some Effects of the $1.00 Minimum Wage in the United States. Economica, vol. 27 (May): 137-147.

Finds that the increase in the minimum wage from 75 cents to $1.00 in 1956 did lead to an increase in pay for many workers, but at the cost of jobs. Long-term employment losses by industry ranged from 3.2% to 15%.

---

Quote:

---

Feldstein, Martin. 1973. The Economics of the New Unemployment. The Public Interest (Fall): 14-15.

Argues that the minimum wage prevents many young people from accepting jobs that would provide them with on-the-job training, thus contributing to long-term unemployment.

---

Quote:

---

Fleisher, Belton M. 1981. Minimum Wage Regulation in Retail Trade. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Extension of the minimum wage to retail trade lowered employment in that industry by as much as 500,000, with the main impact on teenagers. Also finds that higher minimum wages led to a scale-back of fringe benefits and training.

---

Quote:

---

Forrest, David. 1982. Minimum Wages and Youth Unemployment: Will Britain Learn from Canada? Journal of Economic Affairs, vol. 2 (July): 247-250.

Estimates that 40% of the increase in teenage unemployment in Canada since the 1950s is due to higher minimum wages.

---

Quote:

---

Freeman, Alida Castillo, and Freeman, Richard B. 1991. Minimum Wages in Puerto Rico: Textbook Case of a Wage Floor? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3759 (June).

Finds that the minimum wage has had a massive impact on the labor market in Puerto Rico.

---

Quote:

---

Gallasch, H.F., Jr. 1975. Minimum Wages and the Farm Labor Market. Southern Economic Journal, vol. 41 (January): 480-491.

Gardner, Bruce. 1981. What Have Minimum Wages Done in Agriculture? In Rottenberg (1981a): 210-232.

Both find that the 1967 extension of the minimum wage to the farm labor market, which had previously been uncovered, led to an increase in wages and a reduction in employment.

---

Quote:

---

Hashimoto, Masanori. 1981. Minimum Wages and On-the-Job Training. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Finds that minimum wage laws lead to a curtailment of training by employers.

---

Quote:

---

Hashimoto, Masanori. 1982. Minimum Wage Effects on Training on the Job. American Economic Review, vol. 72 (December): 1070-1087.

Finds that minimum wages reduce training, first because workers lose job opportunities, and hence on the job training, and second because employers will no longer be able to afford to give such training.

---

Quote:

---

Hashimoto, Masanori. 1987. The Minimum Wage Law and Youth Crimes: Time-Series Evidence. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 30 (October): 443-464.

Suggests that increases in the minimum wage may be responsible for increases in teenage crime rates.

---

Quote:

---

Iden, George. 1980. The Labor Force Experience of Black Youth: A Review. Monthly Labor Review, vol. 103 (August): 10-16.

Concedes that the minimum wage has had a significant negative effect on teenage employment, especially for blacks.

---

Quote:

---

Johnson, William R., and Browning, Edgar K. 1981. Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Income. In Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981), vol. 7, pp. 31-58.

Finds that much of the benefits of a higher minimum wage accrue to high-income families and that many low-income families benefit at the expense of other low-income families.

---

Quote:

---

Kaun, David E. 1965. Minimum Wages, Factor Substitution and the Marginal Producer. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 79 (August): 478-486.

The minimum wage hurts small businesses.

---

Quote:

---

Kohen, Andrew I., and Gilroy, Curtis L. 1981. The Minimum Wage, Income Distribution, and Poverty. In Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981), vol. 7, pp. 1-30.

Since many low-wage workers live in high-income families, increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective way of increasing the incomes of poor families.

---

Quote:

---

Leighton, Linda, and Mincer, Jacob. 1981. The Effects of Minimum Wages on Human Capital Formation. In Rottenberg (1981a): 155-173.

Finds that minimum wages discourage on-the-job training.

---

Quote:

---

Peterson, John M., and Stewart, Charles T., Jr. 1969. Employment Effects of Minimum Wage Rates. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Summarizes a large number of studies finding negative employment effects from minimum wages.

---

Quote:

---

Rosa, Jean-Jacques. 1981. The Effect of Minimum Wage Regulation in France. In Rottenberg (1981a): 357-376.

Finds that the minimum wage reduces employment of youth in France, especially males.

---

Quote:

---

Rottenberg, Simon. 1981b. Minimum Wages in Puerto Rico. In Rottenberg (1981a): 327-339.

Finds that the minimum wage has caused massive disemployment in Puerto Rico and lowered the overall standard of living.

---

Quote:

---

Steindl, Frank G. 1973. The Appeal of Minimum Wage Laws and the Invisible Hand in Government. Public Choice, vol. 14 (Spring): 133-136.

Argues that political support for the minimum wage results from the fact that those who benefit from a modest increase will outnumber those who lose.

---

Quote:

---

Stigler, George J. 1946. The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation. American Economic Review, vol. 36 (June): 358-365.

Argues that a minimum wage will reduce output and decrease the earnings of the poor.

---

Quote:

---

Trapani, John M., and Moroney, J.R. 1981. The Impact of Federal Minimum Wage Laws on Employment of Seasonal Cotton farm Workers. In Rottenberg (1981a): 233-246.

Finds that extension of the minimum wage to seasonal cotton workers in 1966 led to a substitution of mechanical processes for labor.

---

Quote:

---

Wessels, Walter J. 1980. Minimum Wages, Fringe Benefits, and Working Conditions. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage lead to a reduction in fringe benefits and a deterioration of working conditions.

---

What I found most interesting from the research I did was that the whole "raise minimum wage" scam was even worse than I thought.

It confirmed what I already knew about minimum wage increases:

1) They increase inflation, which leads to little or no increase in purchasing power for those affected.

2) They increase unemployment, which obviously hurts a lot of people significantly.

The research also made clear some other negative effects that are so obvious economically I cannot believe I never thought of them before:

1) They result in less on the job training which has a very negative long term effect on the future employability of people who earn minimum wage. Since they are getting less training, they are less able to move up in the world above and beyond minimum wage.

2) They result in businesses slashing other benefits to match the increase in wages. This is particularly bad since it is really hard to get these benefits back, whereas getting a raise is easily earned simply by staying at the same job over time. Furthermore, most benefits are efficient since they are offered as a group. Thus, the average worker has no way to replace these benefits on his/her own.

3) Families with second earners who don't even need the income as much benefit more from this than actual poor people.

This is one of those issues (like Social Security reform) that really, really bothers and upsets me. It is very obvious from the facts that raising the minimum wage does NOT help the poor, and in fact hurts them badly. Yet, because a lot of politicians have been able to manipulate the masses into voting for them by demagoguing issue, the issue persists. What a shame.

This goes off the original topic some more, but employment raises came up as part of minimum wage discussion.
I have worked and have friends who work in jobs where they are unionized. Every 6 months or so, they automatically get raises; seemingly whether they deserve it or not. This concept never really made a whole lot of sense to me, but it seems to be a bi-product of union influence.
I've worked, and I'm sure we've all worked with people who get raises in this way, who surely do not deserve it.
I just received a raise at my chef teaching job because I proved with all the business I was bringing in, and the success of my classes that I earned one.
I now have more freedom, integrity and respect among my peers as a result of it.

I didn't get a raise simply because the calendar said it was time.

I now return you to the regularly posted topic. :p

Let me first state a disclaimer. I am not a liberal and while I support reforms that make working people’s lives easier or reduce poverty, I don’t believe that they can be anything more than temporary band-aids. So one of the questions I need to ask (as Ari raised with his list of references from the 1995 Congress Talking Points – 50 years of Research on the Minimum Wage) is ‘Do increases in the minimum wage decrease poverty?’

For me the answer is still unclear but recent studies do back the conclusions of David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard who found no loss of jobs occurred after minimum wage increases in the late 80’s and early 90’s in the states studied (I’ve referenced one of these below). It also appears that the Federal minimum wage hikes of 96 and 97 had little, if any, adverse affect on employment. For example, according to Economic Policy Institute, (a pro minimum wage web site):

Quote:

---

The last minimum wage increase in 1996-1997 directly improved the earnings of 9.9 million workers, or 8.9% of the workforce. It did so without negative employment or economic consequences and can therefore be used as a benchmark for a successful minimum wage package. The impact of the $6.25 and $7.00 proposals, however, falls far short of the 1996-1997 increase. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004 proposes to increase the minimum wage to $7.00, raising the wages of 7.4 million workers, or 5.9% of the workforce. A smaller increase to $6.25 would only raise the wages of 4.1 million workers, or 3.3% of the workforce.

---

An article by Holly Sklar made the following claims in 2001:

Quote:

---

In recent decades, the minimum wage floor has fallen, dragging down average real wages as well. The real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $7.92 per hour (in 2000 dollars). Since then, worker productivity went up, but wages went down. Productivity grew 74.2 percent between 1968 and 2000, but hourly wages for average workers fell 3 percent, adjusting for inflation. Real wages for minimum wage workers--two-thirds of whom are adults--fell 35 percent.

If wages had kept pace with rising productivity since 1968, the average hourly wage would have been $24.56 in 2000, rather than $13.74. The minimum wage would be $13.80--not $5.15.

Profits also went up, but wages went down. Domestic corporate profits rose 64 percent since 1968, adjusting for inflation. The retail trade industry employs more than half the nation's hourly employees paid at or below minimum wage. Retail profits jumped even higher than profits generally, skyrocketing 158 percent since 1968. The minimum wage would be $13.02 if had kept pace with domestic profits and $20.46 if it had risen with retail profits.

CEO pay went up, but workers' wages went down. In 1980, the average CEO at a major corporation made as much as 97 minimum wage workers. In 2000, they made as much as 1,223 minimum wage workers.

---

I’ve tried to back a few of these figures up and according to the sources I’ve found (see the third of these posts):
- A worker earning minimum wage in 2005 would have 60% more purchasing power than a worker earning minimum wage in 1938, but 42% less purchasing power than a worker earning minimum wage in 1968. A minimum wage earner has less purchasing power now, than minimum wages earners since 1955 [Table1].
- A worker on minimum wages earned 2/3 of the averages workers wage in 1968 but a worker on minimum wages in 2003 earned 1/3 of the average workers wage [Table2].
- The number of people affected by an increase in Minimum Wage in 2002 would have been 3% of the workforce, where as in 1979 13.4% of the workforce was on minimum wage. This would suggest that the overall cost to the economy of paying for a minimum wage rise is less significant than it has ever been before [Table3].
- A friend raised another question but I haven’t been able to find numbers to answer it. She was saying that when minimum wages go up, the number of people on wages that are paid under the counter increases, and I would need to include this as a factor to consider.

I’m reasonably convinced that there is a section of the workforce in America that relies upon full time work on the minimum wage as the main part of their income and that these people live in poverty (see my post from yesterday). I also think that the numbers show that households that rely upon minimum wage in 2005 are worse off than they have been since at least 1955. Finally, I think there are modern studies that question the conventional wisdom that minimum wage rises increase poverty, unemployment and reduce job training, and that some of these studies show the opposite is true.

While I don’t doubt that the Democratic party tries to hold onto its constituents in ways that make them fear for their hip pocket (as does the Republican party), I still think it is unreasonable to characterise liberal supporters of higher minimum wages as people who wish to economically enslave the poor.