Yay! Congressional Dems doing something right!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2democrat

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
22,142
Location
England by way of 'Murica.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/congress.wage/index.html

Democrats vow to block pay raises until minimum wage increased
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A week after the GOP-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased.

"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.

"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Democrats want to raise it to $7.25. During the past nine years, as Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage, members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically "cost of living increases" -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In floor debate last week Republicans argued the raise for low-income workers would hurt small businesses. They offered an alternative measure to raise the minimum wage that was tied to tax breaks for small businesses.

The main proposal fell eight votes short of the 60 it needed to pass with 46 opposing; the alternative measure mustered only 45 votes in favor, while 53 senators opposed.

Reid wouldn't spell out the specific tactics he would employ to block the congressional pay raise -- which is triggered each year with the passage of an appropriations bill not by a vote on a stand alone bill to increase pay for members.

But he warned, "I know procedure's around here fairly well."

Of course, it would be nice if they wouldn't worry about raising their pay at all, but using it as a leverage to help the minimum wage is a start.
 
It's been 9 years since the minimum wage has increased. Unbelieveable :tsk: I guess the cost of living doesn't change for the poor :rolleyes:

I hope they can stop the congressional pay raise and get the minimum wage increased :up:
 
"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."


the US needs a party willing to address all of these things.
 
It's so touching to see Democratic multi-millionaires such as Kerry, Kohl, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg and John "Jay" Rockefeller
willing to take such a financial hit, just to stand-up for the little guy.
America applauds your courage. And wishes you well on your endeavor to liberate wages from the icy, unsympathetic grip of "market forces."
 
INDY500 said:
It's so touching to see Democratic multi-millionaires such as Kerry, Kohl, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg and John "Jay" Rockefeller
willing to take such a financial hit, just to stand-up for the little guy.
America applauds your courage. And wishes you well on your endeavor to liberate wages from the icy, unsympathetic grip of "market forces."

Tell me what else is being done? Can you not even admit it's a start, or are you just so partisan that you attack every move?
 
Someone told me yesterday that security guards at airports still make the minimum wage. I beleive it. This in itself, in these times, is an insult beyond belief.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Tell me what else is being done? Can you not even admit it's a start

A start to what? More micro-managing out of Washington D.C. No thanks.

My driving principle is one that says the market forces of "supply & demand" know better how judge productivity than demagoguing politicians, of any party.

But since you asked, for one thing, maybe stemming the flood of illegal "low-skill" immigrants into the economy might allow the de facto minimum-wage to rise on it's own.
 
Last edited:
INDY500 said:
America applauds your courage. And wishes you well on your endeavor to liberate wages from the icy, unsympathetic grip of "market forces."



which is precisely the role of the government.
 
INDY500 said:
My driving principle is one that says the market forces of "supply & demand" know better how judge productivity than demagoguing politicians, of any party.



supply and demand don't simply exist. they are created. by men. by governments. by regulations. it is not a religion. it is not a belief system.
 
INDY500 said:


A start to what? More micro-managing out of Washington D.C. No thanks.

My driving principle is one that says the market forces of "supply & demand" know better how judge productivity than demagoguing politicians, of any party.

You think this exists in a bubble? Please.

Like someone said, it's been 9 years since a change yet cost of living has gone, yet many families are still stuck in the same wage of 9 years ago. But I guess it's their fault they're poor.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

yet many families are still stuck in the same wage of 9 years ago.

Just a thought. If you've worked for nine years at a job and have never received a raise, maybe it's time to find a new job.
 
INDY500 said:


Just a thought. If you've worked for nine years at a job and have never received a raise, maybe it's time to find a new job.

It must be nice to be so privelaged. Some people don't have that option because every paying job at their skill level pays the exact same. Why? Because employers know they can get away with it.
 
INDY500 said:
If raising the minimum-wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is a good thing, Wouldn't $9.00 be better? Why not $15.00

Or try this question. What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 3%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm

$10 seems about right although it should indeed vary in relation to cost of living. making $7/hr in center city of a major american metropolis is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
INDY500 said:
It's so touching to see Democratic multi-millionaires such as Kerry, Kohl, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg and John "Jay" Rockefeller
willing to take such a financial hit, just to stand-up for the little guy.
America applauds your courage. And wishes you well on your endeavor to liberate wages from the icy, unsympathetic grip of "market forces."

While I agree in part, it certainly isn't "market forces" when you can set your pay raises by a vote either.

Melon
 
Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly
by Walter Williams (April 25, 2006)

...Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about 2% of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.

Another issue that's not often taken into consideration is there's a difference between what a worker takes home in pay and his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.
 
INDY500 said:
Another issue that's not often taken into consideration is there's a difference between what a worker takes home in pay and his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.

I consider this set of statistics to be a rather misleading charge only used by conservatives who advocate not paying people. Paying taxes is not a "benefit," which is precisely what, at least, the first four items are under.

But I do agree that merely raising the minimum wage isn't a total panacea. However, there is still the fact that even in America, there is a lot of unskilled workers. So you either have to provide more employment opportunities for them, which is difficult when you have a president seeking to legitimize illegal immigrant labor to work those jobs; you have to increase educational opportunities for them, which is increasingly difficult, considering how ridiculously expensive the American educational system is versus the rest of the industrialized world; or you have to make it so that even unskilled labor can live a decent life--which is what the minimum wage theoretically seeks to fulfill. After all, if you educate everyone, not only would you completely destroy the job market for all the existing educated, but then you'd have a bunch of unskilled jobs that are left unfilled.

It tends to tell me that Option #3 is the most realistic, for better or for worse.

Melon
 
melon said:


I consider this set of statistics to be a rather misleading charge only used by conservatives who advocate not paying people. Paying taxes is not a "benefit," which is precisely what, at least, the first four items are under.

But I do agree that merely raising the minimum wage isn't a total panacea. However, there is still the fact that even in America, there is a lot of unskilled workers. So you either have to provide more employment opportunities for them, which is difficult when you have a president seeking to legitimize illegal immigrant labor to work those jobs; you have to increase educational opportunities for them, which is increasingly difficult, considering how ridiculously expensive the American educational system is versus the rest of the industrialized world; or you have to make it so that even unskilled labor can live a decent life--which is what the minimum wage theoretically seeks to fulfill. After all, if you educate everyone, not only would you completely destroy the job market for all the existing educated, but then you'd have a bunch of unskilled jobs that are left unfilled.

It tends to tell me that Option #3 is the most realistic, for better or for worse.

Melon

I read your thoughts with interest but I feel you miss the most important statistic. (I know the numbers are boring) Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.

Wage controls are as pandering and counterproductive as price controls. That's why socialism can't compete in a global economy.

bonsoir à demain
 
INDY500 said:


Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.


Where did these numbers come from?

I mean there are a lot of factors. Some don't claim. Some don't have to. Some work multiple jobs and may throw off the numbers yet still they make below the minimum salary. How many are single parents where only one claims dependent. There are far too many factors. All you have to do is look around.
 
INDY500 said:
I read your thoughts with interest but I feel you miss the most important statistic. (I know the numbers are boring) Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.

Wage controls are as pandering and counterproductive as price controls. That's why socialism can't compete in a global economy.

Well, a question worth asking is that if your last set of statistics is going to define the minimum wage according to "total compensation," would that explain why "only 2%" are defined as being "minimum wage earners"? Another question worth asking, would someone making $5.20 an hour be considered part of the minimum wage statistics, considering he makes five cents more an hour than the minimum? I'm guessing not. And would someone making $5.20 an hour be any better off than someone making $5.15? Probably not.

But if so few people make the minimum wage, why would a whole myriad of employers and conservative pundits be so outraged over the thought of giving 2% of the population a raise? Probably because of that latter idea; that many employers are really paying about $6 or $7 an hour, which still isn't going to make you afford much, consider how terrible things like gas prices and rent are these days.

Just as unabashed socialism cannot compete in a global economy, complete laissez-faire capitalism was a failure. Just look at Mexico if you want to see a glimpse of America in the late 19th century. The history books are always going to glorify the 1% "robber barons" (comparable to the "oligarchs" in the former Soviet republics and perhaps Carlos Slim in Mexico), but we forget that the vast majority of Americans were anything but. Had the Progessive Era not happened (which, lest we forget, was instigated by the Republican Party of the time, so they weren't always the party of rabid supply-side economics), we could either have become communist later (in keeping with Marxist theory, which had not anticipated the idea that capitalist societies could regulate) or we could be Mexico today, where a minority of people live well and the vast majority are so poor as to be desperate to flee the country.

What concerns me, increasingly, is that the economic policies of the last 25 years are leading us slowly in that direction. By gradually undoing all the regulatory work of the Progressive Era, we're gradually bringing us back to all the problems we faced in the late 19th century. J.P. Morgan, after all, was America's first trillionaire, after adjusting his fortune for inflation.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom