Jay Reding.com

Minimum Wage Increases Vs. The EITC In Povery Reduction

Greg Mankiw points out a CBO study showing the effects of a minimum wage increase versus expanding the EITC in reducing poverty. Unsurprisingly, the EITC increase does more to help people below the poverty line rather than an increase in the minimum wage. The CBO notes that only 15% of the amount added by a minimum-wage increase would go to people below the poverty line. In contrast, 60% of an EITC increase went to families below the poverty line. The study uses the figures for 2004 as a baseline to determine what the effects of each change would have been in that year.

36% of an increase in the minimum wage would have gone to families who make 300% more than the poverty line — most of whom are either secondary income earners or teenagers.

Trying to sell an increase in the minimum wage as an anti-poverty measure isn’t accurate. 85% of the increase will go to those who don’t need it. What we need to fight poverty are targeted solutions like expansions of the EITC or tax changes to make health savings accounts viable. Sadly, it’s much more politically expedient to just go with a minimum-wage increase rather than deal with the problems of poverty. After all, if we significantly reduced poverty, who would politicians use as backdrops for their constant efforts to expand the scope and intrusiveness of government?

13 responses to “Minimum Wage Increases Vs. The EITC In Povery Reduction”

  1. Mark says:

    Ah, yes, Greg Mankiw, the guy who wanted to reclassify McDonald’s burger-flipping gigs as “manufacturing jobs” since Big Macs require assembly just as minivans do. Remind me again why we should take anything this nut has to say seriously.

    I implore you guys to spend all three cents that remain of your political capital arguing against raising the minimum wage, a topic that brings the wingnut ideologues out of the woods in the same way that the full moon brings out the werewolves, but nonetheless a topic where a supermajority of Americans are unequivocal supporters.

    Do you really believe you can win the PR battle on minimum wage? Is it really a battle worth waging given the nonexistent economic repercussions that have followed EVERY previous minimum wage hike?

    If your answer to both of those previous questions is yes, try us.

    If you think you can convince mainstream Americans of the mutually-assured fire-and-brimstone consequences of a minimum wage hike, try us.

    If you really think you can sell the idea of ballooning unemployment rates in the face of the first minimum wage hike in ten years, try us.

    If you really think soccer moms are content with their teenage sons and daughters asking them for money rather than earning more at their fast-food or grocery jobs, try us.

    My only regret is that Republican politicians are more pragmatic about this battle than the furthest reaches of free-market ideologues that make up their base. If I were you, I’d be content with making this argument to Buffy and Prescott while enjoying Cuban cigars on their Pappy’s yacht, because the chances of you finding an audience for it on Main Street is somewhere between slim and none.

  2. Jay Reding says:

    Ah, yes, Greg Mankiw, the guy who wanted to reclassify McDonald’s burger-flipping gigs as “manufacturing jobs” since Big Macs require assembly just as minivans do. Remind me again why we should take anything this nut has to say seriously.

    Which happens to be an outright lie.

    Do you really believe you can win the PR battle on minimum wage? Is it really a battle worth waging given the nonexistent economic repercussions that have followed EVERY previous minimum wage hike?

    That’s not the question I’m interested in. Is it a winnable PR battle? Probably not. However, it happens to be true that raising the minimum wage doesn’t help people in poverty. In fact, peer-reviewed studies have found that they do not. People do lose their jobs, and those people are almost all disproportionately poor.

    Now, if the job of government is to fuck over poor people to do something politically expedient, that’s fine — which helps explain why we need less government. Raising the minimum wage does not benefit the poor. Raising the EITC does. If politicians want to raise the minimum wage they should stop bullshitting us all and admit that they’re subsidizing rich teens and not poor mothers.

    If you really think soccer moms are content with their teenage sons and daughters asking them for money rather than earning more at their fast-food or grocery jobs, try us.

    And that’s where it comes down — subsidizing soccer moms and the expense of those people (mainly minorities) who are struggling to get by. More Democratic economic apartheid.

    If I were you, I’d be content with making this argument to Buffy and Prescott while enjoying Cuban cigars on their Pappy’s yacht, because the chances of you finding an audience for it on Main Street is somewhere between slim and none.

    I’m arguing on the side of economic truth. I’d rather tell people things they don’t want to hear rather than bullshitting them — which explains why I’m not a politician…

  3. Mark says:

    Here’s what was said in the link you provided regarding the Gregory Mankiw comments….

    “And something you said recently is being used by the Democrats and others in this campaign. I want to read this quote from you: “The definition of what constitutes a manufacturing employee is far from clear. For example, when a fast-food restaurant sell as hamburger, is it providing a service of combining inputs to manufacture a product?”

    McDonald’s is manufacturing?

    MANKIW: We were just pointing out that the definition of manufacturing is somewhat arbitrary. There’s a certain blurriness to the nature of the definitions. We weren’t suggesting reclassification at all. We weren’t suggesting that what is going on in manufacturing is not significant.”

    Uh, yeah, what a ringing rebuke by Mankiw of his previous comments. He said something slippery, he got caught, and then he tried to sidestep away from it on national TV with circular semantics about the “blurriness of the definition of manufacturing jobs”. This is your idea of proving me wrong?

    “However, it happens to be true that raising the minimum wage doesn’t help people in poverty. In fact, peer-reviewed studies have found that they do not. People do lose their jobs, and those people are almost all disproportionately poor.”

    Your consistent failure to bridge the gap between these two arguments has once again led you to create a clumsy and ineffective hybrid. The effect of minimum wage increases on poverty rates probably is as modest as your studies suggest, but you have not provided one shred of evidence (at least that I’ve seen) of your repeated, hysterical assertions of minimum-wage increases resulting in declining employment. I looked through your link and didn’t see one mention of it. If it does exist, feel free to show me the exact spot where documented proof is provided that unemployment rates go up among the working class following minimum wage increases. Wanting it to be so for the sake of your Friedmanesque (that’d be Milton) propaganda doesn’t make it so.

    “And that’s where it comes down — subsidizing soccer moms and the expense of those people (mainly minorities) who are struggling to get by. More Democratic economic apartheid.”

    As if it’s an either/or zero sum game. Low-wage workers in the American economy, be they inner-city blacks or middle-class suburban teens, deserve more compensation for their labors that they received 10 years ago when the value of the dollar was 30% higher. What kind of mindless logic is it that rich kids working at the Eden Prairie McDonald’s will take away jobs from poor minorities trying to get in to the Lake Street McDonald’s if the minimum wage is increased? The logical dot-to-dot your trying to connect here simply isn’t coming together, and won’t outside of the choir of free market ideologues who you like to preach poorly thought out arguments such as this one to.

  4. Jay Reding says:

    Uh, yeah, what a ringing rebuke by Mankiw of his previous comments. He said something slippery, he got caught, and then he tried to sidestep away from it on national TV with circular semantics about the “blurriness of the definition of manufacturing jobs”. This is your idea of proving me wrong?

    No, what he was saying was that the definition of manufacturing was too vague to be useful and should be changed — and he was supporting that assertion by showing that McDonalds under the definition already used could have already been called a “manufacturing” job. He wasn’t suggesting that it was, only that the definition does not work.

    Your consistent failure to bridge the gap between these two arguments has once again led you to create a clumsy and ineffective hybrid. The effect of minimum wage increases on poverty rates probably is as modest as your studies suggest, but you have not provided one shred of evidence (at least that I’ve seen) of your repeated, hysterical assertions of minimum-wage increases resulting in declining employment.

    Neumark and Wascher say as much in their study, and other studies have confirmed it.

    As if it’s an either/or zero sum game. Low-wage workers in the American economy, be they inner-city blacks or middle-class suburban teens, deserve more compensation for their labors that they received 10 years ago when the value of the dollar was 30% higher.

    But that leads to the question of whether it is an appropriate role for government to determine what the value of labor is. I’m not entirely opposed to a base-level minimum wage, but I don’t think one is strictly necessary. The labor market is competitive, even at the bottom. Ask any small business owner, and they’ll tell you that it is hard to find quality workers. Very few workers (0.4% of all non-farm workers in 2004 — about 520,000 workers) actually made only $5.15/hour. Most already make more.

    The way something is valued isn’t because some government functionary puts a price tag on it — it’s based on the value of the product according to what people will pay for it. The price is labor is set by the market, and that price is already higher than the current minimum wage. At best, the increase doesn’t do anything that hasn’t already happened — so why bother?

    What kind of mindless logic is it that rich kids working at the Eden Prairie McDonald’s will take away jobs from poor minorities trying to get in to the Lake Street McDonald’s if the minimum wage is increased?

    Let’s run with that example, shall we?

    You run the Lake Street McDonalds. Your prices are largely set by the corporate office — you can’t raise them in an arbitrary fashion (which I believe is largely true in such franchise arrangements). You have $500,000 per year to spend on labor, again mandated in your contract (which again, is part of most franchise agreements.) The minimum wage has been raised, but your budget for labor is static. You have to either cut down on hours (which you can’t, because again, your franchise contract sets your hours and quality standards), or be very selective in who you hire. Two people walk into your office looking for a job.

    Larry is a white student, 21 years old. He lives in Uptown, family is from Edina. He can work a regular schedule. He has reliable transportation, either himself personally or through his family. He has a stable family, good grades. Chances are, you hire him, he’ll show up when you schedule him.

    Trina is 23, black, and a single mother. She has no reliable transportation, and has to take the bus when she can. She gets some state assistance, but day care is a problem. She’s not a bad worker. She’s bright and dedicated. You want to hire her, but what if her kid gets sick? What if she doesn’t make the bus? She lives in one of the worse areas of town, and hiring her also means extra paperwork for her government assistance programs. Plus, what if you have to let her go? With Larry, you know he’s going to get another job. With Trina, you’re not sure you want to be put in that position.

    Small business owners make those kind of decisions every single day. And guess what, 9 times out of 10, Larry is going to get that job. Why? It’s not because that owner is a racist, but because he has to know that he’s getting the most value out of his (or her) labor dollar. And making labor more expensive magnifies that effect. Again, business owners aren’t magically going to have bigger budgets for labor — a minimum wage increase means that they have to pay more out of the same budget — and even though McDonalds can probably spend more on labor, can Mom and Pop’s Donut Shop do the same?

    One of the effects of a minimum wage increase is that you end up subsidizing Wal-Mart and McDonald’s jobs — they can afford increases in the cost of labor. Small businesses can’t. Grocery stores will invest in self-checkout lines. Bakeries will cut down on their hours or increase prices.

    The first rule of economics is there’s no such thing as a free lunch — and exactly where to proponents of minimum wage increases suggest that small business owners go when their cost of labor suddenly goes up?

  5. Seth says:

    First, who is selling increasing the wage as an anti-poverty measure? I think we should combat poverty and pay workers a decent wage. I think Democrats are pushing the minimum wage because it’s the right thing to do to treat people with respect. I realize treating a worker with dignity is a little difficult for today’s version of the right-winger, but at least understand the argument being made.

    Second, the problem with your data and studies that show raising the wage costs jobs and leads to marked increases in costs and kills small business is that you can’t post anything that doesn’t come from a right-wing think tank or Ronald Reagan’s political appointees.

    Third, it’s interesting that you are saying an increase in the cost of labor cuts back on money to the company, “a minimum wage increase means that they have to pay more out of the same budget,” when just a few days ago you were arguing that increased CEO pay doesn’t force cutbacks to companies. Apparently, if you make hundreds of millions of dollars, a company doesn’t miss that money, but if we’re talking about the guy making $10,000 a year, companies are getting screwed.

    Fourth, I’m glad you can now understand a hypothetical situation. Too bad it smacks of an elitist and borderline racist attitude.

    Fifth, your logic just stinks. If increasing the minimum wage hurts poor people, then decreasing the minimum wage must help poor people. Following it through to the extreme, a minimum wage of $0 would be the most beneficial policy for the working poor. That is beyond idiocy.

  6. Seth says:

    Also, your studies are not showing that the EITC is more valuable in decreasing poverty than increasing the minimum wage, they’re showing that the EITC may be better in the short term than making extremely sub-standard wages very sub-standard wages.

  7. Jay Reding says:

    First, who is selling increasing the wage as an anti-poverty measure? I think we should combat poverty and pay workers a decent wage. I think Democrats are pushing the minimum wage because it’s the right thing to do to treat people with respect. I realize treating a worker with dignity is a little difficult for today’s version of the right-winger, but at least understand the argument being made.

    Yeah, the dignity of workers is worth precisely $2/hour. I guess you can attach a value to human dignity — and it’s cheap, to boot!

    Second, the problem with your data and studies that show raising the wage costs jobs and leads to marked increases in costs and kills small business is that you can’t post anything that doesn’t come from a right-wing think tank or Ronald Reagan’s political appointees.

    And you can’t post a response that doesn’t come from a left-wing think tank or a Clinton appointee. Then again, my studies have been reviewed, and the Card/Krueger study that supposedly “debunked” it is methodologically flawed. Apparently reality works for a right-wing think tank, since the reality of the 1992 NJ wage increase was a disproportionate loss of jobs among the most economically vulnerable.

    Third, it’s interesting that you are saying an increase in the cost of labor cuts back on money to the company, “a minimum wage increase means that they have to pay more out of the same budget,” when just a few days ago you were arguing that increased CEO pay doesn’t force cutbacks to companies. Apparently, if you make hundreds of millions of dollars, a company doesn’t miss that money, but if we’re talking about the guy making $10,000 a year, companies are getting screwed.

    1) Most CEO compensation comes from stock, which doesn’t effect the bottom line.
    2) Big companies can handle a minimum wage increase. Wal-Mart wouldn’t be effected at all. The people who would be effected are small businesses who don’t have billions of dollars in their war chests. If you want to put Ma and Pa out of business and subsidize Wal-Mart, then raising the minimum wage is great. But if you want to preserve small business, raising the minimum wage by fiat is a terrible idea.

    Fourth, I’m glad you can now understand a hypothetical situation. Too bad it smacks of an elitist and borderline racist attitude.

    The real racists are the ones supporting economic apartheid that gives disproportionate benefit to rich white teenagers over people who desperately need a foothold in the job market.

    Fifth, your logic just stinks. If increasing the minimum wage hurts poor people, then decreasing the minimum wage must help poor people. Following it through to the extreme, a minimum wage of $0 would be the most beneficial policy for the working poor. That is beyond idiocy.

    1) Your logic is faulty. It’s like saying that because eating too much sugar hurts your health, eating no sugar whatsoever will make you healthy.
    2) If there were no minimum wage, people would get paid at the price their labor was worth — which is what happens already. The minimum wage is largely unnecessary since so few people get paid at that rate – just over 500,000 in 2004.

    The government has no business saying that every worker deserves $7.25/hour — because $7.25/hour in San Francisco is virtually nothing and $7.25 in Sioux Falls quite a lot. The argument that human dignity demands another $2/hour is ridiculous — is human dignity really worth only $2 an hour? It’s a transparently silly argument.

    The price of labor should be exactly what it is worth, and the way things are value is through the market, not through the hand of the state.

  8. Seth says:

    1.) a. I’ll repeat: First, who is selling increasing the wage as an anti-poverty measure? You are conflating the issue.
    b. I’m saying $7.25 is more dignified than $5.15. I’m not saying it’s perfect. You, on the other hand, are saying that paying someone less than $14,000 a year for full time employment shows them so much respect they don’t need a raise.
    2.)

    And you can’t post a response that doesn’t come from a left-wing think tank or a Clinton appointee.

    Oops. You’ll notice four studies there, two of which come from credible authors that are in no way partisan. You choose to focus on Kreuger, but you’re flat out wrong in your assertion.
    3.)

    Most CEO compensation comes from stock, which doesn’t effect the bottom line.

    We’ve been over this before, as well. Remember? You were lecturing me on Wikipedia searches, and then I posted a link that showed Wikipedia clearly saying that a majority of CEO pay does not come in stock options. Then I told you that you should bother to learn the difference between stocks and vested stock. You didn’t respond to that, so I never bothered to post how much cash earnings go up for CEOs, even when profits and stock goes down.

    Also, hate to burst your bubble, but if minimum wage increases hurt small businesses but only marginally affected corporations, then Wal-Mart would be advocating for a raise hike to eliminate competition.
    4.) Economic apartheid? Seriously. At least try to be reasonable.

  9. Seth says:

    5.) If increasing the minimum wage hurts poor people, then it logically follows that you believe either a.) decreasing the minimum wage helps poor people or b.) $5.15 is the perfect economic equilibrium. You can’t argue that. So, just so we’re all clear, what should the minimum wage be?

    Given that many people are paid above minimum wage, it does not follow that people are paid what they’re worth. Your cute little economic theories don’t exist in vacuums.
    6.)

    The government has no business saying that every worker deserves $7.25/hour — because $7.25/hour in San Francisco is virtually nothing and $7.25 in Sioux Falls quite a lot.

    Thinking $14,000 a year is “quite a lot” anywhere is the reason your party can’t win elections on economic issues. You are simply detached from anything logical or in reality.
    But I agree that a minimum wage should take into accoutn local costs of living.
    7.)

    The argument that human dignity demands another $2/hour is ridiculous — is human dignity really worth only $2 an hour? It’s a transparently silly argument.

    And if you show me where I made it I’ll eat the shirt I’m wearing. Deal with my arguments, not the arguments you’d like me to be making. I’m saying part of treating workers with dignity is paying them what they are worth. I’m saying that $7.25 an hour is closer to what they are worth than $5.15 an hour and so $7.25 is my preferred policy initiative. I apologize for thinking that was easy enough to follow that I didn’t need to devote a few sentences to explaining it in a manner that high school freshmen would understand.
    8.)

    The price of labor should be exactly what it is worth, and the way things are value is through the market, not through the hand of the state.

    In theory, I agree. The problem is that the state should exist to curb the inefficiencies (You are probably a Milton Friedman guy who thinks “market inefficiency” cannot possibly exist by definition) and inequalities of the market. This is a long-recognized function of the government. That is, the market can only properly value labor if the market is functioning efficiently and fairly.

  10. Jay Reding says:

    1.) If raising the minimum wage is not an anti-poverty measure it looks like Steny Hoyer never got the memo. The reality is that a minimum wage hike is all about politics, not good policy.

    2.) Again, the Card/Krueger study has been thoroughly debunked by Neumark and Wascher. Again, the whole idea of raising the minimum wage is to help the “working poor” — only a few of which actually make the minimum wage. The real effect will be to saw off the bottom rungs of the social ladder for the most vulnerable in American society — but apparently “dignity” doesn’t apply when it comes to poor black people, just white teenagers (who make up the majority of minimum wage workers).

    3.) The Wikipedia article does not say that at all. In fact, the article states “If you see someone “making” $100 million or $200 million during the year, chances are 90% of that is coming from options (earned during many years) being exercised.” — the exact opposite of what you claim.

    4.) Economic apartheid is exactly what you get when you have a system that rewards people above the poverty line while remove opportunities for minority workers. Of course, why should most liberals care? It’s not about enacting policies that help people, it’s about making rich white liberals feel good and expanding the political power of liberal interests.

    Liberal social policy ends up sawing the rungs off the bottom of the social ladder. It’s economic apartheid, and no matter how well-intentioned it may be it is still wrong.

    5.) Nope, none of those follow. The value of labor is what the market pays for it – and the value of labor should not be set along a federal standard. At the very least individual states should set their own individual standards to meet their own individual needs. If California wants to enact a “living wage” then Nevada can be be the beneficiary of their foolishness – which is coincidentally what’s already happening.

    6.) For a teenager, $14,000 is a hell of a lot of money. The EITC subsidizes the working poor. The minimum wage subsidizes some working poor people, and a lot of teenagers and second-income earners. If you want to help the poor, expand the EITC. If you want to be a political posturer, raise the minimum wage and end up hurting the most vulnerable.

    7.) You said ” I think Democrats are pushing the minimum wage because it’s the right thing to do to treat people with respect.” Respect isn’t about the government adding $2/hour to the minimum wage. Respect is about giving people opportunities and rewarding positive behavior — which is what the EITC does.

    8.) Which assumes that the market is allocating the costs of labor inefficiently — and there’s no evidence to support that. Plus, even if all that is true, the right method to allocate resources more efficiently is to give the benefits to those that actually need the help — which is precisely why I support the EITC over the minimum wage.

  11. Seth says:

    1.) Steny says we should pass it because it “is simply a matter of doing what’s right, what’s just and what’s fair.” He points out that people making minimum wage live below the poverty line–which is absolutely correct. He does not say the legislation is a poverty-reduction program. It looks to me like you got caught being full of crap and then couldn’t find anything when you googled “Democrat minimum wage poverty.”
    So, again, who is selling increasing the wage as an anti-poverty measure?
    2.) I don’t think you uread what I said. Let me repeat in very clear words striving for those with one syllable. I said that I posted four studies. Two were not associated with Kreuger or any political bias whatsoever. You choose to focus on Krueger because he’s been attacked by your right-wing hacks, but I have clearly shown nonpartisan evidence to support my claims, you have not.

    To reiterate, I have posted, on this site and in plain English, at least two studies backing up my claims that have nothing to do with Kreuger or anyone ever appointed by Bill Clinton or in the employment of a progressive or liberal think tank. You said I was unable to do so, which makes you wrong.
    3.) Again, what part of English is tough. From the Wikipedia article to which I linked: “During 2003, about half of Fortune 500 CEO compensation was in cash pay and bonuses, and the other half in vested restricted stock, and gains from exercised stock options according to Forbes magazine.” That clearly does not fit with your assertion that “Most CEO compensation comes from stock, which doesn’t effect the bottom line,” especially when you learn about vested or restricted stock like I’ve been telling you to do.
    4.) When you can learn to tone down the hyperbole and have an intelligent discussion, rather than calling people names and rehashing conservative talking points (so much for any notation or references), we’ll continue that line.
    5.) You also aren’t very well-versed in logic. If raising the minimum wage hurts poor people, then there are only two options (and as thorough of an argument as, “Nope, none of those follow” is, it’s just a wee bit unconvincing). Either lowering it hurt poor people or it is already at the perfect rate. Your market-based fantasies are implying a minimum wage of $0. But I’ll ask again, what should the minimum wage be?
    6.) The EITC subsidizes low wages. It subsidizes companies paying low wages. And I think we could all agree that teenagers working at McDonald’s are most likely also attending school and are therefore not full-time wage earners. Please stick to my arguments, and let me know where $14,000 is a lot of money for someone working a full-time job. The EITC is also government interference in markets, which you’re against unless the government is helping CEOs get richer with tax money.
    7.) We don’t have to do “either or”: We can combat poverty and raise the minimum wage. Raising the wage is the right thing to do, but it doesn’t come at the expense of anti-poverty programs and it is completely and wholly unrelated to tax credits. Stick to the issue.
    8.) If you were serious about giving benefits to those that actually need help (and you did not believe in a living wage), you would be advocating an amendment that raised the minimum wage for full-time workers only or for excluding people living with their parents. You aren’t doing anything even close.

    It does not matter one bit if the EITC is better at fighting poverty. We should still raise the minimum wage, and we can then still expand the EITC. Why is it that conservatives, after all of the “up or down votes” junk, debate the minimum wage issues on its face and without confusing it with anything else?

  12. Jay Reding says:

    1.) No, it is not correct. Only a small percentage of people making minimum wage are below the poverty line. And if raising the minimum wage is not about poverty, why make that assertion at all?

    2.) Studies have clearly and convincingly shown that raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty and does increase the joblessness of the most vulnerable. Again, the Neumark/Wascher study has been reviewed thoroughly, and other studies support their conclusions. Your only attack is that some of the people involved (but not all) were Republicans. If that’s all you have, then your point is hardly a strong one.

    Again, it doesn’t take much thought to figure out that if the cost of labor increases, employers will demand more performance from their workers — and hiring someone who is a single mother is more economically risky than hiring a white teenager with no kids and reliable transportation.

    3.) So then only half of all compensation was in cash and the rest in stock. And in fact, just over 50% (i.e. most) CEO compensation comes from stock or options-related income.

    4.) I know you’d rather not deal with the consequences of your ideology, but the reality is that raising the minimum wage will hurt minorities in the inner city by denying them a chance to get that first foothold in the job market.

    But since you admit that raising the minimum wage isn’t about helping the poor, I guess we can take it for granted that you value white teenagers more than black single mothers since you advocate a position that would disproportionately help the former and disproportionately hurt the latter — which is economic apartheid, pure and simple.

    5.) Again, a false dichotomy. Just because raising the minimum wage will hurt poor people it does not follow that lowering it will help people. The cost of labor should be what the market dictates it should, neither I nor Ted Kennedy, nor you have any clue what the true cost of labor should be, and we have no business dictating that to anyone. Each state or locality should make their own rules as they see fit. A one-size-fits all solutions is not appropriate.

    6.) The EITC does not “subsidize” low wages, since none of its benefits actually go to employers, just employees. Raising the minimum wage to $7.15 disproportionately hurts those people who live in economically depressed areas — if they’re already getting paid more than than minimum wage, but less than $7.15, a small business owner will have to make up the difference. Either they have to raise prices to meet the additional demand — which then gets passed on to everyone, or they have to fire people. Again, where are small business owners supposed to make up the difference?

    7.) The minimum wage is not disassociated with tax credits, and even prominent Democrats understand this. Small businesses bear the brunt of an increase to the minimum wage, and without help they will have to raise prices (becoming less competitive against companies like Wal-Mart who can bear the costs) or fire people. Neither is acceptable.

    8.) What do you think the EITC does? There’s no need to propose such a thing because the EITC already accomplishes those objectives. It only goes to those who need it.

    It does not matter one bit if the EITC is better at fighting poverty.

    Well, there’s some honesty. It’s not about the poor, and all the claims about social justice are really just a pile of horseshit.

    It doesn’t matter that raising the minimum wage screws the poor — it’s all about Democratic votes. Buying political power off the backs of the poor.

    If that isn’t economic apartheid, nothing else is.

  13. Seth says:

    1.)

    And if raising the minimum wage is not about poverty, why make that assertion at all?

    Because it’s true. It does not change the fact that Hoyer’s explicit reasoning for the raise is that “It’s the right thing to do,” not “We’re combatting poverty.”
    For the third time, Show me one Democrat who is selling this is as an anti-poverty measure or shut up
    2.) Actually, studies not done by right-wing think tanks have shown there is a slight positive effect on job creation after raising the minimum wage. You’ve pointed to one study done by a couple of right wing hack jobs that was praised by a bunch of right wing hack jobs. I’ve pointed to many studies by many people done in objective manners and you just go back to your right wing hack jobs and then think you’ve made your point. Nice work.
    3.) In fact, slightly more than half of CEO compensation is cash, so most. You can’t believe everything you read on the internets. But here’s a little riddle for you: From 2000 to 2004 CEO compensation increased nearly 200%, but the overall value of the stock market actually decreased slightly. If CEO compensation is actually tied to the value of stocks, how does one account for the increase?
    4.) Let’s introduce you to the real world. I live in a neighborhood that is 93% racial minority. If you walk into a convenience store or fast food restaurant or any store for that matter, there are 0 white teenagers working there. In fact, go to any fast food joint in a city in America (outside of Provo) and tell me how many white kids you see working there. White teenagers are not competing for the same jobs as minority single mothers, no matter how much you want to believe so.
    But it begs a question: Why would educated minorities with several years of experience in the workforce have to compete with white teenagers with no experience for a job? That thinking is the real racism.
    5.) Since you can’t understand elementary logic (or a false dichotomy for that matter), I won’t bother you any more with the logical consequences of your thinking. As I said above, the “Nuh uh” argument you make is rather unconvincing.
    For the third time, If you are saying it should be dictated by the market, it sounds like you are in favor of repealing minimum wage laws. Is that true?
    6.) The EITC subsidizes low wages because it makes people accept low-paying jobs they would not otherwise accept, and then the taxpayers pay the part of the wage that companies don’t.

    Part of doing business is paying your workers. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for business owners paying people $10,000 a year for a full time job. I’m still waiting for you to let me know where $14,000 is a lot of money for a full-time worker.
    7.) If what you are saying is true, then Wal-Mart would be advocting for the minimum wage increase. Your argument is that a.) A policy would give Wal-Mart a competitive advantage over its competitors and allow Wal-Mart to increase its market share, and b.) Wal-Mart is opposed to this policy.
    Do you always make this much sense?
    8.) If the private sector actually took care of paying its workers, the EITC would not be necessary. The EITC is dealing with the symptoms of the problem, not the cause. If you don’t like you child being sick, do you try to give your child a healthy lifestyle or do you wait until the child is sick and give the child medicine?
    9.) Social justice is paying workers what they are worth, or coming closer to it than we are now. We can expand the EITC and raise the minimum wage. If we raise the minimum wage enough, the EITC will no longer be necessary. Get that through your little pin head.
    You Republicans screw the poor over and then try to tell them you’re helping them out. It’s the most condescending piece of shit in politics today. “Oh, no, you just think your life sucks! Actually, inner cities are doing fine! You’re really overpaid, if anything. Now get back to work!”
    Jesus, it’s a wonder any of them vote for you.