Minimum Wage Increase Blocked in Senate

[snoopy369]

Of course the tax credit for hiring low income workers (I believe they refer to the WOTC, or Work Opportunity Tax Credit) is for all businesses, but it has two significant (and separate) impacts:

1. Encourages all employers to hire (previously) lower income workers, which benefits those who are not as well off. IE, it is a benefit to the underprivileged. (It actually is not specific to low-income workers, but to several different groups: AFDC recipients (low-income families), VA or other state rehabilitation recipients, convicted felons, Food Stamps recipients, residents in "Federal Empowerment Zones" or similar, SSI recipients, TANF recipients, etc.

2. The WOTC benefits small businesses in federally-designated 'empowerment zones' due to the fact that many potential employees that live in the area would qualify for the WOTC credit (even without intentionally selecting for them), providing significant credit to businesses operating in the area who hire local residents.

Of course, all sizes of businesses can receive this credit, though its relatively small size (up to $2400 per worker) probably biases it towards smaller businesses. But, even when it's benefiting larger businesses, it's benefiting poor neighborhoods and underprivileged workers as well.

That's assuming it's the WOTC, which I think is indeed up for renewal and sounds exactly like what they describe.

[Aeson]

If that's the case, then for it... and for the asshats who are intentionally misleading when they label it "small business tax cut". (And those who would label it a "big business tax cut" too. Sadly, that probably covers all of congress, right?)

[snoopy369]

Well, it was originally passed with the Small Business Job Protection Act. So it may not have been intentionally misleading, but just not reading very carefully.

[Aeson]

Well, if our reps aren't reading what they are voting on... that's a big too.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Luckily the Republicans were smart enough to say that they'll approve a minimum-wage hike if only the Dems will support the equally popular idea of tax cuts for small businesses. Take that, Harry...

I'd love to see that bluff called and for the American people to be made aware of it. It could easily be spun to show that Republicans were once again trying to take care of the uber-rich at the expense of the common man. The middle and lower classes no longer buy the jingoistic Republican talking points and most people are no longer blinded by talk about gay marriage so the Democrats should have an easy time framing this as Republicans screwing the poor to the benefit of the well off.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Its well established in Economic circles around the world that putting a price floor on labor (minimum wage) results in unemployment. Its a bad move.

The net effect is indeed negative towards employment growth. That effect, judging by numerous studies, has been greatly exaggerated. The real effect is small if the increase is small and since there has been no increase in the minimum wage in 10 years the net effect is likely to be quite small. The reason is the labor market has already passed the price point which would be the new minimum wage. Nearly everyone already makes more then the proposed $7.25 per hour wage. Thus the effect will be small.

That’s great news for Democratic politicians. It means they get all the clapping for increasing the earning of the common man without causing much in the way of economic harm.

[Kuciwalker]

The net effect is indeed negative towards employment growth. That effect, judging by numerous studies, has been greatly exaggerated. The real effect is small if the increase is small and since there has been no increase in the minimum wage in 10 years the net effect is likely to be quite small. The reason is the labor market has already passed the price point which would be the new minimum wage. Nearly everyone already makes more then the proposed $7.25 per hour wage. Thus the effect will be small.

Thus, the minimum wage is damaging to exactly the degree it has any influence at all. This is a great recommendation for it how?

[Dinner]

I agree. What the Democrats are proposing is a bit light but is very politically expedient. They've found a way to do something very populist which has almost no economic impact yet which people will cheer. What politician wouldn't take up that cause?

In any event I can think of cases where wage increases would be more valuable then employment growth so it might make sense to make the bargain. In Europe’s case where population is declining then it makes sense to trade employment growth for high wages since there won’t be as many employees in 10-20-30 years.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson
Well, if our reps aren't reading what they are voting on... that's a big too.

I'm implying the media isn't reading what they're reporting on Of course names don't mean anything, every bill is called "liberty" or "patriot" or "freedom" or "small business" something...

The ultimate act:
The 2007 "Liberty for Patriotic Freedom in Small Businesses tax cut and disadvantaged minority empowerment act" ...

[Kuciwalker]

I agree. What the Democrats are proposing is a bit light but is very politically expedient. They've found a way to do something very populist which has almost no economic impact yet which people will cheer.

Why am I expected to join them?

[Dinner]

Feel free not to. Just understand that some where between 70%-80% of the people say they want an increase so opposing it will have a political price. I believe that is why the Democratic Party is pushing for it now. A majority of Americans think it is a good idea so if they can honestly try for it but say the Republicans, in their hate filled minds (this is how it will be spun), blocked it then the Republicans will be the big losers.

That's just politics.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'd love to see that bluff called and for the American people to be made aware of it. It could easily be spun to show that Republicans were once again trying to take care of the uber-rich at the expense of the common man.

No, it couldn't be spun that way against non-retarded Republican opposition. Small-business owners aren't part of the "uber-rich", which is why appeals to protect them are so durable and useful.

I agree. What the Democrats are proposing is a bit light but is very politically expedient. They've found a way to do something very populist which has almost no economic impact yet which people will cheer. What politician wouldn't take up that cause?

Go, go GOP. Someone needs to fight for good policy in the face of blatant political opportunism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Go, go GOP. Someone needs to fight for good policy in the face of blatant political opportunism.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm implying the media isn't reading what they're reporting on Of course names don't mean anything, every bill is called "liberty" or "patriot" or "freedom" or "small business" something...

Well, I was referencing the quotes in the article from Kennedy:

Why can't we do just one thing for minimum wage workers, no strings attached, no giveaways for the powerful?" asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading sponsor of the bill.

And Enzi:

There seems to be agreement to raise the minimum wage," said Republican Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming. "The difficulty has been how do we take care of some of the impact to small businesses that will result from this."

[DinoDoc]

Well I'm sure the teenagers are very pissed at the GOP right now but they'll forget it in the morning.