I literally don't know enough about evangelicals to have an answer for this, just a concern, but is being a Mormon really the kiss of death? Conservative Mormon seems socially close enough to evangelical Christian that the doctrinal differences don't seem as though they shold make him unelectable.

It absolutely killed me to see the NRO types do their post-election analysis of "marriage politics, or how putting anti-gay amendments on the ballots can help us turn out votes."

I mean, how many goddamn times can that work? It seems like half the states in the country have already amended their constitutions. Yes, eventually, the non-bigoted among us will get around to proposing striking down those amendments, but it's not gonna be next year.

My general thoughts:
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!

I will flesh out this point later.

1)I think an increasingly unpopular President Bush (who, let's face it, will never be impeached) has nothing to lose by vetoing any proposed minimum wage increase. That's if it gets that far.

2) 2008 does look great. I'm hoping that Inhofe will be the Santorum of 2008.

4) Why do you think the house majority is fragile, Apo?

6) I think it's going to take a long time before we remove the taint on the word "liberal". I think only the fact that the GOP has screwed things up so badly has kept us competitive. The GOP has a bogeyman of Clintonian proportions in Nancy Pelosi, and we will hear about her "out of the mainstream West Coast Liberal values" nonstop for the next two years. This still works quite well in flyover country, and here in the south as well.

9) Right on. I see McCain and Hillary as equals in this sense. They both have trouble with the extreme elements in their bases, but both probably have enough mainstream appeal to win a general election. However, I hear plenty of left-wingers say that they would vote for someone like Jeb before they would vote for Hillary, but I rarely hear the right say anything similar about McCain.

is being a Mormon really the kiss of death

It's one of those things that people won't say out loud (much like the fact that the Deep South won't vote for blacks), but I suspect it's going to make it very difficult. On the other hand, my theory has never been tested, so it's pure speculation. Still, I just don't see a Mormon from Massachusetts pulling it off, y'know?

Bush [...] has nothing to lose by vetoing any proposed minimum wage increase

On Wednesday, President Bush, whose Republican party had earlier opposed a rise in the minimum wage, conceded that this was an issue on which he could cooperate with Democratic leaders after they regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years.

"There's an area where I believe we can ... find common ground," the president said in a news conference on Wednesday.

This one is in the bank.

I'm hoping that Inhofe will be the Santorum of 2008.

I suspect he'll retire, and it will be Ernest Istook vs. either Brad Henry or Brad Carson.

Why do you think the house majority is fragile, Apo?

Freshman representatives who won in red districts are vulnerable. Hell, Mark Foley was still on the ballot in Florida and only lost by 1%. We're likely to give back some of those seats.

remove the taint on the word "liberal"

Agreed, we're nowhere close on that. But the trick is to say that the Democrats run the spectrum from Kucinich and Frank to Casey, Webb, and Shuler, while the Republicans are dwindling down to fundamentalists and neo-Confederates.

a bogeyman of Clintonian proportions in Nancy Pelosi

I really doubt this will stand up to scrutiny. Policy proposals will be moderate for the next two years and as she becomes more visible, it's going to be hard to successfully demonize a 67-year-old Catholic grandmother as the Second Coming of NAMBLA.

I hope you're right about minimum wage, but this is the same guy who renominated Bolton.

it's going to be hard to successfully demonize a 67-year-old Catholic grandmother as the Second Coming of NAMBLA

It will be hard, but this is where the GOP shines. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are (IMHO) moderates, but are painted as out of the mainstream whackos by the GOP spin machine which equates 'passion' with 'extreme ideological viewpoints'. The letters to the editor of the Raleigh N&O is a study in how this perception has seeped into the mainstream. It's not like the truth of this matters to Limbaughs of the world.

I wouldn't write off Mitt Romney. He has twice the telegenic charm of Reagan plus not-too-bad of a brain that will enable him to more than hold his own in debates. Plus, he doesn't have that off-putting, well, _yankee_ way about him, acting more like a Utah person than anything else.

Minimum wage increase? Hey whatever. I doubt Bush would veto it given his weakened position. I think that the minimum wage increase is a wonderful way to jack up prices and throw people out of work, and would be the bane of small business owners everywhere. It's one of those kill the people you want to help with kindness kinds of things. Then again, poor, unemployed and disenfranchised like to vote Democrat, so this would be a wonderful way to exand the pool of voters. Bush has absolutely no hand in this matter, though, and if he votoed he'd be painted like an old Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. How's that for legacy.

While the grassroots of the Republican party are often the Southern Fundie types, they are also the small business owners in all the medium sized towns and these people fed up with taxes, fees and regulations (which by the way help more than hurt the big nasty corporations b/c it grinds the smaller fry competition). You're kind of right on this. But the leadership is a different story. You have Eastern Establishment Rockefeller types, you have Western Sagebrush types, you have your neocons, and you have your paleocons. I think the split in the the GOP is serious but nowhere near as serious as the one facing the Democrat party, which has no principles except vague bromides about "giving back to the poor and "helping the middle class" etc.

Which brings me to a final comment.

The Democrats are going to lose everything, and soon, unless they take a unified and principled stand on SOMETHING. I know it will be hard, but for the time being they have the momentum and a cowed Presidency working in their favor.

But MSM just wuvs McCain.

But the trick is to say that the Democrats run the spectrum from Kucinich and Frank to Casey, Webb, and Shuler, while the Republicans are dwindling down to fundamentalists and neo-Confederates.

That's one of the things that's confused me since the Great Thumpin' of 2006 - Republican pundits have been falling all over themselves to point out that the Democrats only won by running moderate and culturally conservative candidates. As Mark Schmitt pointed out, it doesn't exactly hurt the Dems to be labeled as the party of moderates.

Policy proposals will be moderate for the next two years and as she becomes more visible, it's going to be hard to successfully demonize a 67-year-old Catholic grandmother as the Second Coming of NAMBLA.

Perhaps, but these are the people that tried to turn *Al Gore* into a wild-eyed radical.

I think that the minimum wage increase is a wonderful way to jack up prices and throw people out of work, and would be the bane of small business owners everywhere.

There's scant evidence to support what you think, and plenty of good evidence against it.

taxes, fees and regulations (which by the way help more than hurt the big nasty corporations b/c it grinds the smaller fry competition).

Talk about your vague bromides. I'd prefer that neither big nasty corporations nor smaller fry put pcbs, dioxin, arsenic, etc. in our drinking water supply, for example, and that both abide by truth in labelling laws, fair labor practices, worker and consumer safety regulations, and on and on.

But MSM just wuvs McCain.

This is true. However, the MSM's favorite storyline, above all others, is to build somebody up and then tear them down. They've been through the beatification process already. It's just about time for the "yes, but" analyses to begin.

McCain has a tough road in front of him, especially after repeatedly and forcefully arguing that we need to send more troops to Iraq. That position isn't going to be more popular in the future.

There's scant evidence to support what you think, and plenty of good evidence against it.

In fact, there's just about no evidence to support it, unless you're just going to argue from first principles instead of from historical experience. Go back and look at the past minimum wage hikes, and check what unemployment and CPI did the following year. Here's a hint: it isn't what Reason and CATO would have you believe.

Eastern Establishment Rockefeller types

Not only are there none of those in the leadership, there are hardly any of those left in Congress. They've all lost or switched to the Democratic Party, except Collins and Snowe.

Specifically, since 1950, there have been 17 minimum wage hikes. In the quarter immediately following, unemployment went up seven times, went down seven times, and stayed the same three times. Put simply, there doesn't appear to be any correlation between the two.

If there is any correlation, it's so slight as to be swamped by other factors, including the measurable increase in well-being for the lowest wage earners. But hey, Jon, don't let facts and evidence get in the way of your conventional wisdom.

I think you're right about keeping an eye on Senator Hagel. Personally, he's the Republican I'd like to see take the White House in 2008.

Easy now, I don't think that minimum wage matters much in light of all the other massive centralising, top-down interventions in the natural economy. But it matters, and probably in a way that evades the simple quarter-by-quarter comparisons you cite. For example, before there is unemployment there is inflation in classical business boom and bust cycles.

When a business has to comply with a minimum wage hike, here's what can they do. They can raise prices. They can lay off workers. Or they can shut down altogether. The effect is at best neutral and worst detrimental.

With higher prices, you say, that's no problemo because you have the people with higher wages buying more stuff with their wages at the higher price. Okay fine. But it's not like they're going to be buying _more_ stuff, because prices all around will gradually get higher.

No no no, you say. You might say, "Remember Henry Ford and his Model T?.." He mass produced them on a scale such that they could be afforded by his own workers, whom he paid a few notches more than the rest, and treated well.

Ah I reply. That was sheer brilliance and vision on the part of Henry Ford, and risky, too. But a mandatory minimum wage increase is not like the voluntary decision to pay workers decently. There are no consequences to be had when or if the mandatory move fails. Mandatory. Voluntary. Two different things.

AGain, this minimum wage isn't the biggest problem. This is only but a small way that the currency is devalued and debased by the government and its central bank. The other things that are done toward this end dwarf the effects of MW.

But hasn't history taught us that the Soviet Union fell apart for no better reason that the central apparatchiks in charge didn't know how to properly set prices, and that the inherant inefficiency from this spiralled into a chaotic mess? Prices are best set by the consumer and the seller. Labor too has a price, and it too is part of the marketplace. It's better not to screw with it, I think.

Inflation is a hidden tax. Who gets hurt most by it? The poor. Why? When wages of poor or regular folk finally catch up to inflation, that's when the central banks and markets lose their cool and panic about the economy being too "overheated." Then credit becomes expensive, and factories close, and rust creeps across the land. Then the kids of the rust belt join the military where they get shot in foreign wars.

The poor are always the first to get shafted, whether it be by do-gooders with or by malicious exploiters. The best we can do on a public level is decentralize and repeal. On a personal level the best we can do is give give and give to our poor brothers and sisters of humanity via charity.

We don't have much to worry about from McCain, given that he has already committed to killing himself should the Democrats win a Senate majority. So he'll be out of the running in 2008.

When a business has to comply with a minimum wage hike, here's what can they do. They can raise prices. They can lay off workers. Or they can shut down altogether.

Or they can accept a tiny cut in net profits, just like they do when, say, gasoline prices (or any other input prices) rise.

Mandatory. Voluntary. Two different things.

Here's where our basic philosophies most diverge. I don't trust business to act in an ethical manner; in fact, I mostly expect the opposite. They are largely amoral actors, whose only real incentive is to maximize profits, and your, my, and the environment's health be damned. I want government to protect me from business, and that only gets accomplished through mandated behavior.

You know, the FDA was going to kill the food and medical industry. The EPA was going to wipe out our chemical industry. Deregulation was going to save the airlines. Minimum wage and gas tax hikes were going to destroy the economy. All this crying wolf never stops, and yet the wolf never comes.

The American economy is a resilient beast. It can withstand entirely more than has been thrown at it.

The best we can do on a public level is decentralize and repeal.

I haven't noticed either of those leading to any sort of improvement in the standard of living of the poor.

is being a Mormon really the kiss of death?

When I was a child/teen, being raised as a United Methodist, I was taught that the Mormons are a cult. This was not some clear-eyed view held by the liberal and moderate members of my parents' church and dismissed by the scary conservatives who figured Jesus vetoes any sectarian concern; it was something preached by the scary conservatives and quietly agreed with by the liberals and moderates. Being a Mormon would be the kiss of death, yes, in the minds of many, many fundies, Southern or otherwise.

When a business has to comply with a minimum wage hike, here's what can they do. They can raise prices. They can lay off workers. Or they can shut down altogether.

Paying a full-time, hourly employee an additional $80/week is not going to break a business. If it does, they need to get better at running a business.

What I really want to see is the President and his men indicted for their crimes and sent to jail. I want to see Gitmo closed. I want to see an end to torture, and I want to see the troops home from Iraq in a year.

Repealing Bush's Warfare State would make the Welfare State MUCH more tolerable, maybe even nice though not the powerhouse of growth and innovation we could be.

I've been to Sweden and it's very comfortable and pleasant there. The "planned" aspects of it are a little quaint--the idea that society can or should be eningeered is a little hard to swallow. But it ain't bad. I'd take that over Facism any day.

quite the topic I'd say

Re: the Rockefeller/Anglo-american Eastern Establisment REpublicans...

a bit of speculation ahead:

I still think that they are a formidable force behind the scenes in the GOP. All through the headlines is the story that W is letting in advisors and "wise" men of his father's old regime--the realpolitik types who sit on the boards of giant multinational corporations. You know. Baker. Scowcroft. Gates. Etc. This idea could be pure canard. But I don't think it's pure canard. Maybe more complicated, but not canard.

The people with the money (i.e., W's Father's people who annointed W as a governor and then as the GOP nominee with millions of dollars and not unfavorable press in the beginning) behind the GOP might not be holding office much, but money does talk. And that money is still around. It's been around for a long long time and ain't going anywhere but towards its own purposes.

If you look back far enough, it was playing around with ties to the Nazis to finance their war machine. And it was also financing the war machine at home. Odd? Well maybe. Maybe not. As long as the Establishment has been rich and powerful, it has been making its fortunes around the control of oil exploration, extraction, refinement, and production. Around the control of oil, the Great Game, there is always conflict and war. And war is very profitable for some who are well-connected and privy to its timing. And the other part of that fortune was made in loans. Some loans were good ones. With them they built up cash. Some were bad. With these loans the Third World remained in debt, under the control of pliant strong men, and under the thumb of these guys.

Yessir, these old boys behind the GOP thought that they were grooming one of their own when W was on his way. But no. He ended up caught up with the wrong crowd of republicans: the zelous right-wing warmongers with ties to Iran-Contra and so on. He was seen spouting just the right rhetoric to keep the Religious Right grassroots folks going to the polls, and that was good, but what he did with that support was not in their interests.

My prediction is that in the next two years, an isolationist, anti-war streak will begin to sweep through the Repubs that will knock the Democrats off-guard. This meme sweeping through the GOP will have been planted there, behind the scenes, by the Baker-Scowcroft-Kissinger crowd. It will be placed there so the GOP doesn't completely fall on its face and get cast into oblivion.

If the Democrats aren't careful, they may find themselves losing the initiative as the so-called "peace" party that the voters seemed to ask for. It might not be easy, after all, given the likes of Hilary Clinton and Pelosi--both of whom want to triangulate to gather pro-war-with-Iran types from the GOP.

Oh well just my impression.

So in a nutshell. The Democrats could do well to paint the Repubs as the religious nuts with guns who marry their cousins, but this could surely backfire if intoned as condescending rhetoric from ivory-towered elites in the press and entertainment industry.

The Repubs would counter that, as Camile Paglia recently wrote in Salon, they are in fact the party of entrepeneurship and opportunity, a message that would play well with immigrants and hispanics who have long had a thriving business ethic.

Then again, the repubs will surely do what they can to shoot themselves in the foot and cowtow to anti-immigration yahoos howling "Harumph!" from the back of the room, and in turn kill what good will they might have had.

I think this is another angle the Democrats can play. That they aren't the party of nativists, that they are all inclusive to both old and new Americans alike. They can't overplay this though for fear of alienating the African Americans who view the new influx of Brown, spanish speaking immigrants as a threat to their livelihoods.

Oh well it could all get very complicated so it would be interested to see how it plays out.

One thing is certain from now on: change. But change from what we have now is certainly good. Welcome democrats back to the field. Try not to screw it up by being (too) Marxist, because you all have a shot at something.

First, thank God/Cthulu that the Dems won! It almost certainly has saved us from war with Iran.

I agree with much of what Jon has to say, even though it`s evident he still hates America.

The election is more of a repudiation of Bush and revulsion against arrogant adventurism abroad, and both high-handed autocracy and astounding corruption and lack of principle at home. There is obviously a great chance here for Dems, but it will be extremely hard for them to resist the same influences that corrupted Republicans, especially if they also win the WH in 2008.

In my view, Dems need to run as unifying moderates, with an agenda of cutting back corporate welfare (military, big oil and ethanol, pharmaceuticals), promoting economic opportunity, individual liberty and social integration, and trying to narrow yawning class differences. They must resist temptations to be big government libs, and acknowledge the lessons learned about how government fails. The best opportunities lie rationalizing the heavy hand of irrational risk management regulation, and in exercising disciplined leadership internationally to build bridges and multilateral ccoperation to resolve shared problems on war, climate and other resources/ecosystem issues, and on corruptin and failed development in other parts of the world. We must lead internationally while we still have a chance. A big step would be ending the embargo with Cuba, offering similar terms with Iran and forcing Israel to pay its own costs for its irresponsible intransigence in dealing with its neighbors. There are responsible Israelis who agree that we have been counterproductively enabling the worst on both sides.

They should move quickly to straighten out the voting message engineered by Republicans - we absolutely need a fairer and securer process. This will require federal laws, as well as reform in the states. The "stop the vote" effort is a big evil, as well as corrupt jerrymandering. Temptations on the latter may be irresistable.

They absolutely must investigate and prosecute all of the corruption in this Administration, and reassert the prerogatives of Congress on all manner of things - and do it quick, before they manage to elect the next president.

Dems should realize that they have alot of disillusioned moderates who might go back to the Republicans. Webb, for example, who switched parties just to stop the hemmoraging in Iraq. The Reps recognized the uncertainties that most of us feel and took advantage of that by dividing us. If the Dems can make us feel more secure by uniting us, that would do alot to ease the drift to fundamentalism. Maybe a draft might not be such a bad idea, even as we leave Iraq - but a draft that offers service in either the military, Peace Corps or AmericCorps.

My thoughts are that the Bush men are natural leaders of men and that I am anxiously awaiting to be led by either Jeb Bush or by his politically amitious son George P. Bush. I instinctively trust the Bush's and know they will inherently do good for the people and protect our nation's well being. Long live the Bush's!

www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

To your sound predictions, I'd add another: in 2008, a raft of anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives on the model of Michigan's.

The strength of the presidential ticket is key. I'm voting Gore/Clark, myself, and I'd encourage the rest of you to do the same so that our votes don't cancel each other out.

When a business has to comply with a minimum wage hike, here's what can they do. They can raise prices. They can lay off workers. Or they can shut down altogether. The effect is at best neutral and worst detrimental.

Let's not leave the train of thought when it's only halfway done. Higher wages do something besides increase the cost of running a business, you might note. They increase the amount of money many people have. And when poor people get money, they usually have things they need to spend it on. So, businesses are paying out more, but they're also taking more in. This doesn't happen perfectly, so certainly some businesses slow down hiring. Others increase hiring. Don't be lazy and leave out the increased-revenues benefit of raising the minimum wage.

Prices are best set by the consumer and the seller. Labor too has a price, and it too is part of the marketplace. It's better not to screw with it, I think.

Well, you're plainly against the minimum wage. I think liberals hold to a belief that if you're willing to work then you should be paid enough to get by with a certain amount of dignity. Does this happen in the absence of minimum wage laws? As far as I'm aware, lots and lots of historical evidence says: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! YOU IDIOT, NO! Lots of people live on wages below what I think it's right to be paid. And that's right now, with a minimum wage law.

You're fooling yourself if you think that, if left alone, wages in many areas wouldn't plummet. History and contemporary society will tell you, to your face if you'll open your eyes and ears, that many people find a starving wage better than no wage.

Sure, I agree.

Minimum wages probably aren't enough to live on properly; that is, working 40-50 hours on it isn't enough to provide an individual--living in a city that is-- with enough for a rent of a one-bedroom apartment plus food plus heat and plus clothing.

Minumum wage. [cue bull whip noise.] Not very nice. But the problem of poverty is not likely to be remedied much if at all by it. I hate to be the mean old Mr. Burns here, but across the board intervention via MW is little more than a band-aid to me.

When wages are across the board raised by mandatory force, you get higher business costs. This cuts into profit. When profits are cut, it is harder to remain in business, because difficult choices must be made. The business can reduce operating costs by operating less, lowering productivity. But lower productivity means lower competitiveness. The business can reduce the number of workers and attempt to squeeze more out of the fewer ones that they do keep. But this makes the workers want to quit for a different job. The business can raise prices, probably the easiest thing. But this affects the supply and demand curve. With higher price there is less demand and fewer sales.

Okay, you say. So the worker, getting more money, can now afford to buy more things, and so the higher prices aren't a problem for them. Well, in that case, the effect might be at best neutral. Suppose you pay your worker ten gold duckets a day. The cost of a widget is twenty duckets. Then the King comes along and says "You must pay the peasants fifteen duckets." Because much of the cost of the ducket is based on the energy put into making it via the worker's labor, you are forced to raise the price of the widget to thirty duckets. In the end, it still costs the worker two days of labor to buy one ducket. Is the worker still better off? I.e., by mandatory pricing rules, the currency becomes worth less until it is worthless.

Now, suppose some Wise Men, advisors close to the King, know what is waiting in the wings. They know that the price of widgets is about to rise. So they buy more widgets early, and then sell them after the price increase. Who wins? Not the worker. The Wise Men. Suppose the price of other products, say, mined zingers, are known to fluctuate in a way that is closely timed with the price of widgets. Suppose mined zingers increase in value at three times the rate of widgets during increase and decrease in value correspondingly. It makes sense to buy zingers at the right time, doesn't it? Who wins? Not the Worker.

The moral of the little anecdote from Fairy Tale Land is that the actors always benefit more than the acted on. No matter what happens, the poor get screwed. That is the essence of being poor. Even when governments try to help the poor, the first people to benefit the most are not the poor. They are the state contractors, the politicians who collect poor peoples' votes, and the people set up to run the institutions to help them. The poor come second. Screwed again. It does not matter what political theory is applied to them or who is in power.

The reasons for the vast differences between rich and poor and for the eroding middle class have more to do with not the marketplace but who is privy to the marketplace's movements and patterns. The business cycle is not natural at all. It is wholly because of influences from central authorities who benefit by being the arbiters of change. (To really tackle poverty, what you must do is tackle the business cycle and end inflation and debasement of the currency; it is the massive burnout of inflation then recession that kills most businesses most of the time. Then, even after all that, you have to do science fictiony things of questionable ethics related to cognitive enhancement and more basic and orwellian intrusions into the homes of people with 0-5 year olds, such as forcing parents to breast feed and read to their children.)

Now, if wages went down, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

It would be a very bad thing if wages went down but prices for other things did not go down.

It would not be a bad thing if prices went down at exactly the same rate (or more) than the wages. Imagine. If you could buy a laptop computer for twenty dollars, pay the rent for 100, ride the subway for ten cents, etc., then minimum wage would be terrific, no?

Wages and prices are linked. You can't mess with one without messing with the other. That is because economics is a science of scarcity. The global economic system, while, enormous and interlocking, is ultimately closed. A limited amount of energy (e.g., which precipitates into goods, services, and capital) flows through it. Wages, in a way, ARE prices, after all. They are the price that a worker charges for his or or calories per unit of time spent doing work.

Anyway, I really appreciate your sincere efforts to convince me of the usefulness of the minimum wage. I just wish I could be convinced is all.

Jon, you've made some great arguments and points. From a mathematical standpoint, it would seem that an arbitrary minimum wage would be economically unhealthy in many ways, especially if it is above the strike point were wages should be....

However, you state that the actors always benefit more than the acted on. No matter what happens, the poor get screwed I would argue that when the action is to remove or maintain a minimum wage which is far too low screws the poor even more.

I would point to Chile as an example. After Pinochet abolished the minimum wage, corporate profits took off, and poverty became a much bigger problem. Real wages dropped through the floor. Unemployment skyrocketed, standard of living plummeted (along with the GDP), the poor really got screwed. One can argue that Pinochet's anti-democratic policies had a lot to do with this, and I would agree, but I think it was mostly an economic disaster.

Considering this, I would say that a carefully regulated minimum wage can be an extremely powerful economic stimulus. Arbitrarily raising it to an absurdly high level would have the effect that you described in your parable, but leaving it a ridiculously low level is almost the same as not having one at all.

Always remember Mitt Romney's real first name:

Willard!

Thank you.

Apo mate

Nice post, great predictions, things look rosy for the good guys.
Now if we could just bring the bad ones to justice

I expect that we will get more increases in minimum wages, but it won't be a good thing, as Jon correctly argues. Rather, it will be one of those "free lunch" political gimmees that politicians find hard to resist - earning points with the middle class and blue collar wage earners/unions, while making it even more difficult for those most vulnerable and least qualified for work to find any, and perpetuating the incentives for illegal and easily exploited workers and the illegal economy for drugs that sucks in those who can't find work.

If the Dems really care about the poor they will legalize drugs, provide more inner city policing and create more income tax free zones, focus on medical care and consider establishing a national service program that will provide training and work.

The Dems need to be really careful about the pork to which the Republicans proved so vulnerable and about increasing the hand of government.

Anyway, I really appreciate your sincere efforts to convince me of the usefulness of the minimum wage. I just wish I could be convinced is all.

Let me suggest a strategy. Take, for instance, the recent example of Oregon. Oregon a few years ago had something like 7.4% unemployment. Against loud warnings of "the death of small business", Oregon voters decided to raise their minimum wage by $2, phased in over a couple of years. Today, their unemployment rate is down to 4.6% IIRC.

So, here's the strategy: if your theories about minimum wage causing damage to business don't fit facts, then think harder about the theories; don't deny the facts.

The moral of the little anecdote from Fairy Tale Land

What I would prefer is that, instead of grossly oversimplified anecdotes from Fairy Tale Land, we work with actual historical data. I do understand, however, why most libertarians choose the former strategy, as elegant textbook theories that promise simple and comprehensive explanations are entirely friendlier to the Hayekian vision.

I just wish I could be convinced is all.

It's difficult to convince fundamentalists of anything that conflicts with their worldview. In this, Libertarians and old-school Marxists are of a feather.

heh.

Okay, so maybe historical evidence says otherwise. You can't argue with that. What the historical information you've cited tells me is that if there are detrimental effects from MW, they are subtle and easily masked.

But is it not possible that the minimum wage law came into effect at the dawn of a new recovery, where unemployment would naturally be expected to go down? And isn't it also possible that the effects of the law were more targeted to some than to others? And isn't it also possible that such laws coudl have unintended consequences, such as making employees salaried (i.e., giving them titles of assistant associate sub-manager), so that that they would have to in effect work more hours for LESS than the minimum wage?

And isn't it also possible that if minimum wage were really about giving someone a "living wage," that it would be far higher? After all, you'd probably have to increase wages to higher than 10-15 dollars per hour in some places to earn what's called a "living wage." So increasign the MW from 5.50 to say, 7 bucks is really still kind of trivial anyway, costing employers more than it's helping employees.

What the MW really does is tell employers that they are too greedy to figure out how to run their own businesses by themselves. And it tells employees that they are too feeble and helpless to seek out and demand higher wages for themselves.

"Here's where our basic philosophies most diverge. I don't trust business to act in an ethical manner; in fact, I mostly expect the opposite. They are largely amoral actors, whose only real incentive is to maximize profits, and your, my, and the environment's health be damned. I want government to protect me from business, and that only gets accomplished through mandated behavior."

Aha. Who's the one being dogmatic and fundamentalist here? Your dogma says that there are no self-correcting mechanisms in businesses. That business leaders face zero consequences from their community and from their customers if they behave badly. The historical evidence here speaks loudly to the contrary.

The best examples of businesses behaving badly are when they are protected by the government whether in a contract or in exploiting public resources such as BLM land or water tables.

I think we can all agree that this Bush administration and the Republican cronies have committed great crimes and are guilty of corruption and worse.

The Democrats need to be forceful and bring them to justice so this monkey business doesn't happen again. The American people have a right to know what went on, the whole story.

The historical evidence here speaks loudly to the contrary.

I'm trying, Jon, but I can't hear it. All I hear is you repeating bromides and denying historical evidence.

But is it not possible that...

This is pretty meaningless argument material. Is it not possible that your next Powerball ticket will be the big winner? If you want us to take these arguments seriously, you have to provide reason for us to believe that there's a significant possibility that your interpretation is correct.

isn't it also possible that if minimum wage were really about giving someone a "living wage," that it would be far higher?

Which is why Democrats are advocating raising it. You're not very up on this issue, are you?

What the MW really does is tell employers that they are too greedy to figure out how to run their own businesses by themselves. And it tells employees that they are too feeble and helpless to seek out and demand higher wages for themselves.

These judgements are both flatly wrong. I don't think minimum wage law has any opinion about employer greed and the effect of greed on business. The law was not created, as you seem to think, based upon some theory about the greediness of employers. It was a response to actual conditions. And this applies to your second idea, too. But, yes, solitary, unskilled workers have no power to demand higher wages. You're either uninformed or willfully blind if you assert otherwise.

Your dogma...

this is just silly.

When it comes to government intervention in the free market economy, consider me an agnostic. When it comes to faith in the power of government to cure what ails society, consider me an atheist. I do not stand in awe of greatness of what the alimighty state can do, I am afraid of it. Because it enjoys far too much power whether ruled by the Bloods (excuse me the Red State Republicans) or the Crips (excuse me the Blue Statuh Democrats). With either gang, there is a gun pointed to the head telling you to submit to their agenda or else.

I have yet to see how Kenysians do a better job with things than Laissez-faire. The social democrat view is, in my opinion, the more religious view, with circular reasoning. I.e., when we ask why is it better? people say because, oh, that's what we have been living under for 50-60 years or more of central planning-- isn't central planning great! And how do you know differently? Because that's just how it is. I just don't buy that. I say that force is the essence of government and choice is the essence of the market. I choose choice whenever possible.

Anyway, pointless to argue. My power to influence things is less than zero becuase I do not choose to vote. I respect that your opinions are heartfelt though certainly mainstream. But it is nice to see people passionately defending the things they believe in--that is what distinguishes you from Elmer Fudd.

But getting back to the topic here, I think Russ is right on the money with his predictions re: the Democrats. My hypothetical advice to the new Congress would be to do what the people elected them to do or face expulsion: end the war, stop the torture, prosecute the liars and corrupt, and restore our civil liberties. Stepping too much beyond that could mean trouble for the Donkeys, and you know what that means:

More Elephant S***.

I do not stand in awe of greatness of what the alimighty state can do, I am afraid of it. Because it enjoys far too much power . . .

Wait a second, Jon, are you this guy?

Seriously though, do you not see that government can also be used to protect citizens from the power of other more powerful citizens and corporations?

I have yet to see how Kenysians do a better job with things than Laissez-faire.

That's because you've never lived under laissez-faire. Spend some time in Somalia, or Darfur. You'll soon see just how superior life there is to life in social democracies.

I`m with Jon on the agenda for aggressively cleaning up the shit left by the Republicans. I do think that there is a role to be played by the State, but unless everything is done very carefully, reliance on government reduces our freedom and ends up enriching the rich, who have much better access to it.

I do think that there is a role to be played by the State, but unless everything is done very carefully, reliance on government reduces our freedom and ends up enriching the rich, who have much better access to it.

But the alternative to using government power to reduce the ability of the rich to fuck up less powerful people's lives is what, exactly? I don't think state power is necessarily benevolent, but it can be, and it's the only tool the less powerful have.

I have yet to see how Kenysians do a better job with things than Laissez-faire.

I'll bite. What laissez-faire socities do you think are broadly pleasant to live under? Name names.

The social democrat view is, in my opinion, the more religious view, with circular reasoning. I.e., when we ask why is it better? people say because, oh, that's what we have been living under for 50-60 years

I'm sorry, Jon, but there's nothing to say here except that this is really stupid. Seriously, there's a tons of written material on this subject, don't pretend it doesn't exist just because you're too intellectually lazy to look it up.

Since there's "scant evidence" that a minimum wage doesn't affect unemployment, and "plenty of evidence" to the contrary, let's set the minimum wage at $100 an hour and we can all be filthy rich together!

Okay, more seriously now.

Apo's minimum wage analysis is not statistically sound, nor are the Chile and Oregon examples as presented. A correct analysis needs to look at the effect of the minimum wage accounting for other variables that (are known to) affect unemployment and/or small business closings (that "all other things equal" thing). That may have been the point of Jon's series "is it not possible that..." If so, he's right. There are lots of things that affect unemployment and examining any one of them without accounting for the others is scientifically unsound. A quick google search revealed a number of more sophisticated analyses (all of them with statistical shortcomings of their own). Some support Apostropher's claims, e.g.:

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150

Some support Jon's claims, e.g.:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190.html

My take on the gist from all of them is that, assuming globalization hasn't changed this dynamic in the past couple of decades, over the range the politicians are discussing, the minimum wage increase will have a small effect. It won't cause much additional unemployment, and it won't alleviate much poverty. It should win (and lose) some votes, though.

All that said, this is a silly thing to be arguing about now, when the politicians have taken away habeus corpus, are torturing people, are tapping our phones without warrants, and on and on and on. That's the kind of stuff that ends democracies, y'dig? If ever there was a time for a liberal/libertarian alliance, this is it, folks.

Now back to lurking. Great blog, Apo.

Yes, Apo does run a great blog. Look at all the discussion it generates.

To libertarian democrat, I think you might be right on the money, but perhaps the beneficial effects of globalization might have already been had, and now we may be suffering from the plateau, or worse, the hangover.

That is, it has been incredibly good at keeping consumer prices down for the last 10-20 years or so, masking pro-inflationary things that the gubmint and fed have been doing during that same time. But how much longer will globalization be able to do that? And this combination of trade liberalization (good) with unsound fiscal and lending policy (bad) is bought at a price of that "giant sucking sound" of manufacturing jobs that you hear.

MM: the alternative to using government power to reduce the ability of the rich to fuck up less powerful people's lives is what, exactly? I don't think state power is necessarily benevolent, but it can be, and it's the only tool the less powerful have.

Government, if not strictly limited, (1) becomes a battleground between different interests over boons that the government may offer to some at the cost of all, (2) leads to ballooning and mutually inconsistent regulation that is an economic tax on us all, and (3) is most likely to be coopted by the rich and the firms in which they invest.

The growth of government over the past decades has gone hand in hand with increasing disparities of income, as well as increasing frustration with government and resulting social conservative/fundamentalist/protectionist backlashes.

My suggestions? We should abolish income taxes altogether, and run government only on estate taxes and consumption taxes that do not skew investments. We should also abandon the war on drugs and focus on inner city development: policing, jobs programs/education and reduced tax zones. We should also NOT boost minimum wages - which come at the cost of those most in need of work and suck in more illegal workers. Yes, I favor healthcare programs of some kind for those who need them.

I echo LD's emphasis that we need to stay focussed on uncovering and checking abuses by the Administration and in Congress, and in cleaning up our electoral system. The encroachments on our liberty have been shocking, and we need to hold people accountable, the sooner the better. Otherwise we may very well end up with a Dem as the Unitary executive, and Dems committing the same pro-business abuses in Congress.

Tom

The growth of government over the past decades has gone hand in hand with increasing disparities of income

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Care to provide some concrete examples or evidence to back up this assertion?

If by "government" you mean the U.S. Federal Government, it was the growth of its power, beginning in the 30s, that produced the greatest decrease in income disparaties the world has ever seen.

Not to mention enforcing enfranchisement of African-Americans and mitigating some of the worst excesses of racism, placing limits on the pollution produced by powerful corporations and actually reversing much environmental damage done by private actors, ennabling a huge portion of the population to pursue college or other education, bringing electricity, transportation, and other infrastructure to vast numbers of poor, ensuring the stability of our banking and credit systems, etc. etc. etc.

Of course there has been pushback by powerful interests, but without an empowered government there wouldn't have even been any accomplishments for the powerful to push back against, and the bulk of the population would still be stuck in Dickensian squalor.

Since there's "scant evidence" that a minimum wage doesn't affect unemployment, and "plenty of evidence" to the contrary, let's set the minimum wage at $100 an hour and we can all be filthy rich together!

Hey, since raising taxes raises revenue, let's raise taxes to 100% so that'll solve all our financial problems! The government will have so much money, Minimum Wage of $500/hour!

Or, wait, maybe it's lowering taxes that raises revenue! Let's lower taxes to 0% and then that'll solve all our financial problems! Then the government will have so much money...

Okay, more seriously now.

We hope so.

There are lots of things that affect unemployment and examining any one of them without accounting for the others is scientifically unsound.

You''re missing the point here. The claim being countered is that Minimum Wage causes rising unemployment. Yet, as we point out, Minimum Wage has been raised many different times in many different places, and there is no solid evidence of this. It doesn't matter that there are other factors. Either there is no direct link b/w MW and unemployment, or, if there is, the effect is very small. In either case, I think this particular argument against MW goes down in flames.

"I'll bite. What laissez-faire socities do you think are broadly pleasant to live under? Name names."

Society is made of individuals. Some societies, for whatever reason, are populated by more than their share of angry individuals bent on violence, mayhem, and savagry. Zimbabwe and Somalia come to mind. These spots on the map, whether anarchic or totalitarian, are not good examples of the fruits of a free market; these countries fates are better descriptions of what happens (long term) when colonialsim exploits and throws away human beings. Yet some socialist-bending societies are made up of decently behaved and warm and friendly people--Sweden and Cuba come to mind.

No system economic or political will work unless there are good men and women willing to sacrifice and labor for a better place in which their children can grow up strong and healthy. However I argue some work better than others, and some promote civilization better than others. The trend toward laissez-faire is more civilizing.

With the cavaet issued that societies are not countries and certainly not the products of governments, and that people generally too fearful to allow laissez-faire in its purest forms,

Here is a compiled list of the 20 most economically free nations:

Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxembourg
Estonia
Ireland
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Denmark
Iceland
Australia
Chile
Switzerland
United States
Sweden
Finland
Canada
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
Bahrain

Here is a list of the 20 most economically unfree nations:

Congo, Republic of the
Vietnam
Guinea-Bissau
Syria
Suriname
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Belarus
Tajikistan
Haiti
Venezuela
Uzbekistan
Iran
Cuba
Laos
Turkmenistan
Zimbabwe
Libya
Burma
Korea, North

I'll take life in the more economically free nations any day.

Jon, did you just come up with that list yourself, or are you citing someone else's list? It would be nice to know what criteria you or the actual list-maker are using to rate economic freedom.

That aside, all of the countries you list in the first batch have governments that are very very far away from laissez faire. For example, all of them, including the United States, don't have anything like a free market in health care. All of them intervene in the labor market to a significant extent, although in different ways (including minimum wage laws, laws supporting or mandating labor unions, fair labor standards, etc.) Agriculture is another area which is not left to the vagaries of the market in any real sense in any those countries except Hong Kong, which has practically no farmers. I could go on and on . . .

MM:

Federal spending:

"Since the early 1960s, total inflation-adjusted government spending has increased by almost $10,000 per household. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted federal tax receipts have tripled but have still been outpaced by growth in federal spending.

"Historical Federal Spending
Federal spending has increased steadily over the last 40 years. In recent decades, federal spending per household has rarely declined or even held constant. As the Chart Book shows, federal spending per household has grown faster under the George W. Bush Administration than under any administration since Nixon’s and Ford’s.(See Chart S-4.)The federal government now spends over $22,000 per household—nearly an 80 percent increase in inflation-adjusted spending from President Kennedy to President Bush.(See Chart S-3.)

"Future Federal Spending
While federal spending has grown faster than personal income in the past, future federal spending growth will accelerate further as entitlements begin to dominate the federal budget. The federal government will spend more than twice what is spent today on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as the baby boomers age over the next few decades.(See Chart P-7.)Higher spending on entitlements will squeeze out other areas of federal spending, such as defense and education. Interest on the national debt will also climb. By 2020, the federal deficit as a percent of GDP will reach twice its historical average.

"Unprecedented Taxation
Historically, federal tax revenue has held around 18 percent of GDP since 1962.(See Chart P-6.)However, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by themselves are projected to exceed 18 percent of GDP by 2040, despite various changes in marginal tax rates.(See Chart P-9.)Congress must restructure these programs to reduce the risk of a dramatic increase in the burden of taxation.

"Conclusion
In return for their tax dollars, taxpayers are saddled with a massive federal bureaucracy that distorts markets by diverting the economy’s most productive resources into expensive and wasteful programs. Past spending growth pales in comparison to projected future spending stemming from entitlements. Lawmakers must recognize that sustained long-term spending increases would eventually lead to long-term tax increases, raising taxes to an unprecedented level in this nation."

Of course, the above ignores the growth in state budgets and taxes, which must also be considered.

Income disparity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_gini_coefficients_over_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

I am very concerned not only with the growth of the federal and state governments, but by the growing income disparities. These issues call for tough choices, not a reflexive resort to more and bigger government, and less personal and economic freedom.

I made several suggestions on this above; I would add to these the following: drastically paring back our defense spending, both on nuclear research and bases abroad, elimination of corporate welfare, a restructuring and rationalization of federal level economic/risk regulation, and additional energy taxes.

Bailing out automakers is an exmaple of one of the things Dems should NOT support Bush in doing: "On Capitol Hill, lawmakers representing large numbers of auto workers said they hoped Congress would address reducing the cost of the health care on manufacturers, foster the research and development of alternative fuel vehicles and promote fair trade practices. Some lawmakers, like Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have urged incentives for the industry to build more fuel-efficient vehicles."

Just a quick response, perhaps more later.

First, I don't think you should rely exclusively on the Heritage Foundation for your economic ideas, Tom, they're not a particularly objective source of information.

And the chart you linked showing income inequality shows that the trend towards greater disparity is relatively recent, starting about the time the Reagan Revolution began dismantling Federal programs designed to mitigate income inequality and the worst effects of poverty.

I think it's pretty clear that it's not so much the actual size of the government, whether measured in dollars raised and spent or its reach of power, but rather what the government does or is allowed to do with that money and power. On the whole, Republicans over the last two and a half decades have shown a clear preference for helping the richest and most powerwul, as well as increasing state police power over the rest of our citizens. In contrast, many Dems have proposed government actions designed to help out the less powerful, such as Universal Health Coverage, a higher minimum wage, better education, better access to education, etc.

It's worth reading Hilzoy on the minimum wage and employment.

And this link from the discussion there is useful.

M/tch:

"First, I don't think you should rely exclusively on the Heritage Foundation for your economic ideas, Tom, they're not a particularly objective source of information."

I don't rely exclusively on the Heritage Foundation for my economic ideas, and your suggestion is offensive. I simply provided some basic statistics from them about the size of government, statistics that you have not contested.

The US has long tolerated greater income disparities than other Western countries, and the disparities have been increasing. I have made it clear that I think this is a matter of profound concern. I agree with you strongly that Republicans have been abusing government to benefit the few, and agree that there is an important role for government to play in helping to maintain a basically fair and open society that is yet economically vibrant and provides opportunities for individuals to advance.

My point is that it is important to realize that government, no matter how well-intended, does many things poorly and at the cost of us all. The tendency of government is always to get bigger and to "solve" all problems, very often for the benefit of bureacrats and the economic elites who are best positioned to capture government. We should take lessons from the obvious failures of government and focus on improving what the government can and should be doing, and changing policies that are obviously counterproductive.

We need to be hacking back our military machine, and aggressively fighting at home against corruption, misuse of government by elites, electoral and jerrymandering abuses, intrusions on our civil liberties and wasteful government programs. New federal initiatives may be desirable, but we should consider them carefully.

I phrased that badly, and didn't mean to offend, I'm just allergic to the Heritage Foundation's agenda, but I haven't waded through their data yet to give a thoughtful response to it.

I think we agree about a lot of things, but your blanket statement that "growth of government over the past decades has gone hand in hand with increasing disparities of income", which implies that there's a causative relationship, doesn't make any sense.

For example, in the List of Countries by Income Inequality you linked, Denmark and Sweden are in the top five, while the US is at number 73. Denmark and Sweden have governments that are bigger (not in absolute size, obviously, but per capita) and intervene more in the economy than the US, and this has been the case since at least the 1940s, yet their income disparity is much lower. So it's not the size or activeness of the government that drives inequality, it's the policies that government follows.

M/M:

I agree that there is no causal relationship between the growth of government and increasing disparties in income.

It's just that the last six years have made it rather clear that in the US, certain groups of elites have managed to run the government for their own benefit, to the general disadvantage of most of us, while adeptly managing to convince wide swaths that obviously counterproductive policies are necessary, and critics akin to traitors. The elites have figured out how to manipulate us for their own ends. We need to focus on how to minimize that problem.

While the election shows there are some limits on the willingness of Americans to be fooled, the latititude is uncomfortably wide. This says something about the character of the American people in modern times that we should not ignore.

Also, bigger government is no necessarily better, and what we need is better government. The statistics I mention underscore that problem.

Yes, absolutely, better government. I don't think anyone but straw people argue for big government as an end in itself. But plenty of people, including the Heritage Foundation, argue that government is never competent, is always malign, with the purpose of convincing people that government programs that are effective, but that tilt the balance in favor of the less rich and powerful, should be eliminated or scaled back.

I think that "government is never competent" is an argument that most Americans would make.

But yes, there are some who argue that even effective programs should be cut, but who's been listening? Instead the Bush admin and Congress have brought us much bigger government, new entitlements and lower taxes for the rich. Who's going to put SS on a sound financial footing and how?

More concretely, what changes do you want to see?

The only way to put social security and medicare on sound footing is to cut back on benefits, isolate social security and medicare from the rest of federal spending, and make the tax not regressive.

And even then, this will only buy time. A few years perhaps.

It would be better to give Americans the opportunity to opt out of it and let them save for themselves. Once social security was a wonderful idea in the era of lower life expectancy, but it will soon become a crushing burden. When the number of donors to recipients changes from a ratio of something like 10:1 to more like 2:1 within our very own lifetimes.

Already it is, statistically speaking, a transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the old and better off. This arrangement will not buy peace in society for much longer. Something will give way and it will come crashing down.

Oh the "unintended" consequenes of giant government force.

"Already it is, statistically speaking, a transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the old and better off. This arrangement will not buy peace in society for much longer. Something will give way and it will come crashing down."

My three sons are not happy.