Category Archives: Politics: National

Minimum Wage Going Up – If You’re Lucky

So, the next phase for the minimum wage hike is set for July 2009.  Right around the corner.  And this might seem like good news, heck, even in my own household I’m told this is a good idea.  To which I reply “The real minimum wage is $0.00.”  See, if you don’t have a job, you don’t get paid.  Which brings me to the point of it all I guess.  Or, rather, what should be the point.  See, government is really really bad at setting expectations, conducting data driven analysis, implementing a solution and then tracking that solution for results.  Heck, even private industry is generally bad at this, but really, government is horrible.  The reason?  It’s easier to manufacture spin than it is to demonstrate results.  Spin is easy.  Results are hard.  One gets you elected, the other gets the other guy elected.

So, let’s take minimum wage.  Let’s see if we can’t try to:

  1. Identify what we are trying to accomplish.
    1. Or, perhaps, more specifically WHO were are trying to help or assist.
  2. Identify some metrics that we can use to study data and later, measure results.
  3. Get some data, run some analysis.
  4. Since we have already implemented this policy, we’ll skip the whole “should we implement it” phase.
  5. Go back and see if the policy has worked.

Alright, so, let’s see if we can work to identify what we are trying to accomplish with a minimum wage law.  In my search, I found this, a study entitled “The Who and Why of the Minimum Wage” from The Economic Policy Institute.  The EPI is a liberal economic think tank; imagine Cato or Heritage for the Democrats. Right away we are given a hint of a possible metric:

Raising the wage floor is an essential part of a strategy to support working families.

Now, I’m going to clarify here.  All families, ALL of them, are working families.  While I don’t make the minimum wage, nor does my wife, I would take umbrage with anyone who tried to claim that ours is not a working family.  Yet, somehow, I understand from this study that mine is not the family we are trying to “support”.  The author is trying to support the poor or near poor, working family.  So, alright, we have a start.   We want to increase the income of the families, or people, who make the minimum wage.

To be clear, the authors do devote a significant portion of the study to those making more than the minimum wage, they do claim that the minimum wage is only a start.

Moving on to bullet #2 we need to see if we can identify a metric that we can use.  That would be something that would be able to give us an idea as to where we are now and then compare it to after we have implemented our change.  For me, one metric that jumps right out is the Annual Income of the target population.  So, we have as a metric “Annual income of people who made minimum wage before the increases of that minimum wage went into affect”.  If the law works, that metric should go up.  If it didn’t work, that metric would go down.

The third bullet point is what they always skip, and since they did, we can’t recreate it here.

So now we move on to number 5.  Let’s see if the policy worked.  Here we go!

First task, who earns the minimum wage?  Let’s check.

  • 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
  • Workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
  • About 7 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2008 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs.
  • The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received.

Do you know what this means?  This means that A). Very very few people make the minimum wage. B). Those that do are young.  And C). A large portion of minimum wage or less earners are bringing in tips.

As an aside, I used to tend bar, at one point I did it for a living.  When I did, I would calculate an annual “salary” based on wage and tips adjusting for taxes [that I didn’t pay on tips].  Every year I brought in more than 40K.  Often I was making better than 44k.  And this did not include the added benefit of eating most meals at the restaurant as well as a significant discount on my “liquid” needs.  While I didn’t have health insurance provided, I was young and in good health; though I did smoke and did work in a smoky environment.

Needless to say, in 2008, the vast vast majority of workers in America did not make the minimum wage.  While the numbers above reflect the 2008 year, as recently as 2005, 67% of teens and young adult making the minimum wage:

  • Worked part time jobs – Again, I worked a part time job in school, high school and college.  In each case, I was paid the minimum wage at the time.
  • Had average family incomes of 64k.

Folks, I get the fact that we wanna help people who are struggling, but the facts is the facts; almost everyone makes more than the minimum wage.

Fruits of Our Labor

Six weeks ago Dave Ribar wrote about the affects of the new consumer protection measures.  Congress pass and Obama signed a new law that would restrict banks ability to raise rates and fees.  It seems that certain elected officials are shocked, just SHOCKED at the news that banks are responding by raising rates now:

Yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) once again requested that the Federal Reserve invoke its emergency powers to place a limit on interest rate hikes.

“This is what many of us feared about a law that didn’t take effect right away,” Schumer said. “It was never going to take this long for the credit card companies to get ready for the new reforms. Instead, issuers are using the delay in the effective date to wring more dollars out of their customers. It is against the spirit of the law, and it is just plain wrong.”

And:

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said the recent rate and fee hikes were “unfair and deceptive and must be stopped.”

“Capricious actions like these are why Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Obama signed, my credit card reform bill: to level the playing field on behalf of consumers,” she said.

However, I am not so sure why this should catch these folks, or any of us paying attention, flat footed.  It’s not as if the companies didn’t warn us:

Bank executives had warned that the new law would force them to increase rates and fees because it would keep them from properly managing borrowers’ risk.

The reason for this?

The argument is that if banks can’t raise rates on riskier customers, they will have to raise rates on all.

Silly I know.  When banks lend money they wanna be able to asses risk and base rates accordingly.  When this ability is taken away from them, how would you expect them to react?

Look, it seems reasonable that different portfolios of risk would return different rates of profitability.  Sure, there IS profit for the banks by extending credit to borrowers who payoff their balance every month.  Equally likely is the fact that these borrowers will likely never default and declare bankruptcy; low risk, low gain.  On the other hand, by extending credit to high risk borrowers increases the chance that the banks simply lose their money.  In fact, we have been seeing this:

Banks have been hit with a record number of charge-offs, or debts they give up on because the borrowers have no way of paying them back. In June, credit card losses hit a record 10.44 percent, according to Fitch Ratings.

Once again, it seems that Liberal policies meant to protect the people have only hurt the people.  But this isn’t new.  An interesting fact is that it’s currently possible for individual Liberals to lend THEIR OWN MONEY to risky borrowers.  I wonder how many do?  And if they do, would they still scream for regulations on rate and limits and such.

Finally, I love the personal story that ends the Washington Post article.  You know, the token story of one single person getting taken advantage of by these evil evil companies.

Charles Chichester Jr., a 65-year-old retired U.S. Postal Service employee who lives in Fairfax County, was trying to pay off his credit card soon but now fears he will be unable to do so at all. He received a letter from Chase, he said, notifying him that his $373 minimum monthly payment would increase to more than $900. When he called to say he could not afford that, a Chase representative told him to consult with a credit counselor, he said. That’s exactly what he plans to do.

“The 900-something-dollar minimum monthly payment is just something I cannot do,” he said.

Of course, NOT on the list of things that Charles cannot do?

  1. Rack up more than $18,000 worth of debt on a single credit card while pulling a retired U.S. Postal Service employee’s income.

Money as a Signal

I run another blog that is basically a conversation between a real good friend of mine.  We end up talking lot’s of politics.  And my latest entry kinda sums up on how I feel about money.

I thought it would be good to double post that entry here today.

The Cost of Money

CHANGE!

CHANGE

The word was the mantra of Our Blessed Leader’s campaign.  And it was wonderfully successful.  It served to distinguish that what we had was bad.  And further, that we were going to a place where what we had would not be.  That somehow, we would be in a different place.  Further, the assumption would be that it would not only be different, but better!

And so it was.  The Blessed Leader now sits enthroned in DC and things have CHANGEd.  We have CHANGE and the world is right again.  Perhaps Atlas shrugged, but we got him back under control!

Interesting thing, though, that CHANGE.  See CHANGE doesn’t really mean change see.  It just means, well, it means – The Same.  At least as far as Detainee Rights are concerned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics

Paragraphs rendered:

President Barack Obama’s Justice Department sided with the former Bush administration on Friday, saying detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

Shocker.  And while I think the Administration is right here, I am shocked, just SHOCKED I tell you.

“The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we’d hoped,” said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Air Base. “We all expected better.”

Serious?  You did?

“They’ve now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

Anything that pisses off the ACLU is good in my book.  Full CHANGE ahead for me, please!

I Wish We Had a Cool Governor

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t have the same feel for the Good Gov’na Purdue that I have for Obama; not even close.  But how nice it is to listen to some of the best conservatives in the country talk about the stimulus package:?

http://www.wral.com/

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a likely 2012 presidential contender, has said he would reject a portion of the money aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance.

Notice the level of detail intimated by Jindal.  He is not rejecting all of the money, just that money that speaks to unemployment insurance.

Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., said he was considering a similar move. Taking the unemployment dollars, he said, would force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out, putting in place what he called an unfair tax on employers.

“There is some (money) we will not take in Mississippi. … We want more jobs. You don’t get more jobs by putting an extra tax on creating jobs,” Barbour told CNN’s “State of the Union’ on Sunday.

Again, very detailed analysis of the package.  These guys know the good from the bad; almost as if they–you know, READ the bill.

Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said there are other states that want and need the new money: “We’ll take it. We’ll take your money.”

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

Guess who’s state is that highest bar, just left of center?  Yeah, that’s right.  The Great State belonging to Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  That, by the way, is not an accident.

At issue for Jindal and Barbour is a provision in the stimulus bill that could allow people ineligible for unemployment benefits to receive them anyway. That could eventually force a tax increase on employers, both governors have said.

Nice.  So even if the state doesn’t want the money, the Federal Government forces them to take it anyway.  And they have to raise taxes as a result.  How is this legal?

Some Democrats took a harder line at a press conference arranged by the Democratic Governors Association to praise Obama for his leadership on the stimulus. DGA Chairman Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley dismissed GOP detractors as “fringe” Republicans eager to score political points.

“All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into,” O’Malley said. “If some of the fringe governors don’t want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation’s interests.”

Sorry, but when you complain of “fringe” Republicans and then say “pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into” you lose some all credibility in my book.

The line drew a rebuke from Sanford, the Republican Governors Association chairman.

“I think in this instance I would humbly suggest that the real fringe are those that are supporting the stimulus,” Sanford said. “It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country.

Finally, Republicans acting like Republicans.

The Two Best Laughs of the Day

And both are right here:

This has to be the best URL ever!

www.financialstability.gov

LOL.  Serious.  LOL.

I mean, really.  If someone sent that to me in email, I would think it was a hoax.  But the URL is only the second best laugh of the day.  The top laugh of the day is the page display when you actually go looking for financialstability.gov:

financialstability

In Related News

This is just the kind of reporting that makes me upset.  How are people to understand what is really going on when our press and our broadcasters continue to deliver this type of information to people.  I have quoted the entire article below:

New jobs part of stimulus package for N.C.

North Carolina could gain 105,000 new jobs as a result of the economic stimulus package, according to a White House estimate released this morning.

The White House said the figure for each state was compiled by analyzing “detailed estimates of the working age population, employment, and industrial composition of each state.”

The release does not provide any details on what sort of jobs would be created.

And in related news, I plan to date Britney Spears.

This Should Suprise No One

Word is that the Bush administration overpaid for bank assets as part of their TARP program.

The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released Friday, said last year’s overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed $78 billion subsidy of the firms.

While it hurts, and at $78 billion it really really  hurts, this is no small thing.  $78 billion  is enough money to send each man woman and child in America $260 bucks.  Now, don’t get me wrong, sending each person in America $260 is not my idea of a stimulus, but the point has to be taken.

What makes this especially hard to swallow is the fact that this money was mean to prop up our financial institutions.  To be honest, when TARP was first announced, I was a critic and spoke out against it [to be fair, I am still hesitant].  However, after reading and taking a look at the facts I came around.  After all, our economy is based on capital; that is the selling of money from one institution to another.  When that process stops, when people are no longer able to obtain money for investment, that’s when we stop doing what we do best:  PRODUCE.

And so it came to pass that I begrudgingly began to warm to the idea of helping these guys out.  But that was when help was targeted to the very place that was perhaps ground zero; the bad paper caused as a result of number of bankruptcies.  When these loans were bundled by the hundreds and sold off, in essence they were chopped and split and dispersed to every investor who purchased a share.  Because of that it became very difficult to “know” the value of those shares.  nd so the market dried up, you couldn’t sell these things anymore.  This isn’t to say that they weren’t worth anything, clearly a majority of the loans were still, and even to this day are, viable.  But no one knew what their value was, and so they couldn’t be sold.

So the idea was that Paulson would buy up these assets, or bad paper, freeing the banks and lending institutions of them.  See, ya can’t lend money when you are over extended.  And in essence, this paper was worth Zilch and so all banks were forced to freeze lending.  But, Paulson changed his mind, bought up shares in banks and ended up over paying for them.

And this gentle reader, is a lesson in the tender mercies of Government Administration.  The fact is, when the government acts, it is almost ALWAYS for reasons other than for what is good and healthy.  There is always an eye out for the powerful, the political and the electability.  And because of this, decisions are almost always bad.

All government sucks.  The liberal and the conservative.  The answer is to reduce and remove.  Put the power in the hands of the people.

The Loyal Minority

Many Republicans, conservatives especially, have railed against the stimulus package proposed by either The Chairman or the Democrat party.  The fact is that it contains so much extra spending that we are left unsure what is really meant to be stimulus and what is meant to be long held Democratic pet projects.  Say nothing of the fact that it likely won’t work.

It is a long standing pet peeve of mine for people to continually point out the obvious, the wrong, the bad ideas without coming up with their own.  And so it is that the Republicans have, in fact, come forth with ideas of their own.

For a nice read see this article from Reason.

Obama – Succeed or Fail?

I have been asked this question so many times my ears are bleeding.

Are you hoping that Obama fails—or succeeds?

Blink.  Blink.

Serious.  Early on, all I could do was muster a blank look at the person in front of me and just shake my head.  I had no answer.  The question just stunk of…well, of stink.  Without knowing why, I would just kinda shrug, grimace and say “What?”

No, however, I know from where I came.  I mean, it took some days and some thinking, but really, stop for just a second, and look at the question.  Repeat it.  Run it through your mind and then, just say it, really, say it, out loud.

Are you hoping that Obama succeeds?

Maybe I’m slow, maybe you’re quicker.  Whatever, in time, it came to me.  The whole premise of the question is flawed.  Do I hope that Obama succeeds?  Do I hope that Obama fails?  What the hell?

Now, of course, I know the problem with the question; and my answer.  This thing about succeeding or failing has nothing to do with The Chairman.  The fact that a Dem or a Repub is in the White House really isn’t the issue.  The fact is this, I want ME, ME ME ME ME to succeed.  I want to be able to strike out and make a life for me and my family.  In the process, I would like it if you could also have a shot at the same life.  Cause in the end, we are al inter-connected.  And so yeah, if I am to succeed, then you kinda have’ta too.

In short, I hope that America succeeds.  And to that end, in that I am convinced that The Chairman’s ways of looking at life, at government, at right and wrong, fair and unfair, is flawed.  And so yeah, I hope that America continues to move forward, to lead the way and shine forth as an example of all that’s good in the world.

I just don’t think that Obama’s method is going to do that for us.

And so it is that I have to answer:

I am for America succeeding, and so it is that Obama’s plan must be fought at every opportunity.  For the good of America.