Sanely free of McCarthyite calling anyone a "traitor" since 2001!
Commenting Rules: Only comments that are courteous and respectful of other commenters will be allowed. Period. You must register to post; this takes about thirty seconds, and you need give no information other than a name/handle you will be known by; just stick gibberish into the line about creating a blog, and forget about it; you'll be done in under 30 seconds.
Also: posting a spam-type URL will be grounds for deletion. Comments on posts over two months old are now closed.
I'm underemployed (historically particularly as an editor in book and magazine publishing), recurringly housebound with insanely painful now-sporadic (when I have meds) gout, an enlarged heart, and other health problems, particularly including lifelong recurring severe clinical depression. See here for a major crisis. I'm also sometimes available to some degree as a paid writer or researcher. This is a previous update on my situation & this -- and this from December 19th, 2005 update.
If you like my blog, and would like to help keep me find and stay in a new place long enough to get my disability claim approved, and maybe even afford food and prescriptions --
you are welcome to do so via the PayPal button. In return: free blog! Thank you muchly muchly. Only you can help! (I'll just handle preventing forest fires while you're busy for a moment.) So. LATEST UPDATES here and here.
New Option! Show your support by subscribing for $5/mo.! Free koala bear included! They're so cute!
Additional new options! $25/month Supporter subscription!
$50/month Patron subscription!
"The brain is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include With ease, and you beside"
-- Emily Dickinson
"We will pursue peace as if there is no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there is no peace."
-- Yitzhak Rabin
"I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be."
-- Alexander Hamilton
"The stakes are too high for government to be a spectator sport."
-- Barbara Jordan
"Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to
trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule --
and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-- H. L. Mencken
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt
"The only completely consistent people are the dead."
-- Aldous Huxley
"I have had my solutions for a long time; but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them."
-- Karl F. Gauss
"Whatever evils either reason or declamation have imputed to extensive empire,
the power of Rome was attended with some beneficial consequences to mankind;
and the same freedom of intercourse which extended the vices, diffused likewise
the improvements of social life."
-- Edward Gibbon
"Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his
expectation, that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were
respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom."
-- Edward Gibbon
"There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify
the evils, of the present times."
-- Edward Gibbon
"Our youth now loves luxuries. They have bad manners, contempt for authority.
They show disrespect for elders and they
love to chatter instead of exercise.
Children are now tyrants, not the servants, of their households. They
no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up their food, and tyrannize
their teachers."
-- Socrates
"Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments."
-- Sidney Hook
"Idealism, alas, does not protect one from ignorance, dogmatism, and foolishness."
-- Sidney Hook
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"We take, and must continue to take, morally hazardous actions to preserve our civilization.
We must exercise our power. But we ought neither to believe that a nation is capable of perfect
disinterestedness in its exercise, nor become complacent about particular degrees of interest
and passion which corrupt the justice by which the exercise of power is legitimized."
-- Reinhold Niebuhr
"Faced with the choice of all the land without a Jewish state or a Jewish state without all the
land, we chose a Jewish state without all the land."
-- David Ben-Gurion
"...the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him
an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this
or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages
to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also
to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing,
with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess
and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such
temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the
opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion
and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their
ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of
judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square
with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil
government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if
left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her
natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is
permitted freely to contradict them.
-- Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson
"We don't live just by ideas. Ideas are part of the mixture of customs and practices,
intuitions and instincts that make human life a conscious activity susceptible to
improvement or debasement. A radical idea may be healthy as a provocation;
a temperate idea may be stultifying. It depends on the circumstances. One of the most
tiresome arguments against ideas is that their "tendency" is to some dire condition --
to totalitarianism, or to moral relativism, or to a war of all against all."
-- Louis Menand
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
-- Dante Alighieri
"He too serves a certain purpose who only stands and cheers."
-- Henry B. Adams
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge."
-- Anatole France
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
-- Edmund Burke
"Education does not mean that we have become certified experts in business or mining or botany or journalism or epistemology;
it means that through the absorption of the moral, intellectual, and esthetic inheritance of the race we have come to
understand and control ourselves as well as the external world; that we have chosen the best as our associates both in spirit
and the flesh; that we have learned to add courtesy to culture, wisdom to knowledge, and forgiveness to understanding."
-- Will Durant
"Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is
but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest
winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore?"
-- Herman Melville
"The most important political office is that of the private citizen."
-- Louis D. Brandeis
"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."
-- Louis D. Brandeis
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-- Louis D. Brandeis
"It is an error to suppose that books have no influence; it is a slow influence, like flowing water carving out a canyon,
but it tells more and more with every year; and no one can pass an hour a day in the society of sages and heroes without
being lifted up a notch or two by the company he has kept."
-- Will Durant
"When you write, you’re trying to transpose what you’re thinking into something that is less like an annoying drone and more like a piece of music."
-- Louis Menand
"Sex is a continuum."
-- Gore Vidal
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802.
"The sum of our religion is peace and unanimity, but these can scarcely stand unless we define as little as possible,
and in many things leave one free to follow his own judgment, because there is great obscurity in many matters, and
man suffers from this almost congenital disease that he will not give in when once a controversy is started, and
after he is heated he regards as absolutely true that which he began to sponsor quite casually...."
-- Desiderius Erasmus
"Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule of what we are to read, and what we must disbelieve?"
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to N. G. Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller, 1814
"We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort,
are 'objectively' aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism. Trotskyists are often credited, at any rate by Communists, with being active and conscious agents of Hitler; but when you point out the many and obvious reasons why this is unlikely to be true,
the 'objectively' line of talk is brought forward again. To criticize the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore 'Trotskyism is Fascism'. And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated.
This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions."
-- George Orwell, "As I Please," Tribune, 8 December 1944
"Wouldn't this be a great world if insecurity and desperation made us more attractive? If 'needy' were a turn-on?"
-- "Aaron Altman," Broadcast News
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
-- Lewis Thomas
"To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child. For what is man's lifetime unless the memory of past events is woven with those of earlier times?"
-- Cicero
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."
-- Samuel Johnson, Life Of Johnson
"Very well, what did my critics say in attacking my character? I must read out their affidavit, so to speak, as though they were my legal accusers: Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling, in that he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example."
-- Socrates, via Plato, The Republic
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself."
-- Lois McMaster Bujold, A Civil Campaign
"Remember, Robin: evil is a pretty bad thing."
-- Batman
"Being evil is not a full-time job."
-- James Lileks
Gary Farber is now a licensed Double Super-Secret Master Pundit.
He does not always refer to himself in the third person.
Did he mention he was presently single?
The lutefisk is dead. Donate via the donation button on the top left
or I'll shoot this gefilte fish.
No, really, I seriously need the help at present. And I hate asking.
Current Total # of Donations Since Blog Began: 606
Subscribers to date at $5/month: 30 sign-ups; 22 cancellations; Total= 8
Supporter subscribers to date at $25/month: 7 sign-ups; 3 cancellation; Total= 4
Patron subscribers to date at $50/month: 10 sign-ups; 6 cancellations; Total= 4
And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
Farber's First Fundamental of Blogging:
If your idea of making an insightful point is to make fun of people's
names, or refer to them by rilly clever labels such as "The Big Me" or "The Shrub,"
chances are high that I'm not reading your blog. The same applies if you refer
to a group of people by disparaging terms such as "the Donks" or "the pals." (Note: I have to say I don't give that much of a damn any more.)
Farber's Second Fundamental of Blogging:
The more interested you are in scoring a "point" for a political "team," a "side," than in exploring the validity or value of an idea, the less interested I am in what you're saying.
(Note: Partially suspended for the Duration. Later note: forget I ever said this.)
Farber's Third Fundamental of Blogging:
If you see a link on another blog, and use it, credit the blog.
Some places I go:
[weblogs, sites, and columns]
People I've known and still miss include Isaac Asimov, rich brown, Charles Burbee, F. M. "Buzz" Busby, Terry Carr, A. Vincent Clarke, George Alec Effinger,
Bill & Sherry Fesselmeyer, George Flynn, John Milo "Mike" Ford. John Foyster, Jay Haldeman, Chuch Harris, Mike Hinge, Lee Hoffman, Terry Hughes, Damon Knight, Ross Pavlac, Bruce Pelz, Elmer Perdue, Tom Perry,
Larry Propp, Bill Rotsler, Art Saha, Bob Shaw, Martin Smith, Harry Stubbs, Bob Tucker, Harry Warner, Jr., Jack Williamson, Walter A. Willis, Susan Wood, Kate Worley, and Roger Zelazny.
It's just a start.
And She of whom I must write someday.
You Like Me, You Really Like Me
...Darn: I saw that Gary had commented on this thread, and thought: oh. my. god. Perfect storm. Unstoppable cannonball, immovable object.
-- Hilzoy
Guessing that Gary is ignorant of anything that has ever been written down is, in my experience, unwise.
Just saying.
-- Hilzoy
Where would the blogosphere be without the Guardian? Guardian fish-barreling is now a venerable tradition. Yet even within this tradition, I don't believe there has ever been a more extensive and thorough essay than this one, from Gary Farber's fine blog. Gary appears to have examined every single thing that Guardian/Observer columnist Mary Ridell has ever written. He ties it all together, reaches inevitable conclusion. An archive can be a weapon.
-- Dr. Frank
Isn't Gary a cracking blogger, apropos of nothing in particular?
-- Alison Scott
I usually read you and Patrick several times a day, and I always get something from them. You've got great links, intellectually honest commentary, and a sense of humor. What's not to like?
-- Ted Barlow
...writer[s] I find myself checking out repeatedly when I'm in the mood to play follow-the-links. They're not all people I agree with all the time, or even most of the time, but I've found them all to be thoughtful writers, and that's the important thing, or should be.
-- Tom Tomorrow
Amygdala - So much stuff it reminds Unqualified Offerings that UO sometimes thinks of Gary Farber as "the liberal Instapundit." -- Jim Henley
I look at it almost every day. I can't follow all the links, but I read most of your pieces. The blog format really seems to suit you. It also suits me; I am not a news junkie, so having smart people like you ferret out the interesting stuff and leave it where I can find it is wonderful.
-- Lydia Nickerson
Gary is certainly a non-idiotarian 'liberal'...
-- Perry deHaviland
...the thoughtful and highly intelligent Gary Farber... My first reaction was that I definitely need to appease Gary Farber of Amygdala, one of the geniuses of our age.
-- Brad deLong
My friend Gary Farber at Amygdala is the sort of liberal for whom I happily give three cheers. [...] Damned incisive blogging....
-- Midwest Conservative Journal
If I ever start a paper, Clueless writes the foreign affairs column, Layne handles the city beat, Welch has the roving-reporter job, Tom Tomorrow runs the comic section (which carries Treacher, of course). MediaMinded runs the slots - that's the type of editor I want as the last line of defense. InstantMan runs the edit page - and you can forget about your Ivins and Wills and Friedmans and Teepens on the edit page - it's all Blair, VodkaP, C. Johnson, Aspara, Farber, Galt, and a dozen other worthies, with Justin 'I am smoking in such a provocative fashion' Raimondo tossed in for balance and comic relief.
Who wouldn't buy that paper? Who wouldn't want to read it? Who wouldn't climb over their mother to be in it?
-- James Lileks
Gary is a perceptive, intelligent, nice guy. Some of the stuff he comes up with is insightful, witty, and stimulating. And sometimes he manages to make me groan.
-- Charlie Stross
One of my issues with many poli-blogs is the dickhead tone so many bloggers affect to express their sense of righteous indignation. Gary Farber's thoughtful leftie takes on the world stand in sharp contrast with the usual rhetorical bullying. Plus, he likes "Pogo," which clearly attests to his unassaultable good taste.
-- oakhaus.com
Gary Farber is a principled liberal....
-- Bill Quick, The Daily Pundit
I read Amygdala...with regularity, as do all sensible websurfers.
-- Jim Henley, Unqualified Offerings
Okay, he is annoying, but he still posts a lot of good stuff.
-- Avedon Carol, The Sideshow
The only trouble with reading Amygdala is that it makes me feel like such a slacker. That Man Farber's a linking, posting, commenting machine, I tell you!
-- John Robinson, Sore Eyes
Jaysus. I saw him do something like this before, on a thread about Israel. It was pretty brutal. It's like watching one of those old WWF wrestlers grab an opponent's
face and grind away until the guy starts crying. I mean that in a nice & admiring way, you know.
-- Fontana Labs, Unfogged
We read you Gary Farber! We read you all the time! Its just that we are lazy with our blogroll. We are so very very lazy. We are always the last ones to the party but we always have snazzy bow ties.
-- Fafnir, Fafblog!
Gary Farber you are a genius of mad scientist proportions. I will bet there are like huge brains growin in jars all over your house.
-- Fafnir, Fafblog!
Gary Farber is the hardest working man in show blog business. He's like a young Gene Hackman blogging with his hair on fire, or something.
-- Belle Waring, John & Belle Have A Blog
I bow before the shrillitudinousness of Gary Farber, who has been blogging like a fiend.
-- Ted Barlow, Crooked Timber
Gary Farber only has two blogging modes: not at all, and 20 billion interesting posts a day [...] someone on the interweb whose opinions I can trust....
-- Belle Waring, John & Belle Have A Blog
Gary Farber! Jeez, the guy is practically a blogging legend, and I'm always surprised at the breadth of what he writes about.
-- PZ Meyers, Pharyngula
Gary Farber takes me to task, in a way befitting the gentleman he is.
-- Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
THE MINIMUM WAGE. Doctrinaire conservatives and libertarians and others who don't tend to actually live at or below the minimum wage constantly have a refrain that raising the minimum wage will cause employment to drop.
As it happens, since I'm for a negative income tax, and unemployment compensation, I'm okay with that.
But it's also not even in accord with reality; merely, as is the case with much dogma, abstract theory that doesn't reflect reality. Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute writes about what many have written before:
[...] Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.
This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don't want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it's ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people's taxes but deny the working poor a boost.
[...]
Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains. When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire's tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20. Sorry, that's not a typo.
[...]
Oh, and you raised your own pay by $3,300. In fact, you've raised your own salaries by about $35,000 since the last minimum wage increase.
But when it comes to raising the minimum wage, you pull the bill.
Let's review a few facts. The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 since September 1, 1997. Come this December, you will tie the longest spell on record for ignoring the labor market's wage floor (i.e., the Reagan years, from 1981 to 1990, when Bush I signed an increase). And since it is not adjusted for inflation, its buying power has eroded by 25% since then.
That's why the current minimum wage, in real terms, is at its lowest value since 1955. Compared to the average wage, it's at 31%, the lowest level on record going back to 1947, meaning those stuck at or near the minimum wage are falling further behind the rest of us.
As always, your rationale for not raising the minimum is that it would hurt low-wage workers, whose employers would have to fire them when the wage mandate priced them out of the labor market (one can't help but note that this concern doesn't come up when you mandate your own pay hikes).
That would be a plausible argument, were it not for the fact that tons of careful research has disproved it. The federal minimum wage has been raised 19 times by Congress since its introduction in 1938. Eighteen states, covering about half of the national workforce, have minimum wages above that of the Federal level. And over 100 cities have living wages--a higher minimum that applies to workers on city contracts or at firms with local government subsidies.
In other words, more than any economic policy, we've had hundreds of "pseudo-experiments"--rare in economics--that allow us to test the impact of wage mandates on various outcomes. These experiments allow us to compare before and after, or, even better, compare nearby places that face similar economic conditions but have different minimum wage laws.
The question that has received the most scrutiny is whether increases in the minimum wage lead employers to lay workers off. You probably don't want to hear the results from me, but here's how Nobel laureate in economics, Robert Solow, put it: "The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small."
A great example comes from the last Federal minimum wage increase, back in 1996-97. The usual suspects predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase from $4.25 to the current level of $5.15. Instead, low-wage workers experienced the strongest job market in 30 years. Poverty fell to historic lows, particularly for the most disadvantaged workers, such as less-skilled minorities and single-mothers.
On the other hand, there no such body of evidence supporting your claims that cutting taxes for the rich actually accomplishes anything beyond distributing wealth up to the scale. Did I mention that profits as a share of national income are at a 39-year high?
But why let facts get in the way of engrained dogma?
Read The Rest Scale: 2.5 out of 5.
ADDENDUM, 6/20/06, 12:16 p.m., aside from forgetting to pre-empt the ridiculous "so why don't you favor the minimum wage being $50/hr., huh!? Huh?!?" (answer: because I'm not a moron) bit, I also forgot to mention that I favor tieing Congressional pay raises to the minimum wage; can't raise the former without proportionally raising the latter.
ADDENDUM, 6/20/06, 5:35 p.m.: The WSJ reports on the political popularity of raising the wage.
"This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don't want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it's ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people's taxes but deny the working poor a boost."
Is there some connection between the two policies? Will minimum wage increase if we increase taxes on the wealthy? This is just demogoguery.
I suspect the reason minimum wage hikes are fairly painless is because the increases lag well behind market trends. Example; my wife runs a store for national retail chain in Denver. This company hires entry level employees at $6 an hour, a healthy 17% over minimum wage, but the lowest wage I'm aware of in this area. These employees are probably the least hirable members of the workforce, mostly immigrant women, many middle aged with poor English proficiency. Why don't they hire at the legal minimum wage? Because the market has made the de facto minimum wage much higher. They simply can't get any applicants at a lower wage.
Obviously, if the legal minimum were raised to $6 it would make little difference to this company. Even a bit above that would be tolerable. But what if minimum wage were raised to, say, $50 per hour? Does anyone think that would be sound move?
"On the other hand, there no such body of evidence supporting your claims that cutting taxes for the rich actually accomplishes anything beyond distributing wealth up to the scale. Did I mention that profits as a share of national income are at a 39-year high?"
That's worse than a non sequitur. If profits are up that benefits a lot of people, not just the the rich. If there is a connection between tax cuts and profits it would be an argument in favor of tax cuts, no? But to make that argument you would have to acknowledge the Laffer curve to be in play, and that higher taxes hurt profits. (an argument unsupported, even contrary to the author's intent)
"But what if minimum wage were raised to, say, $50 per hour?"
Darn. I had totally meant to put in a line pre-empting this cliche, since it's absolutely 1000% predictable that someone will raise this absurdity if one doesn't, but I forgot.
Yes, it is an absurd rate, and the point should be raised every time minimum wage is discussed. It points out that there is clearly a minimum wage rate at which the economy suffers damage.
For a more, ah, nuanced set of arguments about minimum wage there is an interesting set of links here:
"Yes, it is an absurd rate, and the point should be raised every time minimum wage is discussed."
Only if one believes one is arguing with a complete moron, and is correct; if not, suggesting that one's interlocuter is a complete moron may not be helpful. It's not a contested point. Thus it's irrelevant.
The point isn't contested? Perhaps not by you. Were you king, what rate would you choose for a federal minimum wage? I'm guessing we'll disagree on whether the wage you pick would be helpful or harmful.
I'm not convinced Mr. Bernstein isn't a moron, and his article isn't up to Amygdala standards.
Were I king, I'd hire a panel of economists -- perhaps I'd call them my "Council of Economic Advisors," and pick as close to a consensus number as I could find.
I've not done sufficient research to want to pick a precise figure for the nation for now (and obviously there are merits to also, as we do, letting States set their own supplementary figures reflecting local conditions). But certainly no less than $7 and change. I'd only be guessing at what a sensible ceiling for a possible minimum wage would be, but I'm assuming that it certainly wouldn't be more than ~$12/hr (almost certainly less).
I don't know anyone who thinks it makes any sense to simply set a minimum wage as high as one would like. No one. If you can find an economist or reputable politician who does, please let me know.
I'd be surprised, because I'd undoubtedly exercise my prejudices in whom I appointed, and while I'd be happy to hear the argument, I doubt the majority of my appointees would agree.
Likely one of them would be Brad deLong (though possibly only if he didn't interrupt people in blog comments).
It's possible that if Congress agreed to a strong and subtantial negative income tax, that I wouldn't see a need for for a minimum wage, though.
Walter, should a full-time job pay enough to allow a small household to stay above the poverty line?
If your answer is 'yes', then the minimum wage needs to be set high enough to enable that to happen.
The bill being debated in the Senate right this minute does that.
If your answer is 'no', then what the **** is the point of working? Why should people have to work more than eight-hour days just to stay out of desperate circumstances?
I blogged about minimum wage a few days ago, myself.
Well sure, but 'the market' sounds rather impersonal, doesn't it? What we're really talking about is a relationship between individuals. Example; I'd really like to find an at-home caretaker for the twins, since both of us parents work. I'm not wealthy, in fact I've worked (by choice) more than my share of jobs on the minimum wage end of the scale. So I can't afford to pay much, maybe not even minimum wage if I broke it down by hour. But if someone wants to do it, why should we be denied the opportunity to do so? The choice is either hire a nanny at a possibly illegal wage, or hire no one at all. The reasons someone might take such employment are myriad, and really no one's business except hers. (or his)
What I've described above is the market at work. When government steps in to that situation both sides lose.
BTW, we did have a wonderful elderly woman helping us for a while, when the twins were infants. They've grown to where she can't keep up with them. You can guess as to why she would want to do the job.
Walter, the national minimum wage applies to those employers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and it, of course, exempts individual household employers. Straw man argument.
There's also a number of other categories of exempted workers, such as workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners, and workers under 20 under some circumstances.
Given that we're going to have a minimum wage law, what do you think of my (and many others') idea of tying it to Congressional wage hikes?
"Domestic employees have been covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act since 1974 and must be paid at least the Federal minimum wage, currently $5.15 (effective 9/1/97). If your state imposes a minimum wage higher than the Federal minimum, the state amount is in effect."
No matter, the dynamic I've described applies to businesses as well. The question remains, why should the government intercede in mutually beneficial relationships?
"Domestic service workers such as day workers, housekeepers, chauffeurs, cooks, or full-time babysitters are covered if: (1) their cash wages from one employer in cal-endar year 2004 are at least $1,400. (Different amounts would be designated in other calendar years, pursuant to an adjustment provision in the Internal Revenue Code); or (2) they work a total of more than 8 hours a weekfor one or more employers."
I thought you were talking about occasional babysitting, not a full-time or semi-full-time employee that you're paying thousands of dollars to.
"The question remains, why should the government intercede in mutually beneficial relationships?"
I'd concede that there are some cases where individuals are worse off. But all general rules have that problem; we have to decide if the overall effect is sufficiently beneficial or not. Possibly you also feel there should be no child labor laws, no restrictions on how many hours can be worked per week at all, no safety regulations, and no food health regulations, just for starters, as well, since the same or similar questions can be asked of all of those.
But there are entirely sound historical reasons that demonstrate why, historically, laissez-faire has worked out to cause tremendous human suffering and death. You're making the same objections that were made after, say, the Triangle Fire inspired some of the early work laws in America. Hey, people's right to work in death traps, and owners rights to have death traps, were infringed. And making work-places safer cost money, and doubtlessly a few people weren't employed. Or burned alive.
