House passes a raise in the Minimum Wage

[RBH]

In case there was any doubt.

The ayes were 315, the nays were 116, with 233 Dems and 82 Republicans voting aye and 116 Republicans voting nay.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, a majority of the House Republicans voted against something that has around 83-86% support? What a bunch of crazy extremists.

BTW, even more Republicans voted against in on 2 earlier procedural votes. Some of those 82 were against the bill, but too afraid to stand up to 83-86% of America on the actual vote.

[The Dowager Mod]

Was the gift for big bussiness that Bush wanted in there?

[bullmoose88]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

[bullmoose88]

yeah yeah...I'm assuming senate passage

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

[bullmoose88]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

It does kind of demolish the "raising the minimum wage will mean fewer jobs" argument.

[Gabu]

Was the gift for big bussiness that Bush wanted in there?

Anybody know the answer to this?  I was wondering it, myself.

[RBH]

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=18

The entire Alabama delegation voted Aye. 3 of 4 Kentucky Republicans voted Aye. The only Virginia Republicans voting nay were Drake, Davis, and Cantor. Jean Schmidt voted aye.

315 to 116, or as we call it in some parts.. an ass-stompin

[bullmoose88]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

It does kind of demolish the "raising the minimum wage will mean fewer jobs" argument.

Unless...there were other factors in the early 1950s which set the ground for an economic boom/upswing which would mean more jobs. In which case, the minimum wage could have dampened the increase in jobs/economic strength.

So what you just said is not necessarily true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

It does kind of demolish the "raising the minimum wage will mean fewer jobs" argument.

Unless...there were other factors in the early 1950s which set the ground for an economic boom/upswing which would mean more jobs. In which case, the minimum wage could have dampened the increase in jobs/economic strength.

So what you just said is not necessarily true.

Statistically, if the minimum wage had hurt job growth during those 12 months, then some 12 month period from the previous 56 years should have beaten those 12 months.

[bullmoose88]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

It does kind of demolish the "raising the minimum wage will mean fewer jobs" argument.

Unless...there were other factors in the early 1950s which set the ground for an economic boom/upswing which would mean more jobs. In which case, the minimum wage could have dampened the increase in jobs/economic strength.

So what you just said is not necessarily true.

Statistically, if the minimum wage had hurt job growth during those 12 months, then some 12 month period from the previous 56 years should have beaten those 12 months.

Not necessarily hurt, but may have dampened (less positive).

That said...you still haven't proved causation...what is shown so far is a remarkable coincidence..which also coincides with say, the US economy finally reverting into a peacetime economy following world war II (a period where the United States was one of, if not the, biggest creditor nation in the world)...soldiers continuing to return to private work...high demand for US goods, both domestically and abroad (cough, Europe)

For the most part (yes I'm aware that during Ike's presidency there were a few recessions) the 1950s were a pretty decent period in US economic history...

Perhaps the minimum wage caused the job boom...or perhaps it simply acted as a hidden dampening effect which kept the job increase numbers from being even higher...or perhaps it had no effect...

But there's no proof presented here that it caused/positively contributed to the increase of jobs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meh.

I'm not convinced this will do a lick of good, (I'm inclined to think it will do more harm actually.)

But its a feel good measure that Bush will likely sign and call as his own achievement.

Hopefully it turns out to help people, and that people see through that Texas moron. But doubtful on both counts.

The minimum wage is the lowest in real dollars since Jan. 1950. There was a huge increase then (something like 60-80%), and the following year had a higher percentage rate of increase in the number of jobs than any year since. How can you argue with that?

You're not going to argue causation on those bare facts are you?

It does kind of demolish the "raising the minimum wage will mean fewer jobs" argument.

Unless...there were other factors in the early 1950s which set the ground for an economic boom/upswing which would mean more jobs. In which case, the minimum wage could have dampened the increase in jobs/economic strength.

So what you just said is not necessarily true.

Statistically, if the minimum wage had hurt job growth during those 12 months, then some 12 month period from the previous 56 years should have beaten those 12 months.

Not necessarily hurt, but may have dampened (less positive).

That said...you still haven't proved causation...what is shown so far is a remarkable coincidence..which also coincides with say, the US economy finally reverting into a peacetime economy following world war II (a period where the United States was one of, if not the, biggest creditor nation in the world)...soldiers continuing to return to private work...high demand for US goods, both domestically and abroad (cough, Europe)

For the most part (yes I'm aware that during Ike's presidency there were a few recessions) the 1950s were a pretty decent period in US economic history...

Perhaps the minimum wage caused the job boom...or perhaps it simply acted as a hidden dampening effect which kept the job increase numbers from being even higher...or perhaps it had no effect...

But there's no proof presented here that it caused/positively contributed to the increase of jobs.

This was the Truman administration, which better jobwise than the Ike adminstration.

[bullmoose88]

I'm aware...it was Truman (until early 1953).

Look, philosophically I'm against the minimum wage, but if it works, it works...keep it, use it as long as it promotes/maintains prosperty.

But no real evidence that it does yet.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm aware...it was Truman (until early 1953).

Look, philosophically I'm against the minimum wage, but if it works, it works...keep it, use it as long as it promotes/maintains prosperty.

But no real evidence that it does yet.

One could see if there is a correlation between the fraction of the labor pool that is employed and the inflation adjusted minimum wage, but I think that it's pretty good evidence that the 12 months following the largest increase in the minimum wage haven't been beaten for (percentage) increase in jobs in the 56 years since.

[bullmoose88]

I'm aware...it was Truman (until early 1953).

Look, philosophically I'm against the minimum wage, but if it works, it works...keep it, use it as long as it promotes/maintains prosperty.

But no real evidence that it does yet.

One could see if there is a correlation between the fraction of the labor pool that is employed and the inflation adjusted minimum wage, but I think that it's pretty good evidence that the 12 months following the largest increase in the minimum wage haven't been beaten for (percentage) increase in jobs in the 56 years since.

And what about other minimum wage increases? (I'm fairly sure the 1997 might have the same issues as the 1950 increase...but the ones in between?)

I'm just not sold on the idea...(for reasons I mentioned here and the other thread which must be a few pages back by now)