News Newt Gingrich Calls for Repeal of Child Labor Laws in Impoverished Areas

[Char. Limit]

Newt Gingrich: "Child labor laws are stupid"

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, in child laws, which are truly stupid,” he said.

”I tried for years to have a very simple model,” he continued. “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they’d have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-child-labor-20111121,0,6466282.story

Please tell me this is a parody or I'm misunderstanding him or SOMETHING. Cause the way I read it, he wants to repeal CHILD LABOR LAWS.

 

[dacruick]

Hmm, upon reading that article I'm not too sure how literally I'd like to take it. Getting rid of child labor laws is a pretty stupid idea, and having children as janitors is also stupid, but I'm not sure his concept is as flawed as how he chose to exemplify it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

"Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday"

Show up to school or show up to work?

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - Newt is going to be a great Vice President - (Romney-Gingrich 2012).

Hopefully they stage a 4 man debate:

Obama/Biden vs Romney/Gingrich

...a real cage match...last man standing type of event.

 

[Char. Limit]

IMO - Newt is going to be a great Vice President - (Romney-Gingrich 2012).

Hopefully they stage a 4 man debate:

Obama/Biden vs Romney/Gingrich

...a real cage match...last man standing type of event.

You support the repeal of child labor laws then?

 

[Proton Soup]

You support the repeal of child labor laws then?

i was able to work at 16. we had laws. what EXACTLY are you asking? Newt says in your quote he wants a simple model. one assumes he doesn't like the law as is and wants to change it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually child labor laws as written (the ones Newt calls stupid) allow children as young as 14 to work under special circumstances. Given that, I'm forced to believe that he wants children younger than 14 to work. Say, 12, or maybe 8.

And... you know, those child labor laws were written in for a reason. They're created because children aren't supposed to be working at 12, or 8. And I can't support a candidate who believes those laws should be gotten rid of... apparently so we can get rid of janitorial unions.

As an aside, every single reform since 1900, I've seen challenged by Republicans now. Child labor laws? Newt's against them. Income tax? Against it! Social security? Against it! Medicare? Against it! Progressive tax laws? Against them! Glass-Steagall? Against it! Roe v. Wade? Against it!

 

[rootX]

I would have loved to work as a Janitor. This should also be done in colleges

 

[WhoWee]

You support the repeal of child labor laws then?

Newt was making a point that unions have priced themselves out of the market at the expense of people willing to do the same job for less money. He's not suggesting we return to the age of sweatshops and Cannery Row.

Full disclosure, I've owned a number of small businesses - including restaurants. IMO - small/micro businesses (less than $500,000 revenues) should be allowed to hire younger teenagers at a sub-minimum wage - perhaps $5.00/hour. A school work permit is still important, along with parental consent, and the work shift hours and total hours should be restricted - maybe 20 hours per week. Small businesses have a need for young workers, the business model provides good experience, occupied time might keep the same kids out of trouble, and the kids put money in their pockets.

 

[Proton Soup]

Actually child labor laws as written (the ones Newt calls stupid) allow children as young as 14 to work under special circumstances. Given that, I'm forced to believe that he wants children younger than 14 to work. Say, 12, or maybe 8.

And... you know, those child labor laws were written in for a reason. They're created because children aren't supposed to be working at 12, or 8. And I can't support a candidate who believes those laws should be gotten rid of... apparently so we can get rid of janitorial unions.

As an aside, every single reform since 1900, I've seen challenged by Republicans now. Child labor laws? Newt's against them. Income tax? Against it! Social security? Against it! Medicare? Against it! Progressive tax laws? Against them! Glass-Steagall? Against it! Roe v. Wade? Against it!

it all sounds very dire! i think child labor laws were passed to keep kids out of factories all day. but what if they spend 15 minutes picking up trash at the school? or even an hour? is that what child labor laws are written to prevent? why would that be a bad thing?

 

[Evo]

it all sounds very dire! i think child labor laws were passed to keep kids out of factories all day. but what if they spend 15 minutes picking up trash at the school? or even an hour? is that what child labor laws are written to prevent? why would that be a bad thing?

Depends if the law was written that way, no?

 

[Proton Soup]

Depends if the law was written that way, no?

does anyone really think newt is suggesting full time child janitors?

 

[BobG]

I think there has to be restrictions on when/how many hours/what type of jobs kids can have, but the current restrictions are too strict.

Labor laws for 14 & 15 year olds are mildly too restrictive. 7 PM is too early a limit - 10 PM would be a better limit if the number of nights one could work until 10 were limited. 18 hours is slightly too restrictive, but not enough to raise a ruckus (I don't think an upper limit of 25 hours would unreasonable, either).

Children under 14 should be allowed to work and 7 PM would be a reasonable limit for 12 year olds. I think I'd set the total hours a little less than 18 hours, though.

Working an hour or two after school performing some of the janitorial services would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[klimatos]

Working an hour or two after school performing some of the janitorial services would be perfectly acceptable.

You might think so, but in reality I doubt if either the parents or the school board would think so after they heard from their respective insurance companies. Accidents will happen, and the costs of the consequential insurance claims and the attendant lawsuits would be staggering.

 

[AlephZero]

Accidents will happen, and the costs of the consequential insurance claims and the attendant lawsuits would be staggering.

The most effective solution to that would be to get rid of say 90% of the USA's insurance brokers and lawyers, as well as the janitors. Learning to take some personal resposibility for yourself, and other people, never did anybody any harm IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

The most effective solution to that would be to get rid of say 90% of the USA's insurance brokers and lawyers, as well as the janitors. Learning to take some personal resposibility for yourself, and other people, never did anybody any harm IMO.

How often does an insurance company cover the losses of their client - when a third party is responsible for damages and either won't pay or doesn't have an ability to pay? Insurance is the transference of risk - nothing more.

 

[lisab]

It's all moot, since there aren't enough jobs for young people who can legally work.

The number of unemployed youth* in July 2011 was 4.1 million, down from 4.4 million a year ago. The youth unemployment rate declined by 1.0 percentage point over the year to 18.1 percent in July 2011, after hitting a record high for July in 2010.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

*Youth = 16- to 24-year-olds

I think the Dems are salivating at the prospects of Newt on the ticket .

 

[DoggerDan]

I don't see that he's trying to repeal child labor laws. He's saying the way they're written today is pretty stupid, and I agree with him.

On a related front, the U.S. Dept of Labor is seeking to radically change child labor laws regarding farms. Essentially, kids would no longer be allowed to work on any farm except their own. I think that's pretty stupid, too.

 

[WhoWee]

It's all moot, since there aren't enough jobs for young people who can legally work.


http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

*Youth = 16- to 24-year-olds

I think the Dems are salivating at the prospects of Newt on the ticket .

Actually, there are jobs available for young people that have been priced out of the market. If a small shop needs someone to sweep, mop, take the trash out, wash windows, and maybe stock a bit - time 2 hours per day At $5.00 per hour there is a job available. At minimum wage at $7.25 to $7.40 per hour (try to find an adult to work for 2 hours) the owner will do the work themselves.

Ask any small business owner in America if the minimum wage has affected their hiring and scheduling decisions.

 

[D H]

I think the Dems are salivating at the prospects of Newt on the ticket .

I think the Dems are salivating in general. By all rights this upcoming Presidential election should belong to the Republicans. So what do they do to ensure that the election is theirs? Apparently, the Republican strategy is to field one of the weakest and least palatable set of candidates ever.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the Dems are salivating in general. By all rights this upcoming Presidential election should belong to the Republicans. So what do they do to ensure that the election is theirs? Apparently, the Republican strategy is to field one of the weakest and least palatable set of candidates ever.

The Republicans keep making the same mistake - this thread is the latest example (IMO) - rule of thumb -when your opponent is down - keep them down.

The trend started after the 2010 elections when the Dems were on the ropes. Instead of holding the Dems accountable for their failed policies and spending - out of the blue - Paul Ryan introduced a plan that rallied the Democrat base and opened the door to a Medicare debate - resulting in commercials with him pushing granny off a cliff.

Lately, the Republicans have all bought into the need for a "jobs bill" - when they should be busy on tax reform and reduced regulations. My favorite is the "Bush Tax Cuts" - Obama demonized them for months - then took ownership and called them his own - now they're demonized again and re-labeled as the "Bush Tax Cuts" (and the Republicans and the media never call the Dems on the point).

Another point they've snookered each other and the public on is the "payroll tax cut". Is there anyone in the US that actually believes reducing contributions to Social Security is either a long term solution to the program's solvency or a "jobs" creator?

IMO - all the Repubs need to do is focus on the failures of Obama to win. If they introduce new ideas that Obama can run against (Demonize) - they will lose.

As long as Romney doesn't buy into any of these traps and nobody attempts a third party run (Palin/Trump/Paul/Bachmann/Cain) - he should win.

Obama is back on the ropes again - even CNN has been talking about a lack of leadership with respect to the failure of the "Super Committee" - we'll see which knucklehead Repub let's him slip away this time.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I agree completely. The idea of running on your own program is outdated. The way to run these days is to criticize your opponent while saying as little as possible about what you believe in.

 

[AlephZero]

Obama is back on the ropes again - even CNN has been talking about a lack of leadership with respect to the failure of the "Super Committee" - we'll see which knucklehead Repub let's him slip away this time.

Since when has "kicking something into the long grass till after the next election" been a bad political strategy?

Bad ecomonics, probably yes. Bad for the USA, probably yes. But not bad for the politicians.

 

[mege]

The Republicans keep making the same mistake - this thread is the latest example (IMO) - rule of thumb -when your opponent is down - keep them down.

The trend started after the 2010 elections when the Dems were on the ropes. Instead of holding the Dems accountable for their failed policies and spending - out of the blue - Paul Ryan introduced a plan that rallied the Democrat base and opened the door to a Medicare debate - resulting in commercials with him pushing granny off a cliff.

Lately, the Republicans have all bought into the need for a "jobs bill" - when they should be busy on tax reform and reduced regulations. My favorite is the "Bush Tax Cuts" - Obama demonized them for months - then took ownership and called them his own - now they're demonized again and re-labeled as the "Bush Tax Cuts" (and the Republicans and the media never call the Dems on the point).

Another point they've snookered each other and the public on is the "payroll tax cut". Is there anyone in the US that actually believes reducing contributions to Social Security is either a long term solution to the program's solvency or a "jobs" creator?

IMO - all the Repubs need to do is focus on the failures of Obama to win. If they introduce new ideas that Obama can run against (Demonize) - they will lose.

As long as Romney doesn't buy into any of these traps and nobody attempts a third party run (Palin/Trump/Paul/Bachmann/Cain) - he should win.

Obama is back on the ropes again - even CNN has been talking about a lack of leadership with respect to the failure of the "Super Committee" - we'll see which knucklehead Repub let's him slip away this time.

So, let me nievely paraphrase (I know better, but this is still an ironic way of looking at things): the Republicans have tried to comprimise, talk on the Democrat's terms, not play mud-slinging politics - but are still the bad guys in many eyes? I swear sometimes the leftist political machine has perfected the mind-control ray and is using it on the public. However, to play demon's advocate to the weak Presidential Candidate argument - I wonder if it is strategy to not place the blame on President Obama until the main campaign next summer/fall? Too many people get 'tired of mudslinging', so I wonder if this is a move to be fresh in people's mind come ballott time. President Obama hasn't missed a beat blaming the Republicans for anything he can while the current candidates are vague in blaming him for many issues.

More specifically on topic though - specifically about the available jobs, wouldn't relaxed laws regarding under-16s working limited hours actually create situations for them to work? Further on the youth unemployement rate, I don't think that a 9th grader (15 yo) is going to be competing with a College Junior (20 yo) for a job, if the policies were bent properly.

I may regret making this comment as it may be taken to the extreme, but on the surface extending middle/high school an hour and adding a 'work period' may not be a horrible thing (so as not to take away from current curriculum). Have the kids do some of the daily, safe, repetitious cleaning around the school that they're using - might impose some addition pride in the public property. Too bad this would probably never fly, and it would, of course, need to not compete with an already squeezed schedule.

 

[edward]

I don't see that he's trying to repeal child labor laws. He's saying the way they're written today is pretty stupid, and I agree with him.

On a related front, the U.S. Dept of Labor is seeking to radically change child labor laws regarding farms. Essentially, kids would no longer be allowed to work on any farm except their own. I think that's pretty stupid, too.

Do you have a link for that? I think it is related to the fact that there is no limit on the hours a 12 year old may work in agriculture.

http://www.ncccusa.org/publicwitness/mtolive/conditions.html

http://myportfolio.usc.edu/angelahc/2011/10/the_vicious_cycle_of_child_farm_workers.html

 

[drankin]

It's one thing to exploit children for labor, it's another thing to prevent them opportunity to work and make a wage as they develop into responsible adults. I was able to work for a wage as a child but my 16yr old son has no clue what it means to have a job. He's too young. At 16 you CAN work but by that age you are competing heavily with many demographics. We aren't a third world country. Let our children learn how to earn before they are adults. So, yeah, our current labor laws are too broad and a detriment to building work ethic in our youth.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-child-labor-20111121,0,6466282.story

Please tell me this is a parody or I'm misunderstanding him or SOMETHING. Cause the way I read it, he wants to repeal CHILD LABOR LAWS.

I wouldn't interpret what Gingrich said as advocating repealing laws which prohibit the exploitation of children. Nevertheless, what he's quoted/paraphrased as saying doesn't make much sense to me. Why would he advocate firing union workers who have families to support in order to hire kids at reduced wages who are already taken care of by their parents or guardians? What he's doing wrt these recent statements, it seems to me, is just reaffirming his alignment with moneyed interests in opposition to the interests of common employees.

 

[DoggerDan]

Do you have a link for that?

Did you make any attempt to search for it?

 

[ThomasT]

Actually, there are jobs available for young people that have been priced out of the market. If a small shop needs someone to sweep, mop, take the trash out, wash windows, and maybe stock a bit - time 2 hours per day At $5.00 per hour there is a job available. At minimum wage at $7.25 to $7.40 per hour (try to find an adult to work for 2 hours) the owner will do the work themselves.

I don't agree that a difference of a few dollars an hour for a few employees for five or six days a week makes any differerence at all to a small business.

Ask any small business owner in America if the minimum wage has affected their hiring and scheduling decisions.

I think that if the mimimum wage was increased to, say, $12/hour, then that wouldn't adversely affect small business.

Of the small businesses that I've been associated with, one (a construction business) simply bypassed the minimum wage laws by employing mostly illegal immigrant labor at sub-minimum wage rates. Wrt the other two (tech businesses), nobody that I know of was making less than approx. twice the minimum wage.

On the other hand, the minimum wage is a big issue for big box, big business employers of very large numbers of unskilled workers. They stand to lose billions of dollars off their bottom lines if minimum wages are substantially increased -- while, imo, still being quite profitable.

 

[daveb]

the Republicans have tried to comprimise,

You have any evience for this? From everything I can tell, it's pretty much both sides that don't want to compromise. Democrats don't want to compromise on reducing Social Security/Medicare, and republicans don't want to raise any taxes.

President Obama hasn't missed a beat blaming the Republicans for anything he can while the current candidates are vague in blaming him for many issues.

You apparently haven't been seeing the same debates I have. The candidates rotuinely opine that Obama has failed in his leadership, that he did the wrong thing in Libya, that he appeases Iran, etc.

 

[daveb]

I don't agree that a difference of a few dollars an hour for a few employees for five or six days a week makes any differerence at all to a small business.

I think that if the mimimum wage was increased to, say, $12/hour, then that wouldn't adversely affect small business.

Of the small businesses that I've been associated with, one (a construction business) simply bypassed the minimum wage laws by employing mostly illegal immigrant labor at sub-minimum wage rates. Wrt the other two (tech businesses), nobody that I know of was making less than approx. twice the minimum wage.

On the other hand, the minimum wage is a big issue for big box, big business employers of very large numbers of unskilled workers. They stand to lose billions of dollars off their bottom lines if minimum wages are substantially increased -- while, imo, still being quite profitable.

I would agree it isn't that much of an impact unless the minimum wage increased to an ungodly level since everything I've always heard about minimum wage is that the extra cost tends to get passed on to the the consumer (so it would affect them the business in that there would be less customers, and at some point the reduction in customers would greatly affect the business).

 

[AlephZero]

You are ignoring the knock on effect on people who are above the minimum wage.

Every union leader out there willl want to preserve their pay differentials, and for a good reason. There's nothing more demotivating that starting at $X an hour, getting a raise to $Y after 12 months, and then finding that the going rate for new starters is now $Y so you are still at the bottom of the pile.

That happened to me early on in my career after a "reorganization", and even at salary levels WAY above the minimum wage level, it's not a good way to motivate people.

 

[mege]

You have any evience for this? From everything I can tell, it's pretty much both sides that don't want to compromise. Democrats don't want to compromise on reducing Social Security/Medicare, and republicans don't want to raise any taxes.

Theo whole idea of a neo-con is comprimise to appease statists. The TEA Party is closer to Republicans circa 1960, which is part of the 'divide' in the GOP right now. The sheer fact that a jobs bill is even being considered shows comprimise. Many are saying 'why is the government getting involved again?' while the congressional legislators are trying to negotiate the line-items of a bill. If this was truly a libertarian vs statist debate: it should be about weither or not the bill is passed, not what the contents of a bill should be.

Gingrich's policies exemplify this neo-con position (especially during President Clinton's administration). He is willing to de-regulate a little bit, but still generally favors a government with control.

You apparently haven't been seeing the same debates I have. The candidates rotuinely opine that Obama has failed in his leadership, that he did the wrong thing in Libya, that he appeases Iran, etc.

There is so much more they could hit on though, as WhoWee mentioned. The candidates aren't calling the President out on his political maneuvers like they should. They're butting heads on issues straight up rather than talk about his political tactics. The President has called the GOP out on multiple occassions for even the slightest perception of jockeying for cache.

Can you imagine the political backlash that would occur if a bill was actually presented to weaken child labor laws? Even if it is better for everyone, and doesn't harm children the politics of it would be horrible. Think about why no one ever stopped sub-prime lending? 'oh, you want to take houses away from the poor!' is how it was spun. The legislation, almost a decade ago, which could have averted a financial meltdown was too costly politically. This type of policy, if presented in congress, would likely have a similar effect: 'do you want your kid working in a sweat shop at age 12?' It's unfortunate that many don't have the perspective to see beyond the knee-jerk emotional response to an idea - that's something that's constant in this thread even. The thought of losening child-labor laws is apalling to some, without realizing that the laws could actually be causing harm currently. The proper questions to ask, IMO, are 'what would the new policy do?' not a bunch of arm waving with presumed worst possible policy wording.

 

[klimatos]

Full disclosure, I've owned a number of small businesses - including restaurants. IMO - small/micro businesses (less than $500,000 revenues) should be allowed to hire younger teenagers at a sub-minimum wage - perhaps $5.00/hour. A school work permit is still important, along with parental consent, and the work shift hours and total hours should be restricted - maybe 20 hours per week. Small businesses have a need for young workers, the business model provides good experience, occupied time might keep the same kids out of trouble, and the kids put money in their pockets.

Would you be willing to take full legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of those young workers while they were in your employ? I somehow suspect that you would not. And that is one of the many reasons we have child-labor laws.

 

[mege]

Would you be willing to take full legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of those young workers while they were in your employ? I somehow suspect that you would not. And that is one of the many reasons we have child-labor laws.

I don't think he's advocating 80hr/week factory jobs, but rather a few hour/week light jobs that could be mutually beneficial for a store owner wanting cheap labor and a 12 year old that needs some responsibility.

My parents are well off, and I had a fairly easy childhood. However, my father wanted me to work a good job during the summers. There was a road contstruction project within walking distance of our house, and my dad knew the owner of the prime contractor very well and they allowed me to work there. Looking at it now, it was very illegal (I was 15 working on a road construction site - OSHA field day I'm sure), but I was responsible and was put to work doing some of the repetitious and laborious tasks. It was hard work, but the pay check was worth it. For several summers I worked road construction during high school and college - I absolutely credit that 'real job' experience with helping me now. If I didn't have that job I probably would have been golfing or wasting time doing other less productive things. Instead: I paid for summer camps, bought my first car with cash I earned and paid for my first few years of college (even though I didn't 'need' to), in addition to earning a work ethic. I live within my means, contrast with my younger sister whom is a doctor, never was forced to work and has more money issues. Now, I understand that what I did was probably a bit risky for many kids (I grew up going to construction sites with my dad and mother - civil engineers), but the greater point is: I was able to work, so I did. A 12 year old should be able to bag groceries, sweep floors at their school, or maybe even apply their specific aptitude somewhere for a few hours a week. Yes, it will save the hiring businesses some money - but it will also be a good idea for the kid with a few months to burn during the summer (or a few hours during the school week).

I am definitely of the mind that too many kids (especially males, it seems) are being left behind and are maturing way slower. This could be a way to help combat that as the current child labor laws are reactive to extreme situations are a very insular. Let me be clear: I'm not advocating that kids work construction, but some sort of work that results in a little pride and money won't hurt.

 

[dacruick]

but some sort of work that results in a little pride and money won't hurt.

I agree. When I was around 12 my mother thought it would be a good idea for my older brother and I to do a paper route. At around 14 I started to umpire kids' baseball games and at 16 in the summers I worked as a camp counsellor. She always thought it was important that I have responsibility, and the money that I earned (albeit not too much until the full time camp job) gave me a certain sense of independence(and pride) that I became accustomed to. It set a strong foundation for my future, and I feel that to this day I reap the benefits of those jobs.

I stated this earlier in the thread but I'll say it again. Obviously children should not replace janitors at their schools, that is an absurd idea. But there is definitely some value in his idea.

 

[Gokul43201]

Did you make any attempt to search for it?

It's not Edward's job to go about hunting down sources for your assertions.

And it most certainly is your job to do so. Read the forum rules!

Here's a link: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[char808]

Isn't it inappropriate to pay a worker under the age of 18 a lower minimum wage to do the same task (bag groceries, sweep floors) than an older worker? Why is the younger worker any less valuable than a similarly unskilled 18 year old?

 

[mheslep]

You have any evience for this? From everything I can tell, it's pretty much both sides that don't want to compromise. Democrats don't want to compromise on reducing Social Security/Medicare, and republicans don't want to raise any taxes. ...

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e09c6254e4274867a1a112fd9cc1e2eb/US--Debt-Supercommittee-Taxes/

WASHINGTON — Millions of taxpayers who take advantage of deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes would be targeted for potential tax hikes under a GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade to help reduce the nation's deficit.

Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the proposal is still fluid.

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. ...

And http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/192655-durbin-applauds-gop-offer-on-taxes-as-a-breakthrough-

“The fact that some Republicans have stepped forward to talk about revenue, I think, is an invitation for Democrats to step forward and talk about entitlement reform as well as spending cuts. Therein lies the core of an agreement,”

Sen Coburn who earlier served on the Simpson-Bowles commission proposed similar tax increases.

Note this plan was discussed publicly by Toomey on Nov 13 (at least). There were also anonymous, third hand reports of super committee Democrat plans to cut Medicare, but these were never publicly discussed by any member so far as I can tell, and certainly not attributed to any individual member, leading me to believe cuts were just smoke on the Democrat's part.

 

[ThomasT]

I would agree it isn't that much of an impact unless the minimum wage increased to an ungodly level since everything I've always heard about minimum wage is that the extra cost tends to get passed on to the the consumer (so it would affect them the business in that there would be less customers, and at some point the reduction in customers would greatly affect the business).

I'm guessing that most minimum wage workers (who constitute, what, ~ 25% of the labor force ?) are employed by big businesses. If the minimum wage was increased to, say, $12/hour, then a lot of that money would come directly back to those business because, I'm guessing, most employees of big box stores do much of their shopping at big box stores. (I remember reading or hearing a while back that Walmart was actually advocating an increase in the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour based, ostensibly, on that rationale.)

Of course there's the increase in payroll taxes and therefore matching employer tax contributions to consider. Which leads me to believe that Walmart's advocacy of a substantial increase might have been BS intended to make them look good while they work behind closed doors to suppress such legislation.

A substantial increase in the minimum wage would help the government deal with its financial problems and it would of course help the minimum wage workers and therefore the general economy. But it would probably entail a certain decrease in the bottom lines of the big businesses involved because of the increase in their matching payroll tax contributions.
So, as far as I can tell, the only reason not to significantly increase the minimum wage is that it will affect the bonuses of high level executives and decrease the dividends paid to investors (where applicable).

Part of the political status quo in the US, from my perspective, is that anything that threatens to decrease the incomes of the relatively rich has little chance of being realized -- even if it would help the country in general.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm guessing that most minimum wage workers (who constitute, what, ~ 25% of the labor force ?) are employed by big businesses.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm


You're off by about an order of magnitude actually.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htmYou're off by about an order of magnitude actually.

Yes, I see. It's a much smaller percentage than I recalled. Of course there are several states whose minimum wage exceeds the federal minimum wage. So the actual number of minimum wage (or less) workers in 2011 is, I'm guessing, between 6 and 7 million.

Of course, if the minimum wage was increased to, say, $12/hour, then this would affect everybody now making less than that. A lot more than 6 to 7 million, I would guess. So, my basic premise (that significantly increasing the minimum wage will positively affect a much larger number of people than it will negatively affect) might still be tenable.

 

[mheslep]

Raising the minimum wage in a weak economy is practically guaranteed to raise unemployment, still at 9%, i.e. ~14 million people reported as looking can't get work.

 

[aquitaine]

Note this plan was discussed publicly by Toomey on Nov 13 (at least). There were also anonymous, third hand reports of super committee Democrat plans to cut Medicare, but these were never publicly discussed by any member so far as I can tell, and certainly not attributed to any individual member, leading me to believe cuts were just smoke on the Democrat's part.

It seems that it is ok for Republicans to raise taxes on the middle class but to breathe even a hint of do so on the rich instead is considered blasphemy. Why exactly are so many middle class people still supporting them while on the chopping block?

 

[John Creighto]

I'm guessing that most minimum wage workers (who constitute, what, ~ 25% of the labor force ?) are employed by big businesses. If the minimum wage was increased to, say, $12/hour, then a lot of that money would come directly back to those business because, I'm guessing, most employees of big box stores do much of their shopping at big box stores. (I remember reading or hearing a while back that Walmart was actually advocating an increase in the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour based, ostensibly, on that rationale.)

A higher minimum wage could help Walmart by making it more expensive for its competition to do business. Besides people on minimum wage do most of their shopping at Wal-Mart, so aside from any macroeconomic effects, a small change to the minimum wage isn’t much of a concern to Wal-Mart.

 

[ThomasT]

Raising the minimum wage in a weak economy is practically guaranteed to raise unemployment ...

Why? Not saying I disagree. Just curious about your take on the economic mechanics of it.

 

[mheslep]

Why? Not saying I disagree. Just curious about your take on the economic mechanics of it.

Because somewhere employers that employ at least some folks at the current minimum wage are making the calculation that they can *just* make money by selling a given product with a given payroll. A minimum wage increase necessarily increases that payroll, so someone has to go. There are caveats to the simple story I share here, I know, but it basically holds.

In a booming economy one might argue that the employer is already scrambling to meet demand and so can afford a higher payroll to keep already hard to find help. I don't buy that argument even under those conditions, but certainly not now in a weak economy.

 

[mege]

Isn't it inappropriate to pay a worker under the age of 18 a lower minimum wage to do the same task (bag groceries, sweep floors) than an older worker? Why is the younger worker any less valuable than a similarly unskilled 18 year old?

The 'below minimum wage' argument hasn't really been aggressively in this thread that I've noticed - however an at minimum wage 12 year old with limited benefits would certainly be less expensive than a unionized 40 year old.

Here's another way of thinking about it - why is the unskilled 18yr old getting a minimum wage if he's unskilled and the job could be done for less?

 

[lisab]

Newt might get a big bump of support soon.

Herman Cain says he’s trying to figure out whether he should continue his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in light of the latest allegation of inappropriate sexual behavior made against him.

I think he's done.

A series of recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) surveys asked Cain voters who would be their second choice for the nomination, among other things. The results were unsurprising: 37 percent of Cain voters picked Newt Gingrich as their back-up. Fourteen percent picked Michele Bachmann, 13 percent picked Mitt Romney, and 12 percent went for Rick Perry.

The bottom line, according to PPP, is that Cain voters love Mr. Gingrich, and don’t love Mr. Romney.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...sment-What-will-his-voters-do-if-he-drops-out

Sounds like Mitt's worst nightmare.

 

[mheslep]

Way to early I think to make much of poll results. Remember there has yet to be a single election. It's one thing to talk to a pollster on the phone, but some on the ground organization is required to get the serious voters to the polls in NH winters.