Governor OKs toughest migrant-hire law in U.S

[DaveTN]

Governor OKs toughest migrant-hire law in U.S.

Napolitano cites inaction by Congress

Matthew Benson

The Arizona Republic

Jul. 3, 2007 12:00 AM

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday signed sweeping legislation against employers of undocumented workers, targeting the state's market for illegal labor with what she called "the most aggressive action in the country."

The penalty for violators: the suspension of a business license on the first violation and permanent revocation on a second, amounting to a death sentence for repeat offenders.

"It's monumental. It's a change from anything we've done in the past," said Speaker of the House Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix. "It's time for the states to start stepping up and stop waiting for Congress."

The law takes effect Jan. 1, significantly raising the stakes for more than a quarter-million undocumented workers believed to reside in Arizona and the businesses that employ them.

Between now and then, Napolitano hinted at calling legislators back to the Capitol for a special session this fall to amend flaws in the bill, including a provision that could force the closure of hospitals, power plants and other critical facilities if they're cited for making illegal hires. Her other concerns included "woefully" inadequate funding for enforcement and the lack of a non-discrimination clause to ensure it's enforced fairly.

Napolitano's signature comes just days after the failure of a comprehensive immigration-reform measure being considered by the U.S. Senate. She again lamented that proposal's collapse and blasted Congress anew in saying Arizona could no longer afford to wait.

"We're dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now - uncharted territory because of the inability of the Congress to act," Napolitano said. "The states will take the lead, and Arizona will take the lead among the states."

But opposition to the new law was swift, led by Latino activists and the business community. Eight minutes after the governor's announcement that she had signed the bill, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce issued a statement calling it "a crippling blow to Arizona business."

That opposition coalesced in a Capitol hearing room where critics vowed a fight.

"We have five months for the business community to rally and come to the table and demand that the House and Senate come back to the table and work on this bill," said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor and Hispanic activist. "People are just incensed about this. This will be disastrous for the state of Arizona."

A legal challenge regarding the constitutionality of the new law is already in the works.

Phoenix employment attorney Julie Pace said that challenge will assert that Arizona has overstepped its authority by moving into the arena of immigration law. The U.S. Constitution gives power over immigration policy to the federal government.

"I will make a prediction that sanctions will never be imposed because they can't ever become workable," said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. "It will never be implemented properly. It will never function."

Beginning Jan. 1, all Arizona employers will be required to check the legal status of their employees through a federal database known as the Basic Pilot Program. The accuracy of that database and its ability to handle 130,000 to 150,000 Arizona businesses that will now use it has been questioned. Napolitano sent a letter Monday to congressional leaders asking for improvements and federal investment to ensure Basic Pilot is up to the task.

But the day was one of relief for those who for years have asked for a set of state sanctions against businesses that dabble in illegal labor. Perhaps chief among them is Rep. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the bill and was at the forefront of numerous similar efforts in the past.

"Anyone worried about this bill ought to be worried about their hiring practices," said Pearce, who called the measure "the toughest yet fairest employer-sanction law in the country."

An even stricter set of employer sanctions waits in the wings, led by a citizens group that hopes to get its proposal on the 2008 ballot. That measure, which would revoke a violator's license on a first offense, loomed over the development of Pearce's bill and was again noted on the day of its signing. The hope among many lawmakers is that the new law will short-circuit an initiative some consider too drastic.

"The main concern is you've got an initiative out on the street that's growing momentum every day," Weiers said. "If it goes to the ballot, I suspect it'll win overwhelmingly."

The new law has problems of its own, Napolitano conceded. She has already spoken with Weiers and Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, about the potential of a special session. Bee said he was open to the possibility. Weiers noted that any changes would have to be scripted in advance.

Issues that Napolitano says need to be corrected in the new law include:

• Insufficient funding for enforcement.

• Overbroad language that could cause a chain of businesses to be penalized if a single location was cited.

• Lack of an exemption to ensure that critical facilities such as hospitals don't have to temporarily close their operations if undocumented workers are found among their staffs.

"For an immigration violation for hiring a nursing aide, are you going to close down a nursing home?" Napolitano asked.

Observing that "this is not a doorway for discrimination against anyone," Napolitano said she'd like lawmakers to add a non-discrimination clause to assure residents that they won't be targeted based on their race or ethnicity.

Those problems aside, Napolitano said she viewed it as better to move forward with a new law than back to Square 1 next session with a veto.

I don’t know if this will work or not but I applaud the Governor for trying.

To Julie Pace I would say that while all other Law Enforcement Agencies in this country and been taxed to their limits; Immigration has either sat on their hands or thrown them up in the air and said they can no longer enforce our laws.

It would be sad if a legal ruling would stop a state from protecting itself against illegal immigration while the Feds refuse to enforce the laws they swore to uphold.

[Guest Len]

Regardless of where one stands on the immigration issue and/or on the recently rejected overhaul law in the senate, one thing seems clear -the inaction of the federal government on so many issues are forcing the states to act on their own. Many examples abound:

1) Climate change: States are all over this compared to the feds, with governors from both parties taking leadership.

2) Immigration: Again, states way out in front -and again from both political parties. Note the AZ law was signed by a Democratic governor, and passed by a Republican-majority legislature.

3) Minimum wage: More than half the states have minimum wage laws with a higher minimum than the federal rate. Most will still be higher than the new federal rate that is coming. Again, we have states with both ® and (D) leadership here.

There are many more examples: health care reform, medical pot, pollution, education reform, gun control, etc.

What we are seeing here is a breakdown at the federal level. Washington is 100% politics, and therefore nothing gets done. Its a travesty, really. Congress is so politically polluted and the Bush administration is weakened by all the stuff we all read in the news. So, the states are taking over. Which is great -the country was founded on the principle of a weak central government. But the problem is that so many of these issues are bigger than any one state, and require a national response.

I don't see it getting better anytime soon. There is a pretty good chance the next president will be a Democrat, but will have at best slim majorities in congress, and nowhere near 60 votes in the senate. Same is true if a Republican wins in '08 -he'll have to face a Dem majority in at least one chamber, and neither side will want to give in.

I'm very happy many of states are showing leadership on important issues, because we sure are not seeing it from DC.

[The Rabbi]

The next article will be about employers fleeing the state for neighboring Nevada or Utah because the penalty for making a mistake n hiring is astronomical. This is a problem with any plans to crack down on employers: the employers will not submit to such draconian measures and will simply not hire people and ship the work overseas.

And not coincidentally, states that have raised the minimum wage have also seen the largest increases in unemployment, especially among youth. The WSJ just had an article about teenagers in NYC being unable to find jobs since employers would have to pay so much more.

[fury2neon]

The next article will be about employers fleeing the state for neighboring Nevada or Utah because the penalty for making a mistake n hiring is astronomical. This is a problem with any plans to crack down on employers: the employers will not submit to such draconian measures and will simply not hire people and ship the work overseas.

And not coincidentally, states that have raised the minimum wage have also seen the largest increases in unemployment, especially among youth. The WSJ just had an article about teenagers in NYC being unable to find jobs since employers would have to pay so much more.

Yep, that is what consistently happens every time the min wage is raised. Every time the government sets a price it causes shortages, like the gas lines in the 70's or every product in the old USSR.

[Guest Len]

The last time the minimum wage was raised in this country was during the biggest economic expansion in our history. It caused not even a ripple in said expansion. The nation as a whole is operating at more or less close to full employment (anything under 5% unemployment is considered "full employment" by economists since there will always be people transitioning between jobs, unskilled workers, seasonal issues, etc.) despite these horrible, draconian, minimum wage laws that take us one more step down the road to socialism.

We manage to persevere despite this and despite 12 million illegals taking our lower-paying jobs, etc, etc, etc. (illegal immigration arguably creates a larger economic impact than a minimum wage increased designed merely to catch minimum wage workers up to inflation.)

Meanwhile, New York City is not a viable model for the rest of the country due to insane cost of living and doing business. A minimum wage of 100.00/hr or 50cents/hour would not fix things there. It goes way beyond the basic economic issues. Having 8 million plus people living in that small area will create issues no economic model could accurately predict. And I'm to take the Wall St. Journal's word for this? That would be like asking Tony Snow for an objective analysis of President Bush's plans for Iraq.

And none of this even begins to take into account the amazing economic side benefits of increasing the spending power and economic vitality of millions of people. Not only do they have more to spend, but they have an increased chance of moving up the economic ladder, which helps us all. Once you move beyond subsistence wages, that person is able to contribute more to society, be less of a burden on society and have a better chance to move up even more. Whether they make the best of that chance is up to them -some will, some wont.

I might have an issue with minimum wage laws if they actually did much more than tinker with the marketplace. Fact is, most people earn more than the minimum already due to market forces. Raising the minimums for the few who don't has little negative economic impact (especially compared to immigration, etc) and provides the potential for great benefit overall and gives an entire class of people greater ability to rise up. Yeah, that's just an awful thing to do...

[fury2neon]

You also have to take into account that many working age teenagers do not work in the percentages that they did in the 80's and before. The min wage only affect a very small portion of the population and it raises the price on all good for everybody. The last time it was raised it had a smaller affect than usual but the low end jobs started going to illegal aliens who would work under the table rather than to teens who's parents made sure they worked above board.

[The Rabbi]

Well, if $7/hr is good, then why not $10.hr? Why not 20?

You cannot legislate prosperity. If that were so, France would be an economic powerhouse.

The higher minimum wage hurts those workers and potential workers who need it most, namely teenagers, especially Black ones, and other just entering the work force. The min wage job is usually just a stepping stone to something better and in any case such jobs provide value to the job holder by teaching basic skills, like showing up on time sober and ready to work.

When such jobs are priced by gov't fiat then the job will go away. It will get outsourced or simply eliminated. That is less opportunity for people on the lowest rungs of society, the very people Democrats claim to want to help.

As for NYC, what does population density have to do with anything? Singapore has a greater density and its economiy is generally even better than the U.S. That is a non-argument. As for the accuracy of the WSJ, questioning its citation of a study is what people do when they cannot refute the conclusions.

It's basic Econ 101: raise the price of something and you will have less of it around.

[DaveTN]

Good Lord you guys are depressing.

Everything that sells is not based on how cheap it is. If it was we would all own Hi-Points, Chevrolet and Dodge would never sell another Corvette or Viper, we wouldn’t have big screen LCD or Plasma TV’s, and all you firearms instructors would be out of work.

American manufacturing can’t compete on price… period. With the mindset me have in America right now (I don’t care where it’s made as long as it’s cheap) by the time your kids or grandkids enter the workforce you will have destroyed their economy for them. They will look you in the eye and ask “How could you have been so ignorant?†Dumb azz excuses won’t work. It is not the fault of foreign workers and our government can’t help. The responsibility for our economy rests squarely on the shoulders of the American people.

I have to believe that something is going to happen to turn things around. I try to do my share.

[Guest Len]

Rabbi, you encourage others to open their minds with your posts, so I encourage you to do the same.

Let's go point by point here:

1) I never said you could legislate prosperity. What minimum wage rules do is provide an opportunity for the lowest-wage workers to be able to climb the latter towards prosperity. To extend the metaphor, it does not lower the ladder, but rather gives a boost to someone trying to jump on the ladder. An overly wide income gap between rich and poor shakes to the ground the very basis of capitalism. I could suggest a number of readings to elaborate on this point -starting with good old Adam Smith.

2) Evidence please. A job simply can't go away because of wage pressures. It still has to get done, via improved efficiency to allow wages to grow, via outsourcing, or via changes in the process itself. Also most minimum wage jobs (if not all) are unskilled labor at best. They teach nothing in the way of valuable skills, except perhaps customer service skills, which can be obtained by working at McDonalds -which pays higher than minimum wage in most places, again due to market forces.

3) Minimum wage laws do NOTHING to "price jobs by government fiat." They set a minimum, yes, but the market does the rest. In fact, in most markets, the federal minimum wage is a non-issue again due to market forces. Again, show me evidence of job shortages created by the minimum wage. I certainly see worker shortages at the low end of the pay scale, but no shortages of jobs. Wonder why? Maybe because the jobs pay so little it makes more economic sense for the worker to not work. Dealing with this issue alone makes a positive argument for minimum wage laws.

4) Population density has EVERYTHING to do with price pressure. It costs alot to live in places like NYC and Singapore simply because the govt has to provide so many services to so many people. More roads to pave, more trash to collect, more jails to build and staff, more economic and cultural diversity that costs money. This increases the cost of living dramatically. Evey try to rent an apt in NYC? Shoot, I can rent a nice apt in Nashville for less than it costs to park my car in NYC. Minimum wage jobs (even in a state with a higher than federal-level minimum wage) do not allow someone in NYC to live even near the poverty line. Minimum wage is a non-issue in NYC unless you are talking about a wage floor of I'd guess $15.00/hr. NYC is simply not a representative economic model of the nation as a whole. Singapore, by the way, is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, despite its booming economy. NYC has also made an amazing economic recovery following 9-11.

5) As far as the WSJ goes, your point is valid. However, for every anti-minimum wage study you cite, I can find you one pro-minimum wage study the WSJ will never print. The aggregate of research on this issue points to the minimum wage having a negligible overall impact to the economy while having a large impact on the beneficiary wage earners. This is a trade this Democrat, as well as most others, are more than willing to make. And not just for political reasons, but because it is overall the kinder thing to do.

6) Raising the price of a good or service is not necessarily a bad thing. The US will never compete on price as DaveTN said. Why would we want to when we have so much more to offer? I think your shop is a great example of this. You don't, nor could you, compete on price, regardless of the wages you pay. But people still come to your store and still buy stuff from you, and they tell their friends to do so as well. I see no way an increase in the minimum wage that is essentially an adjustment for inflation can hurt you or the overall national economy. Your economic success is based primarily on your reputation, especially since location and traffic are of less concern in the gun biz than is typical.

Does the govt stick its big nose where it does not belong sometimes? Absolutely! Would the founders approve of a federal minimum wage? Probably not. But the good outweighs the bad in this case, and so I support reasonable minimum wage laws tied to local economic conditions and adjusted for inflation on an annual basis.

Well, if $7/hr is good, then why not $10.hr? Why not 20?

You cannot legislate prosperity. If that were so, France would be an economic powerhouse.

The higher minimum wage hurts those workers and potential workers who need it most, namely teenagers, especially Black ones, and other just entering the work force. The min wage job is usually just a stepping stone to something better and in any case such jobs provide value to the job holder by teaching basic skills, like showing up on time sober and ready to work.

When such jobs are priced by gov't fiat then the job will go away. It will get outsourced or simply eliminated. That is less opportunity for people on the lowest rungs of society, the very people Democrats claim to want to help.

As for NYC, what does population density have to do with anything? Singapore has a greater density and its economiy is generally even better than the U.S. That is a non-argument. As for the accuracy of the WSJ, questioning its citation of a study is what people do when they cannot refute the conclusions.

It's basic Econ 101: raise the price of something and you will have less of it around.

[Guest Len]

I know! Pretty sad, isn't it? But hey, I'm just trying to do my part too!

Good Lord you guys are depressing.

I have to believe that something is going to happen to turn things around. I try to do my share.

[The Rabbi]

Good Lord you guys are depressing.

Everything that sells is not based on how cheap it is. If it was we would all own Hi-Points, Chevrolet and Dodge would never sell another Corvette or Viper, we wouldn’t have big screen LCD or Plasma TV’s, and all you firearms instructors would be out of work.

In your mind do Hi Points compete with SIGs or Glocks?

Is going out to eat at Outback Steakhouse about the same as going out to eat at Krystal?

If your answers are no then you have refuted your own point.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, you encourage others to open their minds with your posts, so I encourage you to do the same.

Let's go point by point here:

1) I never said you could legislate prosperity. What minimum wage rules do is provide an opportunity for the lowest-wage workers to be able to climb the latter towards prosperity. To extend the metaphor, it does not lower the ladder, but rather gives a boost to someone trying to jump on the ladder. An overly wide income gap between rich and poor shakes to the ground the very basis of capitalism. I could suggest a number of readings to elaborate on this point -starting with good old Adam Smith.

I could write a post proclaiming that APL is the greatest computer programming language ever and all programs ought to be written in APL. We could spend pages debating this.

But the truth of the matter is that I literally know next to nothing about computer programming so my opinion here is worthless on this topic.

When you write points like you did above, you show you have about the same level of understanding of economics that I do of computer programming. Until you understand basics of LX diagrams, substitution of capital for labor, price floors and ceilings, and elasticity there really isn't a lot that can be said.

But while you get yourself up to snuff, take a look at this short article:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/wage.html

[DaveTN]

I haven’t refuted my point. From your posts I doubt you know what my point is.

Economics isn’t rocket science.

[The Rabbi]

I haven’t refuted my point. From your posts I doubt you know what my point is.

Economics isn’t rocket science.

You are right, looking back at the post. I do not know what point you are trying to make.

And no, it isnt rocket science. It is much more complicated than that.

[towerclimber37]

You are right, looking back at the post. I do not know what point you are trying to make.

And no, it isnt rocket science. It is much more complicated than that.

Rabbi, its ok for you to be confused, I know its your normal state of affairs when it comes to Illegal immigration.

We understand that you are biased. Its ok to be that way if you must be.

but Kindly stop it with the innuendos.

Len, though he doesn't say it, is a pretty smart fella. A few colleges gave him papers that attest to it. Its reflected in his posts.

To hear you tell it you are the only one with the inside knowledge on immigration reform AND how to fix an economy that ain't broke. If someone doesn't agree with you, allasudden they are berated and called ignorant, or you make an innuendo as such.

That is the height of hubris in my opinion and it makes others think less of your posts. Plus, its getting boring. kindly debate without condescension.

[The Rabbi]

Actually I am not confused on immigration at all. I am quite clear on it. I am equally clear on this issue. In fact, both issues have a lot in common.

[Guest Len]

Well, just a couple of things:

I know my econ. The fact we are arguing this point shows the political nature of economics -and most social sciences. The article you referred me to is funny for two reasons: 1) It represents itself as the "minority opinion" in other words most economists believe otherwise; and 2) It compares unemployment rates from 1948 to present day. I think I could whip up a couple of decent arguments how the economy has DRAMATICALLY changed since then and that under-educated people have a MUCH harder time today that they did in '48 finding a job. Adjusted for inflation, today's $5.15/hr min wage is less than the 40 cents back then.

Which takes me to my grand point -education solves all these issues. An educated workforce is a well-paid work force, and would severely limit the need for govt wage control at the low end of the scale. But that is even more off-topic than you wandered. I recall I was making a point about the role of the states vs. the federal govt in dealing with national issues...

I could write a post proclaiming that APL is the greatest computer programming language ever and all programs ought to be written in APL. We could spend pages debating this.

But the truth of the matter is that I literally know next to nothing about computer programming so my opinion here is worthless on this topic.

When you write points like you did above, you show you have about the same level of understanding of economics that I do of computer programming. Until you understand basics of LX diagrams, substitution of capital for labor, price floors and ceilings, and elasticity there really isn't a lot that can be said.

But while you get yourself up to snuff, take a look at this short article:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/wage.html

[The Rabbi]

Well, just a couple of things:

I know my econ. The fact we are arguing this point shows the political nature of economics -and most social sciences. The article you referred me to is funny for two reasons: 1) It represents itself as the "minority opinion" in other words most economists believe otherwise; and 2) It compares unemployment rates from 1948 to present day. I think I could whip up a couple of decent arguments how the economy has DRAMATICALLY changed since then and that under-educated people have a MUCH harder time today that they did in '48 finding a job. Adjusted for inflation, today's $5.15/hr min wage is less than the 40 cents back then.

Which takes me to my grand point -education solves all these issues. An educated workforce is a well-paid work force, and would severely limit the need for govt wage control at the low end of the scale. But that is even more off-topic than you wandered. I recall I was making a point about the role of the states vs. the federal govt in dealing with national issues...

Uh, no.

He represents that it is the minority view, but does not say minority of what. It is the minority political view. It is especially the minority view among Blacks, of which Walter Williams is one. He doesn't say anything about other economists.

But find me an economist who says that other things being equal, raising the minimum wage will not eliminate those jobs.

As for the comparison with 1948, the comparison is valid. Ditto with the case of NYC. The laws of economics work in NYC just like the rest of the world. The fact that costs of living there are higher is irrelevant. There are still minimum wage jobs, and fewer of them since NY raised its min wage.

You keep mentioning other studies showing the min wage has no effect on employment. But you fail to cite even one.

Let me: there was one done in N.J. that purported to show exactly what you are saying. But it was debunked because the study only looked at businesses that were still in operation one year or two years after the increase. If one factored in companies that no longer existed, the trend of fewer min wage jobs is clear.

Education will not solve the problem, contrary to what you say. Some people in this country are simply not capable of achieving competance in academic studies such as to get a better job that by-passes the entry level. And that is what min wage jobs are, entry level work. Despite your assertions to the contrary, they are valuable to employees in learning basic skills, like showing up on time ready to work and following directions. That sounds simple but you would be amazed how many people cannot manage that. Entry level work provides valuable training in these basic things. And it frequently enables people to go on to something better.

[towerclimber37]

contrary to what you say. Some people in this country are simply not capable of achieving competance in academic studies such as to get a better job that by-passes the entry level.

they have jobs for those people...as a matter of fact, some of those folks made the web gear I used in the army!

for all the others..you either better yourself, or you live in a world of squalor and learn to go without.

The constitution only guarantees the right to the PURSUIT of happiness.

it doesn't guarantee that you'll catch it.

[The Rabbi]

they have jobs for those people...as a matter of fact, some of those folks made the web gear I used in the army!

for all the others..you either better yourself, or you live in a world of squalor and learn to go without.

The constitution only guarantees the right to the PURSUIT of happiness.

it doesn't guarantee that you'll catch it.

Actually some of those people are in the Army. The military is a very good entry-level job for many people.

As for bettering yourself, yes, that is what entry level jobs provide, an opportunity.

[towerclimber37]

It does, as long as you don't misconstrue. The Military is an excellent way to better yourself, but its a two way street..you're there to protect the U.S.A and its interests.

But the people who Join the military are ABLE to better themselves and either learn and pass the courses, or they get booted.

[Guest Len]

Uh, actually, yes.

Its impressive how we manage to drift further afield with every reply...

The comparison with 1948 could not be more invalid. In fact, it is borderline ridiculous. Mr. Williams/Mr. The Rabbi are comparing a manufacting/agriculture-heavy economy that had millions more jobs on the lower end of the scale (economically and educationally) than now, even though the population now is close to double that in 1948. You are comparing that economy with an information-based/service-based economy which has dramatically reduced the need for unskilled/uneducated labor. Mr Williams is in the minority for a reason.

Cost of living, etc (now we are back to NYC) has a DIRECT correlation to wages. Most national companies even offer salary differentials to adjust for cost of living in high-end locations. Of course in NYC economics works the same as anyplace else, that's not what I said. I said the economic model (specifically referring to wage pressures) in NYC is not true all over the place. Wages and prices in NYC are not representative of the nation as a whole, so the effects of a national minimum wage hike in NYC would be next to nothing. The wage there is already higher, and has to be becaue of market forces, whether NY has a min wage law or not.

Minimum wage laws do not exist to tinker with capitalism, but to protect the most vulnerable members of society from non-economically viable wages and other unfair labor practices. Its not much different than outlawing child labor. You could argue with me all day that making child labor illegal has sent all the child labor jobs overseas or given them to immigrants. And to that, I will say, "good!" Economists use the term "market power" here. The general argument is that, at the low end, buyers (employers) have more market power than sellers (employees.) The result is market failure. (I get to why this is so later on.) Minimum wage laws are one way of addressing this potential failure of the basic economic model. The key here is to find the "right" market minimum wage that ensures the equilibrium of the marketplace between buyers and sellers. Considering inflation over the years, its safe to say $5.15/hr is not it.

The opposing argument here is that tinkering by the govt itself causes the imbalance (lack of equilibrium and one side having too much power) in the first place and that some sort of big business conspiracy to keep wages artificially low is required to create conditions of power imbalance. Lacking evidence of such a conspiracy, why have minimum wage laws? Good question! My answer is that the power imbalance can be caused by many other things -including lack of information and education by the workforce, thus my argument that education/training is key.

Finally, I have not been citing studies. Well, you are correct, but that does not mean they are not out there. Here is one I managed to find fairly quickly: http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports/Florida_Minimum_Wage_Report.pdf.

Here is nice compendium of many studies:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts.

EPI (Economic Policy Institute) is a non-partisan, highly regarded group of semi-big-shot economist type people, been around for over 20 years.

Onwards to education. The "education" I refer to need not just be of the purely academic variety. Many highly skilled jobs don't require "a college education," but rather very specific skills training. I am not saying if everyone got a degree, we'd all be fine. Believe me, I work in higher education, and I know that not everyone has the abilities to succeed in a traditonal academic environment. However, that does not mean we need to leave them at the bottom of the pile with no chance of making a decent living. I suggest visiting one of our community college or TN Technology Centers and see what I mean. Career-specific skills training in highly skilled/competitive careers.

Finally, I do not disagree that the NUMBER of minimum wage jobs is decreasing. I can read the studies as well as you can. All I'm saying is that is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is NOT because of the minimum wage law, at least not much because of it. The good outweighs the bad, the nature of our economy is changing, information is power, etc. A reasonable minimum wage is not bad for this economy, does not deny training to workers who need it, and helps give lots of people a better chance at the American dream. I have no problems with that.

Uh, no.

He represents that it is the minority view, but does not say minority of what. It is the minority political view. It is especially the minority view among Blacks, of which Walter Williams is one. He doesn't say anything about other economists.

But find me an economist who says that other things being equal, raising the minimum wage will not eliminate those jobs.

As for the comparison with 1948, the comparison is valid. Ditto with the case of NYC. The laws of economics work in NYC just like the rest of the world. The fact that costs of living there are higher is irrelevant. There are still minimum wage jobs, and fewer of them since NY raised its min wage.

You keep mentioning other studies showing the min wage has no effect on employment. But you fail to cite even one.

Let me: there was one done in N.J. that purported to show exactly what you are saying. But it was debunked because the study only looked at businesses that were still in operation one year or two years after the increase. If one factored in companies that no longer existed, the trend of fewer min wage jobs is clear.

Education will not solve the problem, contrary to what you say. Some people in this country are simply not capable of achieving competance in academic studies such as to get a better job that by-passes the entry level. And that is what min wage jobs are, entry level work. Despite your assertions to the contrary, they are valuable to employees in learning basic skills, like showing up on time ready to work and following directions. That sounds simple but you would be amazed how many people cannot manage that. Entry level work provides valuable training in these basic things. And it frequently enables people to go on to something better.

[The Rabbi]

Uh, actually, yes.

Its impressive how we manage to drift further afield with every reply...

The comparison with 1948 could not be more invalid. In fact, it is borderline ridiculous. Mr. Williams/Mr. The Rabbi are comparing a manufacting/agriculture-heavy economy that had millions more jobs on the lower end of the scale (economically and educationally) than now, even though the population now is close to double that in 1948. You are comparing that economy with an information-based/service-based economy which has dramatically reduced the need for unskilled/uneducated labor. Mr Williams is in the minority for a reason.

So the question is why we had so many more jobs on the lower end of the scale than we do now. Answer: the cost to employ people in such jobs has risen to the point where it is no longer feasible to have them.

But you could pick any period and compare it with today and you would still come up with the same trend: minimum wage hikes have eliminated entry level jobs, especially so for minority teenagers. As this study reports:

http://www.impactwire.com/article.asp?id=2714

Cost of living, etc (now we are back to NYC) has a DIRECT correlation to wages. Most national companies even offer salary differentials to adjust for cost of living in high-end locations. Of course in NYC economics works the same as anyplace else, that's not what I said. I said the economic model (specifically referring to wage pressures) in NYC is not true all over the place. Wages and prices in NYC are not representative of the nation as a whole, so the effects of a national minimum wage hike in NYC would be next to nothing. The wage there is already higher, and has to be becaue of market forces, whether NY has a min wage law or not.

I agree cost of living has an effect on wages. But it does not affect the number of minimum wage jobs in the same area at different times. And that was the point.

There are min wage jobs in NY. That is a fact. There are fewer of them this year than prior to the NY legislature passing a higher min wage law. That is also a fact. An obvious explanation, one supported by basic econ, is that A caused B. You could argue other reasons and the min wage law is simply accidental to the situation. But I wouldn't believe it.

Minimum wage laws do not exist to tinker with capitalism, but to protect the most vulnerable members of society from non-economically viable wages and other unfair labor practices. Its not much different than outlawing child labor. You could argue with me all day that making child labor illegal has sent all the child labor jobs overseas or given them to immigrants. And to that, I will say, "good!" Economists use the term "market power" here. The general argument is that, at the low end, buyers (employers) have more market power than sellers (employees.) The result is market failure. (I get to why this is so later on.) Minimum wage laws are one way of addressing this potential failure of the basic economic model. The key here is to find the "right" market minimum wage that ensures the equilibrium of the marketplace between buyers and sellers. Considering inflation over the years, its safe to say $5.15/hr is not it.

This is the biggest lie of all. The choice is not between jobs at $4/hr and jobs at $10/hr. The choice is between jobs at $4/hr and no job at all. And no one can work his way up from no job.

And the "right" market minimum wage is set by, obviously, the market. Not by some gov't bureaucrat deciding what business owners need to do or not do.

Oh, and this "study" on the min wage came from EPI. The chairman of EPI is, surprise surprise, also the President of the Federation of...Municipal Employees. Looking at their articles they toe the union line. So this is hardly the work of dispassionate economists.

[Guest Len]

So the question is why we had so many more jobs on the lower end of the scale than we do now. Answer: the cost to employ people in such jobs has risen to the point where it is no longer feasible to have them.

But you could pick any period and compare it with today and you would still come up with the same trend: minimum wage hikes have eliminated entry level jobs, especially so for minority teenagers. As this study reports:

http://www.impactwire.com/article.asp?id=2714

I agree cost of living has an effect on wages. But it does not affect the number of minimum wage jobs in the same area at different times. And that was the point.

There are min wage jobs in NY. That is a fact. There are fewer of them this year than prior to the NY legislature passing a higher min wage law. That is also a fact. An obvious explanation, one supported by basic econ, is that A caused B. You could argue other reasons and the min wage law is simply accidental to the situation. But I wouldn't believe it.

Insert by Len: See above. Your causality argument is too simplistic.

This is the biggest lie of all. The choice is not between jobs at $4/hr and jobs at $10/hr. The choice is between jobs at $4/hr and no job at all. And no one can work his way up from no job.

And the "right" market minimum wage is set by, obviously, the market. Not by some gov't bureaucrat deciding what business owners need to do or not do.

Insert by Len: So, some economics is ok, and some is a lie? Market forces displaced the $4/hr job long ago, minimum wage or no. People's time is simply worth more than that in 2007. Inflation you know.

Oh, and this "study" on the min wage came from EPI. The chairman of EPI is, surprise surprise, also the President of the Federation of...Municipal Employees. Looking at their articles they toe the union line. So this is hardly the work of dispassionate economists.

(Sorry, I am not using the quote feature well here. Some of my response is above, some is below.)

Incorrect answer. The correct answer is that today's economy does not have need of such jobs. They don't exist anymore, not because of the minimum wage, but because the economy requires different skill and education sets. Simply put, there is not much a completely unskilled laborer can do in this economy. Not many ditch digging jobs out there. But lots of jobs to program the robotic ditch-diggers.

EPI has two former US Treasury Secretaries on its board. I guess they know nothing about economics? Come on now, the epi url I gave you listed many different studies. Are you going to find fault with all of them? If so, then graduate education in this country is certainly worse than I thought!

Simply put, my arg. is that any negligible negative economic impact of min. wage laws on business (and I am not even granting that such exists, only that it is possible) is more than offset by the social and economic good done to wage earners on the low end of the scale. One only has to look at unemployment rates to prove there is not job shortage. We are running at close to FULL employment (again, defined by economists as anything less than 5% unemployment) and I suggest a casual perusal of the local classifieds will display many jobs on the low end of the wage scale. They exist, just not at the minimum wage.

[The Rabbi]

(Sorry, I am not using the quote feature well here. Some of my response is above, some is below.)

Incorrect answer. The correct answer is that today's economy does not have need of such jobs. They don't exist anymore, not because of the minimum wage, but because the economy requires different skill and education sets. Simply put, there is not much a completely unskilled laborer can do in this economy. Not many ditch digging jobs out there. But lots of jobs to program the robotic ditch-diggers.

EPI has two former US Treasury Secretaries on its board. I guess they know nothing about economics? Come on now, the epi url I gave you listed many different studies. Are you going to find fault with all of them? If so, then graduate education in this country is certainly worse than I thought!

Simply put, my arg. is that any negligible negative economic impact of min. wage laws on business (and I am not even granting that such exists, only that it is possible) is more than offset by the social and economic good done to wage earners on the low end of the scale. One only has to look at unemployment rates to prove there is not job shortage. We are running at close to FULL employment (again, defined by economists as anything less than 5% unemployment) and I suggest a casual perusal of the local classifieds will display many jobs on the low end of the wage scale. They exist, just not at the minimum wage.

Today's economy is the product of many things in the past. One of them has been the substitution of capital for labor. How many full-service gas stations have you seen recently? None, not because the economy innovated self-serve, but because labor became too expensive the service station industry was forced to innovate it.

Higher labor costs have driven many things. The demise of the Colt Python is directly attributable to this.

But the reason we have a high-tech economy has more to do with labor being expensive than the other way around. It has been cheaper to buy technology than hire people. It wasn't always so and has resulted in large-scale unemployment at the lowest levels of society.

As for the good done to wage-earners at the low end of the scale, tell that to the unemployed teenagers (some 30%) and others just starting out in the workforce. Yes, the overall employment rate is high,but that does nothing for the people who need it most. The same people the Dems claim to represent.