Oh, where to start? Not that I'm upset with your reply, I just have a jumble of things to say, and no clear idea what order to put them in.
    For being a big national push, this is getting very little media attention. Google isn't the be-all and end-all of searching, but I could find only three or four mentions of this plan, and those were from blogs. (It also appears she's been trying to get this copycat move out since the middle of last year.) This looks more like a trial balloon than a statement of grand party strategy. Things may change in the next couple days, but I have doubts.
   You demand more from the Democrats than I do-- I don't want them to be be better, I just want them to be different. Republicans have more or less abandoned the notion of legislative oversight or simple restraint*, and if they won't respond to reason, maybe it's time for a whack on the nose instead. The longer I follow American politics, divided government looks more and more like the best state of affairs-- it led to balanced budget in the 90s, and may be the only way to reign in the deficit at this point. Not gonna set voters on fire with this talk, but small, boring moves accomplish more than the big sweeping proposals.
   I'd have more sympathy for your concerns about security if I believed Bush and the Republicans were doing anything right  themselves~. The administration seems more concerned with defeating the courts than the terrorists, and the talk on that side of the fence has conflated anti-terrorism with war so much that they're seen as identical. I don't buy this model, and think America is less safe as a result. Breaking down the false dilemmas the administration has (ab)used to stay on course should be a top priority, whether or not there's a replacement plan. We differ on this point, but I think stopping a dumb course is worth backing the Dems.
   As far as the torture bills go, there are several other options than the two you present. For one, that swing voters have heard both sides, and either don't care, or don't believe it's as bad as all that. (No, I have trouble believing it too, but the psychology of the swing voter has always been baffling.) Do you remember what was on the news channels the day that bill was debated? Terrell Owen's overdose and a school shooting; I can easily see someone less connected to politics thinking, "Well, if it was that important, I would have heard about. Must not be that bad." Now, I'm not saying this is what's really going on, just that selling the issue to voters may require more effort than potential rewards this late in the game. That's the advantage of the majority-- you can set the agenda, and time decisions to deny the opposition a chance to respond.
   I doubt I've changed your mind here, and admit this isn't terribly inspiring rhetoric. But that's what happens when a party is in a minority for a while-- until the electorate comes around, your options are pretty limited, and most of them will be bad. (Sorry if this is disjointed. It took three hours to gather my thoughts, and the results are still unsatisfactory. Maybe the muse will whack me on the head after a workout.)

   *Some conservatives are beginning to talk about this when it comes to spending, though I've heard about this more than seen it.
   ~Port security remains abysmal, for instance, and Osama is at serious risk of dying of old age. Yep, nothing quite says, "tough on terrorism" like letting the man who killed 2,000 Americans go scot free for five years. But I guess pointing this out is in poor taste . . .

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

"Port security remains abysmal, for instance, and Osama is at serious risk of dying of old age. Yep, nothing quite says, "tough on terrorism" like letting the man who killed 2,000 Americans go scot free for five years. But I guess pointing this out is in poor taste . . ."

No, pointing this out is terrorism! Jeez. You people never learn.

Now shut up and reelect some real leaders who will bilk you of your tax dollars so their friends can make billions and strip this country of everything good or great, all the while smiling and telling you it's WJWD. Or, you know, you could go ahead and waste your vote on a viable, hopeful alternative.

{ k }

The answers aren't easy, they aren't able to be put into 30 second spots. The answers are there, Kerry has said this since he was running in 04, fighting terrorism is a catch the criminals thing now, no more invading countries just because they might have ties to terrorism. Biden has the divide the country up plan for Iraq. The Democratic party has no one leader, like say a president, so we get cobbled together ideas from the different people running for prez in 08 along with the ideas that the leadership has poll tested to death.

Both parties have the same tired ideas I just happen to like the idea of universal health care and a raise in the minimum wage, and I kind of like Biden's plan to divide up Iraq, and I like Kerry's approach to fighting terrorism, especially after reading James Fallow's article in the Atlantic Monthly about declaring victory in the War On Terror, and moving on to the next phase in fighting terrorism that involves less rhetoric and more intelligence, and arrests like they have done in England.

The answers aren't easy, they aren't able to be put into 30 second spots.

Fine. Web Space is cheap. I'm sure TnT, small budget that it has would be willing to publish "the answers" that the Democrats have on foreign policy. I'm a big boy, I promise my ADD won't affect my ability to listen.

The answers are there, Kerry has said this since he was running in 04, fighting terrorism is a catch the criminals thing now, no more invading countries just because they might have ties to terrorism. Biden has the divide the country up plan for Iraq.

Great. Lets start with Kerry. We treat Osama as a criminal..we "know" he's in border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. How does a "criminal" approach vs. a "invading countries" approach catch him?

Or how does a "criminal approach" deal with Iraq? What does the criminal approach mean for troop deployment? For military operations?

Until you mentioned Biden, I hadn't really heard of his plan, so I went and found this WaPo article where he summarized his position in 5 pooints. Things seem fine, until point 3 where it runs right off the rails  - as the Bush administration has found out, you can't have reconstruction until you have security. And you can't have security while insurgency is still slaughtering any and everyone.

There is a pretty damn big gap between Biden's step 2 and 3. Like you I'm just a guy sitting back and reading the news, but even I remember the talk about building Marriott hotels post-invasion and the job boom that would occur.

Biden's plan leads to the same civil war (and possibly regional war) that he says he is trying to prevent. Pretty damn big flaw if you ask me.  At least in the Bush model, we keep putting fingers in dykes the more leaks spring up.

The Democratic party has no one leader, like say a president, so we get cobbled together ideas from the different people running for prez in 08 along with the ideas that the leadership has poll tested to death.

A fair point. But why are all the ideas so dumb? Am I the only one who thinks Pelosi's minimum wage thing is not only stupid, but clear pandering to union workers who salaries are indexed to a minimum wage multiplier? Or that Kerry's foreign policy is either indiscernable from Bush's or incoherent?

You and I have jabbered back and forth for a few years now. You know that I supported Dean when he was running so its not like I have an axe against the Democrats...but come on man..seriously..universal health care, a subject no one but Obama is talking about, and minimum wage are your banners? Seriously?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

My top 5 issues:

1.  Secure Elections:  Making sure that elections are run fairly is a baseline without which we cannot have a democracy.

2.  Civil Rights:  Yes, even for non-citizens.  Yes, this involves not removing habeas corpus, not wiretapping people without judicial supervision, etc.

3.  Get religion the hell out of politics.  And the government the hell out of religion.

4.  Stop spending my grandkids' money like it's water.  Deficits are real.

5.  Try to make Congress responsible to the people, not just the lobbyists with the big bucks.

Thalia

I'm almost entirely focused on national security/terrorism

The terrorists have already won.

Yeah, you can see how California's economy is doing so much worse because the minimum wage is $7.25.  Wait.  You mean it's doing better than most of the country?  How could that be?  

By the way, the NBER study discusses the influence of working at a young age at minimum wage does.  Here is a counter study:  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002089709&er=deny

Thalia

California's- 2 million? 3 million? illegal aliens operating outside minimum wage laws aside, you've set up a false dichotomy. The economic impact of minimum wage laws must be measured on the parts of a large economy actually effected by such laws . This is what economists have done, and economists have consistently found such laws to have a negative effect.

Then you link to a paper which states "We find strong evidence to suggest that minimum wages are associated with a reduction in the percentage of an establishment's workforce receiving training" claiming that "counters" Neumark's paper.

The cognitive dissonance must be difficult. Raising the minumum wage is liberal dogma, and here is Neumark's analysis finding "The adverse longer-run effects of facing high minimum wages as a teenager are stronger for blacks." But it's not about real people, it's about feel good moral posturing, isn't it?

I know reading is fundamental.  Maybe you should try it.  To quote:

The fourth section discusses the empirical results. We find little evidence linking minimum wages to reductions in the percentage of the establishment workforce receiving training and absolutely no evidence linking them to reduced hours of training per trained worker.

Thalia

Again, I'm not sure why you think a finding that minimum wage increases did not appear to have a connection with the training of workers already hired refutes Neumark's paper.

Ah, I see.  Support for a higher minimum wage = Ignorance of basic economics. I'd like to see you make that case.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

I'd like to see you go buy a book on economics and read it.

Well, it isn't a book, but this article might surprise you, SU.

Of course, 650 economists (including five Nobel Prize winners in the same field) could be wrong, and you could be right.

Did you see me QL on the sidebar titled "Sad"? It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of economists don't support raising the minimum wage.

In all seriousness, it is sad. If these economists think they are right, that must mean they believe the Neumark paper (to take just one example) I linked to above is flawed or mistaken. So they should publish a paper on this. I suspect they haven't because they can't, but if the majority of economists are wrong and they are right they have an even greater obligation to publish on this, so it's sad they haven't. And because they haven't and because Klein, Solow and Stiglitz worked for Carter, LBJ, and Clinton, respectively, they open themselves to charges of bias.
 

That's what I thought.

You sure you don't want to play? I mean, if your position is so superior that you'd have to be 'ignorant of basic economics' to disagree it should be real easy, right? Like you could just link to all those empirical studies demonstrating  a link between minimum wage increases and market-wide wage inflation, general inflation, or job loss. And you'd certainly have a hard time finding studies demonstrating the opposite. I mean, unless your shallow understanding of the issue was based on some oversimplified general macroeconomic principles that don't actually bear out in practice.

Right?

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Like you could just link to all those empirical studies demonstrating  a link between minimum wage increases and market-wide wage inflation, general inflation, or job loss.

If raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation or job losses why are the Democrats being so stingy and only wanting to raise it to $7.25?  Why not make it $100 an hour and well all be rich!  Rich I tell you, rich!

If breathing is so great why don't you inject liquid oxygen into your lungs under pressure?

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

So are you saying if they raised the minimum wage too much we'd all die of Pulmonary Oxygen Toxicity?

It's kinda lame to argue with my points and then go and downmod them all as well.  Couldya pick one or the other?

Or maybe join me in asking the site coders to force people to choose one or the other?

You have to admit it's pretty cheesy.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Sorry about that, actually... I was kinda playing around with the moderation system and was seeing what it let you do and didn't do.  Apparently its way more liberal than I thought possible.  The "rate all" button doesn't seem to do what I thought it did either.  I went back and tried to fix things though.

It does seem kinda messed up overall though.  I'm not sure there are enough comments on this site to need moderation...

Well good, that's why I waited to hear from you before downmodding all your comments myself.  No problem.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

"Like you could just link to all those empirical studies demonstrating  a link between minimum wage increases and market-wide wage inflation, general inflation, or job loss."

There are so many empirical studies you could easily look them up yourself if you actually cared about the facts of this matter.

I don't know what you mean by "market-wide wage inflation".

Minimum wage increases don't cause inflation.

The employment effect of minimum wage increases is not just job losses, it's reduced hours, as well as under appreciated longer term effects.

If the desire is to improve the lot of the poor, let employers hire them at market wages, and subsidize those that make less than a certain amount using remedies like the EITC.  It would also help if steps were taken to reduce the supply of unskilled labor.

If the desire is to improve the lot of the poor, let employers hire them at market wages

I know little about economic theory, but on the face of it, this sounds like a terrible idea to me. I'm going to follow this up with an anecdote, which I know is something of a faux pas, but please bear with me.
   Wal-Mart just opened up a store on the South Side of Chicago. I forget the number of jobs available, but as I recall something like 5,000 people applied for a job there, and there couldn't have been more than, say 500 jobs available. They interviewed some of the new employees, and one sticks out in my mind, a mother (single, I believe) who took an entry level job. She's not a skilled worker. Her hourly wage is measly (I can't imagine how she could provide for herself and a child, or children, on that one job), and she said as much, but said it was the best she'd been able to get in her area. Now, given the glut of people who were willing to work at Wal-Mart, willing to do this woman's job, Wal-Mart could have easily filled that position by paying someone else less. Here's a woman already working for less than she would like, less money, it sounded like, than she would need to actually do well by her family, and the only reason her pay isn't lower is that she's not competing on the open market.
  I did a brief stint at a part-time job recently. They paid me peanuts. I got health benefits though. There were people working the same job who needed the money much more than I did, but I was in an OK financial position. I could have, and probably would have, done the job for even less. There's millions of teens out there who just need to make a little spending money who would do the same.
   Of course, it would be different around the country, but I get the feeling that the open market could only make things worse for people already working in low- or un-skilled positions. There are enough people not working, or enough people who only need some money, that many of those most in need would be working for nothing, simply because they have to in order to get the job. This is already the case for many. Look at immigrants and how little they are willing to work for. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of natives-born who would do the same. It sounds to me like this would make the number of people in that position go up, not down.

Now with caps!

Only about 2% of workers earn the minimum wage.  It doesn't prop up anyones wages, it merely excludes the lowest productive workers. You use Wal-Mart as an example, Wal-Mart already pays most of it's employees more than minimum wage. Force them to pay more, and they will alter who and how many people they employ.  

"Look at immigrants and how little they are willing to work for"

Illegal aliens illustrate an aspect of the senselesness of minimum wage laws, as many of them earn more than the minimum wage (the ones in construction), even though employers who are hiring illegal workers obviously are not constrained by minimum wage laws.

Only about 2% of workers earn the minimum wage.

I'm not sure what the numbers are, but that could be between thousands and millions of people, couldn't it?

It doesn't prop up anyones wages, it merely excludes the lowest productive workers.

So, you're saying that if wages at the bottom were lower, more people would be working? (Although, presumably, more people working for less than $5 an hour)

You use Wal-Mart as an example, Wal-Mart already pays most of it's employees more than minimum wage. Force them to pay more, and they will alter who and how many people they employ.

Doesn't a Wal-Mart store have a certain minimum of people they need to work their to meet the needs of their customers? Are you saying that if they had to pay another dollar an hour, suddenly there would be a few less check-out people, or the bathrooms would get dirtier because there wouldn't be enough janitors?

Illegal aliens illustrate an aspect of the senselesness of minimum wage laws, as many of them earn more than the minimum wage (the ones in construction), even though employers who are hiring illegal workers obviously are not constrained by minimum wage laws.

I don't see how that points to a hole in the minimum wage idea. The minimum wage is just that - the minimum. There will always be people who make more than that, either because they are more skilled than the lowest skilled worker (as I would think is the case in construction. There are so many illegal workers who know something about construction that, at this point, they can ask for more than the minimum wage. They are also saving the employer money compared to hiring a legal worker, so while they are not making less than the minimum in the country, they may be well below the average in the industry, though I don't know for sure).

I'm willing to believe that the minimum wage, or that raising it anyway, is a bad idea. But so far, I haven't seen convincing arguments (granted, I haven't read much about it). I've gone over a few websites, etc, but again, I'm not an economist. Alot this stuff is over my head. (As an example, one argument is that as the minimum wage rises, then employers will hire fewer workers. However, if the free market will supposedly raise the wages of those at the bottom, then why wouldn't the same thing happen? In both cases, employers would have to pay their bottom-rung workers more, so why would they not also hire fewer people?)

Is there no simple explanation for the problem with the minimum wage? Because it seems there's simple evidence for why it's a good thing, and why it may seem too low. If you want to win the argument on the minimum wage, you have to figure out how to convince people who are far less willing or likely to read more about it than I am.

Now with caps!

Whoops.. I left off a small portion of my comment somehow in the cut and paste... Anyway, there was supposed to be an "or" after the "either because they are more skilled" part. "Or" being simply that there are employers out there who believe in paying all of their workers above the minimum wage. That is all.
By the way, these nested comments get reeeeeally thin after the thread runs for more than a few comments. It really sucks.
:D

Now with caps!

 "if wages at the bottom were lower, more people would be working"

At least some of them, yes.  There are some workers employers would be willing to hire if allowed to pay them less than minimum wage, and there are some jobs that would exist that don't as well.

"I don't see how that points to a hole in the minimum wage idea"

It illustrates the fallacy that without a minum wage everyone would be working for 10 cents an hour.

"Alot this stuff is over my head"

It's not, though. Labor is a good like any other. Raise the price, less of it's purchased. From the employer standpint,  the minimum wage is a tax on hiring the least skilled workers.

It illustrates the fallacy that without a minum wage everyone would be working for 10 cents an hour.

I don't believe that would happen without minimum wage, and I don't think the Democratic party believes that either. On the other hand, I do think they believe, as do I at the moment, that without that minimum, a great many people would be taken advantage of and the number of "working poor" might increase, not decrease.

Labor is a good like any other.

I can't just take your word for that.

Raise the price, less of it's purchased. From the employer standpint

Again, earlier you argued that if there were no minimum wage, the free market would raise the wages of some of the less skilled workers. Wouldn't then, by your own argument, fewer workers be hired, hence, more unemployment?

the minimum wage is a tax on hiring the least skilled workers.

That sounds like a sound-byte. I don't mean to harp on you, and I appreciate your responses to my questions, but I'm not feeling alot of persuasive argument here yet. If there were no minimum wage, how do we know that there wouldn't be alot more people making alot less money?

Now with caps!

"earlier you argued that if there were no minimum wage, the free market would raise the wages of some of the less skilled workers. Wouldn't then, by your own argument, fewer workers be hired, hence, more unemployment?"

You misunderstood what I said. If there were no minimum wage, some workers that as of now are priced out of the labor market would get hired.  

"If there were no minimum wage, how do we know that there wouldn't be alot more people making alot less money"

In part because so few people make minimum wage now.

I'd read this, but your arguments are too thin.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You misunderstood what I said. If there were no minimum wage, some workers that as of now are priced out of the labor market would get hired.

I looked back and you're right, it could have been taken that way. I was kind of mixing your point with one I'd read elsewhere. My bad.

Now with caps!

There are so many empirical studies you could easily look them up yourself if you actually cared about the facts of this matter.

Indeed, and I did, which is why I asked you to present your argument. There are a variety of reasons people claim raising the minimum wage is counterproductive and I can't address your claim unless you tell me which one you believe.

I don't know what you mean by "market-wide wage inflation".

That would be the argument that raising the minum wage "trickles up" and causes wage inflation at all levels of the economy.

The employment effect of minimum wage increases is not just job losses, it's reduced hours, as well as under appreciated longer term effects.

While I can't respond to the abstract you linked to as the paper itself is unavailable, your other claims (job losses, reduced hours) are quite controversial and dependent upon the specifics of the wage rate and other economic factors in the subject area. See the UK Low Pay Commission's work for instance.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

 "That would be the argument that raising the minum wage "trickles up" and causes wage inflation at all levels of the economy."

I would hope no economists are making that argument.

" your other claims (job losses, reduced hours) are quite controversial "

No, they are widely supported by loads of research.

"See the UK Low Pay Commission's work for instance"

I might, if you provided a link.

One example (pdf), the low pay commission's analysis of the UK's 2003 NMW increase and its effects on employment.

Obviously the minimum wage can't be set arbitrarily but it has economic effects that are both negative and stimulative and it's entirely possible for the stimulative effects to outweigh the negative ones. You rightie pseudoeconomists love the Laffer curve. Think of the economic effects of the minimum wage as falling on a laffer curve.

Of course the reality is more complex. Macroeconomics are more hueristics than laws of nature. But in the macro picture the fact is that as long as you have unemployment marginal workers are at a competitive disadvantage bargaining for wages. Failure to account for the wages of the unemployed creates a de-facto Oligopsony over marginal jobs.

Somewhat like yourself, I think that a blend between earned income credit and negative income tax is a better approach to the problem of sub-poverty wages. Because frankly I've worked with people that should have been paid to sit at home on their asses because they would have done less economic damage that way. But I don't think the economic merits of the minimum wage are anywhere near as simple and wrong as you'd like to pretend. To claim that only the economically ignorant would support a higher minimum wage in the US is simply slanderous when many economists do in fact believe the minimum wage can be a useful tool in improving general standard of living without substantial impact on employment or productivity.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Forgive me for not considering that paper enough to overturn the consenus.

Is the unskilled labor market subject to significant oligopsony effects? I don't think that it is. Minimum wage laws could increase an oligopsony effect, as larger employers are more able to adjust to them than smaller ones.

"many economists do in fact believe"

A few believe so, with qualifications.

"To claim that only the economically ignorant would support a higher minimum wage in the US is simply slanderous "

Given the general consensus, isn't the burden of modesty on those that advocate raising the minimum wage? But you never hear them admit to the overwhelming evidence against their position. Because they aren't aware of it, and because advocating raising the MW more readily lends itself better to demogoging opponents as greedy misers who dislike the poor than advocating increasing the EITC.