The Dems have taken the House...with 70% of the precincts reporting in Montana, the Dem Senator there is leading. Virginia will depend on a recount, but as it stands now, Webb won.

If both of those Senatorial races end up falling for the Dems...they'll retake Congress.

And to top it all off, SD voters rejected that ridiculous abortion bill, resoundingly.

So far its been a good day for the good guys. Now to see how my Ohio issues went. =D

Rationalization.

You typoed the title, man.

jk, actually I love it when there is a different party in the Capitol and the Congress. Gridlock is great.

I agree that it is better when there is at least one chamber that is controlled by the opposition party. Either party in control of both Congress and the Presidency doesn't lead to very good things....

I think the idea of change is fine. My concerns are only two things.

One: it has been said at one time that should Democrats win the house, they will begin investigations and impeachment proceedings. I think that would be a waste of time and is NOT what the people wanted when they elected them.

Two: Democrats have a habit of cutting military funding. That means I am more likely to be jobless.

EDIT: The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two parties cooperate; it will be Pelosi's challenge to make that a reality. SOURCE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15615377/site/newsweek/)

THAT is what I think the voters voted for and I dearly hope that is what happens. I am skeptical.

Too bad the Democrats have to win in order for the Republicans to lose.

LOL! That's funny Vestix. Probably how a lot of people think.

I sent a barbed un-vote to my democratic senator for being such a schlub on immigration, but I knew she'd get re-elected.
has been said at one time that should Democrats win the house, they will begin investigations and impeachment proceedings.You mean like how the Republicans impeached the opposition president when they took over? :p

Nothing is going to get done in the next two years. Any democrat inspired legislation is going to get vetoed, anything the president wants to do is going to fall on its face. That is, unless the Jerk in Chief decides to REALLY become a non-partisan, like Clinton did, and works with the democrats finally. But they've done nothing but partisan bickering for 6 years now, I'm not sure you can just start over fresh when so much bad blood has been shed.

I just hope the Democrats realize that they didn't win because of anything they did.

I just hope the Democrats realize that they didn't win because of anything they did.

Isn't that sad. There isn't anyone out there that really gives us a reason to vote FOR them. Other than to just to get rid of someone else. Or to send a wake up call to a certain group or party.

You mean like how the Republicans impeached the opposition president when they took over? :p

I though that was stupid, too.

I just hope the Democrats realize that they didn't win because of anything they did.

I share that hope, but remain skeptical.

Isn't that sad. There isn't anyone out there that really gives us a reason to vote FOR them. Other than to just to get rid of someone else. Or to send a wake up call to a certain group or party.

That says something to me. The US is ripe for real leadership to come in and do something. Are there any left?

Or you could look at it this way, Karl Rove's genius couldn't over come reality.

Jon Stewart described it best (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=77943&ml_collection=&ml_context=show&allowMotherload=false&ml_gateway=&ml_comedian=none&poppedFrom=_shows_the_daily_show_videos_indecision 2006_index.jhtml&).

Bleh, tried to watch that but it kept cutting out on me. The parts I did see were funny.

Stephen Colbert had a nice melt down at the end. :D

The RI race was really interesting.

From Howard Kurtz's article
Slate's John Dickerson: "Dick Cheney recently reasserted that Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman was a sign to the terrorists that Democrats were weak on terror. The vice president, who is away on a so-far uneventful hunting trip, is presumably happy that Lieberman won. But what does he make of the story of poor Lincoln Chafee? The Rhode Island senator voted against the war, and 62 percent of his constituents told exit pollsters they approved of his conduct. And yet they voted him out of office. Why? Iraq. Of those voters who strongly disapprove of the war in Iraq, 27 percent voted for Chafee, and 72 percent voted for Sheldon Whitehouse. Not good news for the other Whitehouse."

I am actually happy about this. This takes the 'We are for change' card off the table for '08 and forces the Dems to actually put forth their change agenda. Let Pelosi loose finally!

seems rumsfeld is stepping down. hmmm

I'm listening to the Pres. address right now. He sounds very petulent. He has this speech thing he does when he is pissed and boy, oh boy, is he doing it. :p

I'm listening to the Pres. address right now. He sounds very petulent. He has this speech thing he does when he is pissed and boy, oh boy, is he doing it. :p

Well with rummy gone he's only got cheney to do his thinking for him so it's cut his brain power in half.

That would piss anyone off :wiggle:

Edit: My god just watched him on TV. He comes across as a whiney little boy who has been told he's been a bad boy, That has to be the worst performance of a president or any leader of a goverment i've ever seen on TV.

In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakota rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_ballot_measures)

I'm surprised about Arizona!

We aren't all backwards in the southwest despite what one may hear.

I found that leiberman winning even though he changed parties to "I" interesting and a bit hopeful. The voters chose him because of him not because of what party he ran with.

I keep hoping the Internet will make political parties obsolete.

The reason I was surprised about AZ is because they're usually pretty conservative.

My god just watched him on TV. He comes across as a whiney little boy who has been told he's been a bad boy

So saying man it sucks that we lost but I want to congratulate the Dems on their win and invite them to lunch so we can begin working together is whiney?

I just realized why Rumsfield stepped down,

took me a bit but its because Dems (may) take control of senate in 2007. (even if they dont, all it would take is 1 republican crossing the line)

Now is the last chance for Bush to get someone in of his relative choosing.

So saying man it sucks that we lost but I want to congratulate the Dems on their win and invite them to lunch so we can begin working together is whiney?
It isn't the words... its the manner in which they were delivered. I heard petulence and anger in his voice while he was giving the prepared speech. It went away when, for the most part, when he was answering questions (except when the reporters pissed him off).

Well with rummy gone he's only got cheney to do his thinking for him so it's cut his brain power in half.

That would piss anyone off :wiggle:

Edit: My god just watched him on TV. He comes across as a whiney little boy who has been told he's been a bad boy, That has to be the worst performance of a president or any leader of a goverment i've ever seen on TV.Let's hope the Democrats aren't going to be as petty and small-minded as you, then something might get done in the next two years.

It isn't the words... its the manner in which they were delivered. I heard petulence and anger in his voice while he was giving the prepared speech. It went away when, for the most part, when he was answering questions (except when the reporters pissed him off).

Apparently we heard the speech the way we personally wanted to hear it then. I didn't hear petulance or anger during the speech.

I just realized Rumsfield stepped down,

I was looking at the Toronto Stock Exchange before coming here. I was wondering why there was a dramatic mid-day rise. Now I know :) .

I was looking at the Toronto Stock Exchange before coming here. I was wondering why there was a dramatic mid-day rise. Now I know :) .

Pffft. The BBC disagrees.

Stocks fall as Democrats take the lead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6129700.stm)

1994-2006 was generally good economically speaking. Yes, yes, I know there are always people that it wasn't a good time for, but for the country as a whole, it did grow. Now we'll see if the Democrats can keep the economy growing, or if they drop the ball.

LOL! That's funny Vestix. Probably how a lot of people think.

I sent a barbed un-vote to my democratic senator for being such a schlub on immigration, but I knew she'd get re-elected.
You mean like how the Republicans impeached the opposition president when they took over? :p

Nothing is going to get done in the next two years. Any democrat inspired legislation is going to get vetoed, anything the president wants to do is going to fall on its face. That is, unless the Jerk in Chief decides to REALLY become a non-partisan, like Clinton did, and works with the democrats finally. But they've done nothing but partisan bickering for 6 years now, I'm not sure you can just start over fresh when so much bad blood has been shed.

I just hope the Democrats realize that they didn't win because of anything they did.


The democrats won because of what they didn't do, which as absolutely abuse their power beyond all measure when they controlled two branches, briefly....the same people who were voting GOP for congress in 94 and onwards are now realizing how big they screwed the pooch when they also let Bush steal a couple of elections.

I am actually happy about this. This takes the 'We are for change' card off the table for '08 and forces the Dems to actually put forth their change agenda. Let Pelosi loose finally!


Why? The GOP managed to ride the "we are for change" without a plan for two years after '94 ;)

We aren't all backwards in the southwest despite what one may hear.

I found that leiberman winning even though he changed parties to "I" interesting and a bit hopeful. The voters chose him because of him not because of what party he ran with.

I think that alot of Dems didn't bother voting in the primary because who would have thought Joe could lose? He's been there senator for a while now...and then he did lose and they were like "Oh ****...wtf dude?"

So saying man it sucks that we lost but I want to congratulate the Dems on their win and invite them to lunch so we can begin working together is whiney?

Yep, considering the GOP had zero interest in working with the DNC for the past six years.

1994-2006 was generally good economically speaking. Yes, yes, I know there are always people that it wasn't a good time for, but for the country as a whole, it did grow.

If by "country as a whole" you mean the top 1% of the nation which controls 1/3rd of our wealth, sure the GOP times were just groovy. Heck things were probably very not bad for the entire top 20% of the nation...the portion who controls 84% of our wealth.

For the other 80% of America, though, the past six years of GOP reign have sucked...a whole lot.

I don't think the economy is as bad as some people say, but its certainly not as good as others say.

A lot of people point to the Dow Jones as breaking its high point, but the DJ is pretty flawwed, not only does it track just 30 stocks, but its weird had it tracks increases (It doesn't do overall value, but it does it by a divisor that they change when they add stuff or stuff splits etc, but right now if a stock was worth 100 dollars, and one was worth 20, and both went up 1 dollar, it would have the same effect.

The S&P is still down a little since 2000, and the Nasdaq is down 50%

Obviously stock prices do not account for everything economically but its a decent snapshop - but that snapshot does not show that things have gotten better in the last 6 years, it shows that they have at best stayed the same, at worst gone.

I personally think that people give too much credit to the government in the economy though - for worse or for better, (of course they have more effect then any other single source, but Clinton/dems did not make our economy great, neither did Bush/gop Ruin it (or bring it back up since 2002) - they definately contributed to it IMO, but not a ton

If you make your money off of investments, sure it was a great time for you. If you're a working slob, probably not so good. I can't believe the Republicans didn't clue into that. They're so stunned because they think the economy is good but they haven't bothered to look at how most of the voters feel about that issue.

Interestingly I think the GOP lost something more than the election. They lost the popular belief that they're the better party for the economy and that they're the only ones that can deal with terrorism. The top for issues for voters at the exit polls were:

1) Corruption (42%)
2) Terrorism (40%)
3) Economy (39%)
4) Iraq (37%)

2 years ago most of those issues would have gone Republican.

Now it remains to be seen whether Democrats can be in charge without succumbing to the temptations of power.

Do you suppose there are going to be a lot of unemployed Republican lobbyists given their pink slips today? :D

Why? The GOP managed to ride the "we are for change" without a plan for two years after '94 :wink:

Well they did outline exactly what they wanted to do instead of just saying 'We are for change' without giving any clue of what that change is. It sucks that they didn't follow through with all their ideas for change in '94 though.

As far as the economy, I am not anywhere near the reviled rich level and I have done well during the Bush presidency. Did well during Clinton too, just paid more taxes. And by the way, rich people employ other people.

Stock prices are a *general* reflection of economy, not a complete one (never said it was) {obviously overall it also involves things such as cost of healthcare [up] cost of education [up] unemployment [up from 2k, down from last few years and ~96] etc.

y point is that stock prices as a whole are *not* as good as they were 6 years ago.

However it was not for a long period of time that the economy as a whole was "great" in the 90's, and the 70's and 80's certainly wernt stellar either.

My point is that stock prices as a whole are *not* as good as they were 6 years ago.I disagree. First, except for the dot-com-frenzy-fueled Nasdaq, they are much better.

Second, your reference point is arbitrary. Stocks have performed incredibly well for the last three (post-dot com bubble) years, across the board. If stocks were the only indicator of a good economy, these would be considered incredibly prosperous times. Even by all the usual indicators, the economy has been very strong in the past few years.

I don't see how you can fault Bush for economic woes, at least to the tiny extent he can actually affect such things. He took over in the wake of a market crash, and ended up with a strong economy.

Looking at one person, yourself, and saying the economy is better is a little silly. The buying power of a lot of people has fallen. The poverty rate has done nothing but increase over the last 6 years. Sure the unemployment rate is low but it has been low for a long time (except for right after 9/11). But what sort of jobs are there? Are they good jobs? Or are they service sector jobs that play the minimum wage?

Looking at one person, yourself, and saying the economy is better is a little silly. The buying power of a lot of people has fallen. The poverty rate has done nothing but increase over the last 6 years. Sure the unemployment rate is low but it has been low for a long time (except for right after 9/11). But what sort of jobs are there? Are they good jobs? Or are they service sector jobs that play the minimum wage?

But minimum wage just saw another increase! People can ALMOST afford to splurge in between high gas prices and living expenses...

I disagree. First, except for the dot-com-frenzy-fueled Nasdaq, they are much better.

Second, your reference point is arbitrary. Stocks have performed incredibly well for the last three (post-dot com bubble) years, across the board. If stocks were the only indicator of a good economy, these would be considered incredibly prosperous times. Even by all the usual indicators, the economy has been very strong in the past few years.


The S&P 500 is also down, (Addmittedly it only flew up around the bubble time too, so overall if you look at it from around 97/98, its overall made steady growth. Overall the stock market is really good if you look at it from the last few years, down if you look at its high point, average if you look at prebubble (which IMO is the best way to go, bubble was highpoint, bust was lowpoint, average is more important)



I don't see how you can fault Bush for economic woes, at least to the tiny extent he can actually affect such things. He took over in the wake of a market crash, and ended up with a strong economy.

Err I said that I think most people give way too much credit for the economy to the President, for good or ill. (I also said that they have the biggest single effect, but maybe I should have clarified that it that just cause its the biggest single, doesn't mean that overall its huge - just that public policy does have effect on the economy)

------

As I said in my first post, the economy is neither as horrible as some people like to portray it to be (sure things are hard for poor people, but when have they been great? If you go too far back (IE 50/60's and before, much of the "good times" would be at expense of Blacks etc, not to mention the fact that the rest of the world was blown to hell/rebuilding and we were one of the few industrialized countries that was unscathed, something that is unlikely to repeat itself)

But its neither as good as people say it is either; Education and healthcare are outstripping both inflation and earned wages, and education is more important then ever. Unemployment rates are arguebly flawwed etc

Pffft. The BBC disagrees.

Stocks fall as Democrats take the lead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6129700.stm)

and from TFA:

The blue chip Dow Jones closed 19.77 points higher at 12,176.54, while the technology-laced Nasdaq rose 9.06 to 2,384.94.

Stocks fall?

Let's hope the Democrats aren't going to be as petty and small-minded as you, then something might get done in the next two years.

I'm not small minded !

I'm a Brit and I find humour in most things :elfbiggri

Stocks fall?Stocks likely won't fall on the news that the Democrats have taken the Senate too. The Iraq war has haunted the market, and Democratic Congress = cut and run in Iraq = greater market optimism. Of course, the Iraq war only has a small total effect on the market, unless you were stupid enough to invest in the defense industry last month. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

It sucks that they didn't follow through with all their ideas for change in '94 though.

I remember that time well, they promised to bring all of those things to the floor for a vote. They never promised that they would pass, or could pass. They pretty much lived up to that promise, and then moved on.

Or are they service sector jobs that play the minimum wage?

Double minimum wage, triple it.

Your Starbuck's Americano or Chai Latte will double in price as well.

And the poor people who work there, still won't be able to afford them.

Looking at one person, yourself, and saying the economy is better is a little silly. The buying power of a lot of people has fallen. The poverty rate has done nothing but increase over the last 6 years. Sure the unemployment rate is low but it has been low for a long time (except for right after 9/11). But what sort of jobs are there? Are they good jobs? Or are they service sector jobs that play the minimum wage?

Stock values (after compensating) only tell something about the expected profit companies are going to make. In today's economical reality the most likely sources of an increase of revenue are either mass layoffs (cutting cost as it were) and buying/selling parts or other companies. The first is more likely to have a depressing effect on the local economy, the second has little to do with the state of the economy as a whole.

An important, and largely ignored when focussing on stock value, aspect of the econmy is that of the buying power of the people (as opposed to the companies and corporations). If that goes down the economy will spiral into a depression as well. Important indicators for that are income distribution (where is the collective wealth of the nation accumulated), the average and the median income. Especially the relation of average to median income is important to find if the economic growth has any effect on income).

Average income is the sum of all income (including those not derived from salary) divided by the number of people. If it goes up over a period of time the country as a whole becomes richer. (Many countries in Africa have the problem that the economic growth does not outstrip the population growth).

edian income is the income that half the population (does not) at least earn (or does not at least earn, it is the same number). This is important because relative to the average income this points at how the increased wealth is distributed. Generally the more extreme the income differences in an economy the lower the median income is relative to the average. If the median income drops this basically means that economic growth is either not translated into income growth, or that it is concentrated in the high end of the income scale. Even if the country as a whole grows more wealthy, the majority of the people actually gets poorer.
If you make a graph of income brackets and how many people are in that bracket you will see a peak to the low end of the midpoint, and over time that peak either grows, or moves further to the low end.

Without having access to more detailed US economic statistics I can not say what has happened the last 5 and 10 years, but anecdotal stories suggest that indeed the median income is dropping fairly rapidly in the USA the last decade at least (though in all honesty reports suggest that the trend has gone on for several decades now, starting in the late 70s early 80s already, and is not something that can be attributed to any one political party but rather to the political system as a whole).

Whether or not this is a cause for economic concern or not depends on how large the difference and how stratified the social economy is (i.e. the harder it is to move out of the income bracket towards the higher end).
I have neither information of relevant figures for the US economy nor where the tipping point would be where the concern should become more acute. In large part because it is influenced by cultural aspects. E.g. Americans tend to be more self-sufficient and optimistic which means they will work under adverse conditions in the belief they can turn their fate around. Cultures that are more pessimistic in nature reach a tipping point towards violence much easier.


Eri

Pffft. The BBC disagrees.

Stocks fall as Democrats take the lead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6129700.stm)

1994-2006 was generally good economically speaking. Yes, yes, I know there are always people that it wasn't a good time for, but for the country as a whole, it did grow. Now we'll see if the Democrats can keep the economy growing, or if they drop the ball.

Ummm... you do realize that your link states that the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld is a reason for the DOW closing at record highs, right?

Ummm... you do realize that your link states that the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld is a reason for the DOW closing at record highs, right?
The BBC updated the story that Gunny linked later in the day after the market closed.

Without having access to more detailed US economic statistics I can not say what has happened the last 5 and 10 years, but anecdotal stories suggest that indeed the median income is dropping fairly rapidly in the USA the last decade at least (though in all honesty reports suggest that the trend has gone on for several decades now, starting in the late 70s early 80s already, and is not something that can be attributed to any one political party but rather to the political system as a whole).
Eri
The anecdotal stories are wrong.

Here's a link to median US household incomes for the last 20 years, in constant 2005 dollars:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08a.html

Well they did outline exactly what they wanted to do instead of just saying 'We are for change' without giving any clue of what that change is. It sucks that they didn't follow through with all their ideas for change in '94 though.

As far as the economy, I am not anywhere near the reviled rich level and I have done well during the Bush presidency. Did well during Clinton too, just paid more taxes. And by the way, rich people employ other people.

Not that that tired old line is valid, but its no so much true anymore....the CEO of Exxon employs no, or very few, people directly from his 400 million dollar income last year.

But he sure did **** alot of people.

Double minimum wage, triple it.

Your Starbuck's Americano or Chai Latte will double in price as well.

And the poor people who work there, still won't be able to afford them.

That just ain't so...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08a.html

I wonder if they take into account the fact that both spouses usually work these days versus one spouse in the 1970's and 1980's.

Looks like a $5000 increase since 1986 but factor inflation and housing prices into that, compute the actual buying power of those dollars and what are we left with?

Alabama looks very weird. 37, 39, 42, 35? Their median income rose 7k in one period? That is hinky.

That just ain't so...

We ditched the idea of minimum wages altogether a long long time ago, and it's not a consept we debate in my neck of the woods so it'd be interesting to see if there's any documentation from any western country describing the ACTUAL effects of this.

Oh hell yeah. Every few years in CA we raise the minimum wage and there's the usual outcry like Fyyr raised and you know what? Prices go up a tiny bit but they would have anyway for some lame ass excuse.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08a.html

I wonder if they take into account the fact that both spouses usually work these days versus one spouse in the 1970's and 1980's.

Looks like a $5000 increase since 1986 but factor inflation and housing prices into that, compute the actual buying power of those dollars and what are we left with?

Alabama looks very weird. 37, 39, 42, 35? Their median income rose 7k in one period? That is hinky.

He said that the income was corrected for inflation with 2005 as base point. (Meaning that the numbers for 2005 are as can been seen on a bank account; earlier income figures were lower at their time than represented here.)

It means that the median income has slightly outpaced the inflation and did make a moderate jump at the economic boom at the end of the 20th century.

I agree it would be interesting to see a comparison of hours worked to earn that median income over the same period, but my feeling is that it would be hardly conclusive, if a trend could be found at all.

What the figures do show is that contrary to popular belief the average american worker is not getting poorer (not getting richer either), and that in fact there is little mobility in income. At least the variations are not big enough to show up as a trend that can economically move a body of some 300 million people (I would guess about 170million households?). It suggests that the economic growth the last decade is spread pretty much over the entire economy and is not being concentrate in a ultra rich minority (any more than it already was.)
Bush's taxation policy did not make the rich significantly richer, nor did it make the poor significantly less so. It was just an excercise to run up an astronomical debt (or rather, a big loan to postpone a short term and relatively small recession).


Eri

I doubt housing is used in those inflation figures. We've had double digit increases in housing in my state for many years on end, resulting in things like... my house is worth almost 4 times what I paid for it 10 years ago.

Housing prices vary a lot state from State...

CA they are rediculous... but in most other states not as much. (well at least comparitively!)

There were vast increases in housing just about everywhere in the country. It started earlier in CA but it happened almost everywhere. In fact... it was global.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png

It is official! Democrats now have senate. I never expected that! Macaca-man conceded.

Oh hell yeah. Every few years in CA we raise the minimum wage and there's the usual outcry like Fyyr raised and you know what? Prices go up a tiny bit but they would have anyway for some lame ass excuse.

I am not outcrying anything.

Raise it, I don't care, because I am going to be making more than minimum wage. And it has never ever affected me negatively.

Raise it. It won't matter to the people who you are saying supposedly will benefit from it either, those making minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage is very good for business, they just pass the costs on to the customer. Raising minimum wage has never lead to unemployment like the detractors say that it will. I have seen minimum wage go from 2.50 and hour to 6.75 now an hour, and has never been attached to any real unemployment. It will be going up to 8.00 an hour here soon. And will not increase unemployment then either.

Well, besides high schoolers trying to work, it might, for a while. But no one really cares about them.

But don't lie to me, and say that it will actually better the lives of anyone actually making minimum wage, because it won't. When our minimum wage goes up to 8 dollars an hour, I will just raise the price of my labor to conveniently compensate for it. And I will be happy because I will be making more money too.

The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades...
50 Thou a year will buy a lotta beer.

Back then, 50 a year was a lot of money. 150 K in our money today. It just won't really matter.

ake it 10 an hour, a hundred an hour. I, and any sane worker, will just raise their labor costs to compensate for the increased prices from service and retail industries.

That just ain't so...

I know.

They get their coffees comped.
It was hyperbole in that regard.

The anecdotal stories are wrong.

Here's a link to median US household incomes for the last 20 years, in constant 2005 dollars:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08a.html

The $5600 increase in the median income since '84 fails to take into consideration the significant increase in two worker families since then either.

Further, the measures which are more accurate are wealthy disparity and the wage increase vs consumer price index, or buying power.

If you take the average hourly wage increase and subtract the consumer price index increase, you get the real hourly wage or real income.

Sept '05 - Sept '06 the real hourly wage dropped 3.62% according to Dept. of Labor statistics.

We ditched the idea of minimum wages altogether a long long time ago, and it's not a consept we debate in my neck of the woods so it'd be interesting to see if there's any documentation from any western country describing the ACTUAL effects of this.

There is much less need for a minimum wage standard in a socialized nation.

I am not outcrying anything.

Raise it, I don't care, because I am going to be making more than minimum wage. And it has never ever affected me negatively.

Raise it. It won't matter to the people who you are saying supposedly will benefit from it either, those making minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage is very good for business, they just pass the costs on to the customer. Raising minimum wage has never lead to unemployment like the detractors say that it will. I have seen minimum wage go from 2.50 and hour to 6.75 now an hour, and has never been attached to any real unemployment. It will be going up to 8.00 an hour here soon. And will not increase unemployment then either.

Well, besides high schoolers trying to work, it might, for a while. But no one really cares about them.

But don't lie to me, and say that it will actually better the lives of anyone actually making minimum wage, because it won't. When our minimum wage goes up to 8 dollars an hour, I will just raise the price of my labor to conveniently compensate for it. And I will be happy because I will be making more money too.

The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades...
50 Thou a year will buy a lotta beer.

Back then, 50 a year was a lot of money. 150 K in our money today. It just won't really matter.

ake it 10 an hour, a hundred an hour. I, and any sane worker, will just raise their labor costs to compensate for the increased prices from service and retail industries.

You're wrong on so many levels, Fy'yr...its been shown on here how you're wrong. Stop spewing that.

Do you know what really drive up inflation? It isn't minimum wage increases...its Oil execs gouging America with 3 buck a gallon gas. When the price of gas goes up...everything in America gets more expensive. Do you want to cover the "cost" of a minimum wage increase? Regulate the oil industry to keep our fuel costs reasonable.

When the price of gas goes up...everything in America gets more expensive. Do you want to cover the "cost" of a minimum wage increase? Regulate the oil industry to keep our fuel costs reasonable.

You do realize we already regulate the industry right? They are only allowed to make something like 8% profit. Oil execs don't set the price, OPEC and futures brokers do. The true gouging is the taxes we pay per gallon.

Bitch at Hugo Chavez or Shiek Achachachloogie or anyone opposed to domestic drilling first.

Here's an interesting article about minimum wage hikes and prices: http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=100
To test this claim, Daniel Aaronson and Eric French examined government-collected price data. In a series of studies over the last four years, Aaronson and French show that a 10 percent hike in the minimum wage increased restaurant prices on the whole by 0.7 percent, and prices at limited service establishments by 1.6 percent. This result, in combination with other information about the restaurant industry, can be used within a formal model of the labor market to infer the impact of a minimum wage increase on employment. They find that employment losses of 2 to 2.5 percent following a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would be consistent with their estimated price responses. These findings are consistent with a competitive model but generally not consistent with imperfect competition models where individual restaurants have wage-setting power. This paper summarizes Aaronson and French’s results.

You do realize we already regulate the industry right? They are only allowed to make something like 8% profit. Oil execs don't set the price, OPEC and futures brokers do.
Do you have any links to back that up? I'm thinking if that were true then how could they ever experience windfall profits?

Do you have any links to back that up? I'm thinking if that were true then how could they ever experience windfall profits?

I'd be interseted in this also. Although 8% profit in that business is probably quite a bit.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

Here is an explanation of costs. As you can see taxes and OPEC are roughly 79% of the price. I am still looking for the link for the 8% profit figure. It has been a while since I first saw it. As for how they made record profits, it was because the price of oil went up so much and demand remained the same if not higher.

http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm

Found this link. Reading it 8% is WAY higher than what I had heard (or could swear I heard/read). So I stand corrected.

I don't see anything that says they're limited to a particular profit. If anything it sounds like whatever price controls were on oil have been lifted. They say they used to have price controls but it sounds like they were lifted.

I'd say the point at which the incredible money is being made is in the speculation.

I don't see anything that says they're limited to a particular profit. If anything it sounds like whatever price controls were on oil have been lifted. They say they used to have price controls but it sounds like they were lifted.


Hence my I stand corrected comment. I should have made myself clearer.

Ah, sorry I missed that. :)

You're wrong on so many levels, Fy'yr...its been shown on here how you're wrong. Stop spewing that.
You have not shown anything.

Do you know what really drive up inflation? It isn't minimum wage increases...its Oil execs gouging America with 3 buck a gallon gas. When the price of gas goes up...everything in America gets more expensive. Do you want to cover the "cost" of a minimum wage increase? Regulate the oil industry to keep our fuel costs reasonable.
Funny how when a gallon of a milk and a gallon of gas did both cost 1 dollar, at the same time.

Funny that a gallon of milk now costs 4 bucks, and a gallon of gas only costs 3.

$4 for a gallon of milk?! Try $2, at least where I live.

I've seen it as low as $1.39 as a loss leader in certain convenience stores around here.

The $5600 increase in the median income since '84 fails to take into consideration the significant increase in two worker families since then either.
Ok, let's look at some more data:

ore data on median income, this time by earner. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p02.html)

This data shows median income for men and women separately. It is also broken down by race if anyone cares to analyze that.

The data tables end in 2003 (instead of the 2005 data I linked earlier), and provide median income in both current dollars and constant 2003 dollars.

Over a twenty year period (1983 to 2003) men across all races saw a rise in income, computed in constant 2003 dollars, from $25635 to $29931. Women saw in increase, computed in constant 2003 dollars, from $11072 to $17259. Evidently, the rise in household income is due to rise in earner income rather than the increase in the number of two-earner households.

If you have data to the contrary, please link it.

Further, the measures which are more accurate are wealthy disparity and the wage increase vs consumer price index, or buying power.
Wealth disparity is irrelevant to the question of median income in the presence of data directly measuring said income.

If you take the average hourly wage increase and subtract the consumer price index increase, you get the real hourly wage or real income.
The data I quoted used constant dollars. Constant dollars by definition incorporate increases in the CPI.

Sept '05 - Sept '06 the real hourly wage dropped 3.62% according to Dept. of Labor statistics.
Short term fluctuations are inevitable and not particularly meaningful, unless you're the chairman of the Fed.

Here's an interesting article about minimum wage hikes and prices: http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=100
It would matter which restaurants they used for the study.

A 4 or 5 star Bistro has very little actual direct labor costs built into the price of the menu. The consumer pays much of the labor costs for the meal(service) in the form of tips.

An Arby's has much of the cost of direct labor built into the price of the menu. 40 percent in many cases.

Also what needs to be accounted for is the temporary influx of more money in the hands of minimum wage earners. Since economically speaking these people are going to be patronizing an Arby's over a Bistro, the low end fast food restaurants will have an increase in productivity. That is to say, for a short period of time, poor people will have more money to spend, and will spend it.

Even simpler, if I as an owner of Arby's previously spent 40 dollars a month on labor, and sold 100 dollars worth of sandwiches, with a profit of 10 dollars. Following an increase of 10% in labor costs, my labor cost will have gone to 44 dollars a month, and for a short time, I will be selling 105 dollars worth of sandwiches, because more poor will be buying my sandwiches, with a profit of 10 dollars per month. The difference would be accounted for by increased productivity of my present workers, they will just have to work faster on average to make the extra 5 dollars worth of sandwiches.

y percentage of profit has already decreased, but my actual profit has stayed the same. Human economic nature being what it is, I am going to be satisfied with this for a short time.

By now, I am starting to see an increase in my parts costs, from food that I buy. Because those items too are heavily dependent on minimum wage workers. My parts costs are now reflecting the increased labor costs, my 40 dollars each month in parts, is now going to be 44. This change takes months, for in many cases, I still have ordered parts in the pipeline, bought at the lower previous prices. But when they start to come in, my profit level will further decrease. And so will my percentage profit.

And I will notice this. And I will be forced to change the price on my products to re-stabilize my profit, as well as my percentage profit.

If my Arbys in in a location where labor costs are higher than minimum wage, that is to say, to get competent workers I have to pay higher, you will see this cost passing much later. That is to say, that if minimum wage is 4.00 dollars an hour, and I already pay 4.40 an hour. And if minimum wage is raised the 10 percent, to 4.40 an hour. I do not necessarily have to increase the price of my product, because for the immediate future I don't have to raise the hourly wage I am paying. But my workers who were previously making more than minimum wage, and who are NOW making minimum wage, will become discontent because of it. I will have to deal with attrition, low morale, and decreased productivity from these now, 'lower paid' employees.

And to decrease attrition, increase morale, and increase productivity, I will again have to pay more labor costs. And at this time, I will be forced to increase my prices to account for the increased costs. But this may be months after the actual increase in minimum wage.

I am sure that if you researched the actual study, that the economists found these things(and more which I might address later).

$4 for a gallon of milk?! Try $2, at least where I live.

I've seen it as low as $1.39 as a loss leader in certain convenience stores around here.

Do you remember the cost of a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas from 20 years ago in your area?

I am sure that the differential is/was the same, percentage wise, as here in California.

We pay more for milk per gallon than gas, here in California. Now, at one time they were the same price. Gas has not kept up with the cost of milk, or bread, or many other consumables over the years.

Gasoline prices, though, are another substantial source of inflation, as Aidon mentions. I am not disputing that, per se. The reason why I mention what I do, is because there are so few minimum wage workers in the distribution pipeline, you would have to see very little influence of increases in minimum wage on the price of gasoline. And compared to other products which are tied to the price of minimum wage labor, that is what you see.

I don't see anything that says they're limited to a particular profit. If anything it sounds like whatever price controls were on oil have been lifted. They say they used to have price controls but it sounds like they were lifted.

I'd say the point at which the incredible money is being made is in the speculation.

How can you look at that and get that?

The real "incredible money" is being made on the 42% taxes!

I always thought it the exquisite height of hypocrisy that Congress could call hearings on oil companies because they might have made 8%, 10% or 12% profit on gas, when Congress is sucking 42% of the cost of gas into its own pockets.

Speculators are not helping one bit, however. You can thank Bill Clinton and the 106th Congress for that particular phenomenon. He signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000), or "Enron loophole" back in the waning hours of the 106th Congress. (probably in the same stack of Presidental pardons he handed out like candy)

To be fair, Bush could have signed it a month later; I doubt either one of them would have the economic background to realize what unforeseen consquences would result from this.

The important thing is this report,

http://www.billcara.com/archives/Role%20of%20spec%20in%20energy%20market%20Senate%2 0Report.pdf

released back in June 27, 2006 by the Senate was ignored by all the MSM media, and delineates exactly what we should do to fix the accursed oil speculation that now exists.

Until recently, U.S. energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX,which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC,including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years,however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures lookalikes.”
The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress

Enron is the corrupt P.O.S. that just keeps on giving! Someone void this piece of ill thought legislation.

There is much less need for a minimum wage standard in a socialized nation.

Probably so, seing how we've focused on job security instead. Add that to the fact that social security and unemployment benefits are of a level so people don't actually starve, that in itself forces employers to offer people relatively decent wages, as well as hire "smart" (seing as they cannot fire people "just because"). Noone (well, relatively few anyway) would work for less money than they'd get for doing nothing.

That aside - it'd still be interesting to see how the consept actually works in practice.

How can you look at that and get that?

The real "incredible money" is being made on the 42% taxes!

I always thought it the exquisite height of hypocrisy that Congress could call hearings on oil companies because they might have made 8%, 10% or 12% profit on gas, when Congress is sucking 42% of the cost of gas into its own pockets.
Every corporation pays taxes on their profits, unless they figure out how to evade them. Are you talking about corporate taxes or at the pump gasoline taxes? If you're talking about gasoline taxes, they're set at a price per gallon, not a percentage. And I think the federal tax is 18 cents a gallon, nothing like the 42% you claim it is.

Like I said, incredible amounts of money are made on speculation.

As far the the taxes, Congress isn't lining their pockets as you imply (at least not with gasoline taxes). They're lining the budget, which is probably helping to keep us afloat with the current huge debt we've accumulated thanks to things like the Iraq war and expensive bridges to nowhere. We've got to pay for these corporate entitlements your boys love to make somehow!

I totally agree that some controls are needed on the market. But I'm surprised to hear you say that. I figured you'd be on Enron's side, cheering on guys who want to fleece their grandmas.

I totally agree that some controls are needed on the market. But I'm surprised to hear you say that. I figured you'd be on Enron's side, cheering on guys who want to fleece their grandmas.

IF it were concentrated orange juice (Trading Places!), or soybeans they were speculating on, I'd be for letting them continue. But gasoline is the lubricant that keeps the economy from seizing up. It has to be treated slightly differently than coffee beans, or Douglas fir lumber.

We have alternatives for any commodity if the price gets too high. Except gasoline.

Plus, we're not saying that can't speculate, just that you can't speculate on imaginary barrels of oil, as is being done today. They'd have to go back to the old system that only allowed speculation on ones within the US. If you read the full report, you'll see the farce that the unrestricted speculation has become.

And I think the federal tax is 18 cents a gallon, nothing like the 42% you claim it is.


The federal tax is roughly 18 cents per gallon. But you also need to add state taxes. Here is a link that is a year old but will give you an idea of how much taxes make up the price of gas.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html

The federal tax is roughly 18 cents per gallon. But you also need to add state taxes. Here is a link that is a year old but will give you an idea of how much taxes make up the price of gas.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html
Right, I understand that. What I couldn't figure out was how the claim was that it was the taxes making the price go up. The tax rate is fixed per gallon, it isn't a percentage, like sales tax.

Gas taxes are some of the fairest taxes we have - the amount you pay is correlated you use.

You do realize we already regulate the industry right? They are only allowed to make something like 8% profit.

We do not limit their profits and 8% profits is a pretty number that doesn't hide the fact that Exxon made more profit in '05 than any company has ever made anywhere at anytime. The major domestic oil companies all had record breaking profits in '05 while charging America near record fuel prices. It isn't coincidence. So much as I can tell, our "regulation" of the oil industry amounts to figuring out how much of a tax break we will give them and how many extra years we'll let them not pay royalties.

Oil execs don't set the price, OPEC and futures brokers do. The true gouging is the taxes we pay per gallon. Bitch at Hugo Chavez or Shiek Achachachloogie or anyone opposed to domestic drilling first.

Newsflash. The US produces over 50% of the oil we consume. The majority of the rest comes from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (in decending order, though Mexico and Saudi Arabia are virtually identical and switch back and forth alot). A not insiginificant amount of that Canadian and Mexican oil is coming via American companies, anyways. OPEC has little say over our gasoline prices.

As for taxes...we pay the lowest taxes on our gasoline in the western world.

No, the facts very much support the notion that Big Oil is raping America.

http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm

Found this link. Reading it 8% is WAY higher than what I had heard (or could swear I heard/read). So I stand corrected.


There are those who might suggest that perhaps the corporate site of a major oil company isn't the best place to go for unbiased and truthful information on whether or not Oil has been ****ing America.

You have not shown anything.

Funny how when a gallon of a milk and a gallon of gas did both cost 1 dollar, at the same time.

Funny that a gallon of milk now costs 4 bucks, and a gallon of gas only costs 3.

A gallon of milk doesn't cost anywhere near 4 bucks here and was nowhere near 4 bucks when gas was 3 bucks here. I don't know where the **** you live, but here in Ohio, milk is one of the cheaper staples, it seems to be roughly 1.50 a gallon.

Its funny how 10 years ago gas cost around a buck...and it tripled in price over a decade.

Ok, let's look at some more data:

ore data on median income, this time by earner. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p02.html)

This data shows median income for men and women separately. It is also broken down by race if anyone cares to analyze that.

The data tables end in 2003 (instead of the 2005 data I linked earlier), and provide median income in both current dollars and constant 2003 dollars.

Over a twenty year period (1983 to 2003) men across all races saw a rise in income, computed in constant 2003 dollars, from $25635 to $29931. Women saw in increase, computed in constant 2003 dollars, from $11072 to $17259. Evidently, the rise in household income is due to rise in earner income rather than the increase in the number of two-earner households.

If you have data to the contrary, please link it.


Wealth disparity is irrelevant to the question of median income in the presence of data directly measuring said income.


The data I quoted used constant dollars. Constant dollars by definition incorporate increases in the CPI.


Short term fluctuations are inevitable and not particularly meaningful, unless you're the chairman of the Fed.

No, the fact that they are all computated into 2003 dollars has little to do with the CPI. The adjustments are only made using standard inflation figures whereas the whole thrust of this discussion is that the CPI is outstripping that standard and the average american is not having his wages increased sufficiently to keep up with the increase in costs for rather important areas such as fuel, housing, childcare, health, and college education.

A gallon of milk doesn't cost anywhere near 4 bucks here and was nowhere near 4 bucks when gas was 3 bucks here. I don't know where the **** you live, but here in Ohio, milk is one of the cheaper staples, it seems to be roughly 1.50 a gallon.

Its funny how 10 years ago gas cost around a buck...and it tripled in price over a decade.

I live in Lodi, California.

And gas was not a buck 10 years ago, not even close. Not here.

I will go to the store today, and take a picture of the milk prices for you, because you don't believe me.

No, the fact that they are all computated into 2003 dollars has little to do with the CPI. The adjustments are only made using standard inflation figures whereas the whole thrust of this discussion is that the CPI is outstripping that standard and the average american is not having his wages increased sufficiently to keep up with the increase in costs for rather important areas such as fuel, housing, childcare, health, and college education.
The CPI is the standard inflation figure for consumers, and includes housing, fuel, medical care, and education. I don't know if it includes child care or not.

I don't know if it includes child care or not.

I think that we need to pay child care workers 25 dollars an hour, minimum.

And we all know from the arguments in this discussion that would have NO effect on cost of living. Or inflation.

I mean, it is THE most important job there is, taking care of children. Everyone knows that. It's not like its not worth that.