Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Progress on tax cut package
Posted in:
* Who knew eliminating one job could save so much money?…
U.S. postal officials say they can save more than $48 million over the next 10 years by closing the postal station in the Stratton Office Building next to the Statehouse in Springfield.
However, the leader of the local postal workers union said the numbers appear to be inflated and he is launching an effort to keep the facility open. […]
“We only have one person that works there,” O’Connell said. “They used to have two people there. Now they have only one. I’ve put information requests in. They can’t explain where they are getting this figure.”
Postal service spokeswoman Valerie Welsch said she doesn’t know how that figure was computed.
“They don’t share that with me, but I’m sure that probably includes not only salaries, but benefits” Welsch said.
That’s a lot of benefits, man. Is that one worker provided with a full complement of butlers, maids and drivers, all with gold-plated pensions?
* From Postal math to Illinois Policy Institute math…
For most, EITC discourages work…
Because taxpayers lose out on the earned income tax credit as their income increases, there is incentive for workers to keep their income under the “phase-out” level. Specifically, the only time during which the government rewards the worker for earning more money is when the worker’s income is moving from zero to $12,750. The federal earned income tax credit only encourages work effort in the phase-in income range where the effective marginal tax rate is negative 40 percent. The taxpayer is, at best, indifferent during the plateau stage where the effective marginal tax rate is 0 percent. During the phase-out state – $41,000 for a single person and $46,000 for a married couple – the taxpayer is actually penalized with an effective marginal tax rate of 21 percent. Since the income range of the phase-out (21,800 to $46,000) is twice as large as the income range of the phase-in ($0 to $12,750), the federal earned income tax credit is spreading more work disincentive than incentives.
With a hat tip to a commenter, here’s an actual study of the real world which doesn’t rely solely on rigid ideological theories…
The authors use a unique data set of federal tax returns to analyze usage and participation patterns of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) over the period 1989–2006. The authors find that most EITC recipients claimed the EITC for short periods, 61% for 1 or 2 years. Over the period examined, the EITC reached approximately 50 percent of the taxpayers with children. Finally, the authors find considerable income mobility among the EITC eligible population. Only 11 percent of those claiming the EITC in 1990 and in the third decile of income were in the same decile in 2003. They also find that 20 percent of EITC claimants claim the EITC for more than 5 years.
* Reform math…
With special interests handing out more than a million dollars in campaign contributions before a controversial vote, state legislators are starting to point out the elephant in the room and discussing campaign finance reform.
The issue has long been a tightrope walk, hoping to strike a balance in competitiveness, fair play and ensuring every citizen’s politics are appropriately represented.
Legislation allowing Commonwealth Edison and Ameren to make high-tech upgrades to aging state infrastructure that was passed recently came with a price tag of larger annual rate increases for customers. But to the chagrin of some voters and advocates for finance reform, groups that were in favor and in opposition to the bill collectively made about $1.05 million dollars in campaign donations in a non-election year. […]
[Illinois Campaign for Political Reform] Executive Director Brian Gladstein said for many there was at least a perception that big business had an impact over the way legislators voted; possible reforms might eliminate such a perception from even occurring.
“It brings it up, people asking these questions and creating distrust toward our politicians … If it’s true or not, to me, isn’t the point,” Gladstein said. “Without that smoking gun, where there’s an absolute connection between a contributor taking that money and taking back votes, we don’t know … but I do think there’s that perception. And we’re talking about the public good … I think there’s an important role for politicians to play, to say ‘We’re not going to take this money when there’s a public interest battle.’”
“If it’s true or not, to me, isn’t the point.”
Um, OK.
But unless we ban all campaign contributions and move to publicly financed campaigns (something I support, by the way), then we’ll have this problem on just about all legislation, because there are “public interest battles” on pretty much everything under the Dome.
* Not quite…
Officials tinkered with the state budget to come up with extra money that Gov. Pat Quinn can use to run seven state facilities he had planned to begin closing within days. They also shuffled money around to come up with more cash for substance abuse services, community mental health programs and even funerals for indigent people.
There are tradeoffs, however.
…Officials also decided there was surplus money in a special fund that helps support government pension systems; instead of giving that extra $95 million to the struggling pensions, they’re diverting it for other uses.
If the budget had been constructed properly in the first place, that $95 million would’ve never gone to the pension fund, in this case the State University Retirement System. It’s not a “diversion,” it’s a transfer that happens whenever that particular fund shows an excess.
Treasurer Dan Rutherford is actually responsible for this excess cash. His office reportedly notified the General Assembly that the surplus existed, but for whatever reason the House never included it in the budget. There’s no reason to give the pension funds more than they say is required when the rest of the budget is being cut.
* Daily Herald…
Lawmakers scheduled themselves another day in session for the express purpose of getting the massive tax-breaks package approved. But that left details of the final House proposal to be negotiated over Thanksgiving week, so the bill wasn’t filed until Sunday, leaving no time to line up support in the House before committee hearings Monday and that fateful extra session day on Tuesday. On that day, lawmakers once again went home after failing to get support for either of two bills, with the House and Senate disagreeing sharply on elements that have nothing to do with Sears.
So there you have it — a monumental tale of legislative foot dragging. The General Assembly says it’ll keep trying, but it has no more meetings scheduled this year.
We previously have urged lawmakers to separate Sears from the umbrella bill and consider tax breaks for the retailer on their own merits. We reiterate that position, and advise lawmakers to take up Sears tax breaks again with a greater sense of urgency. With a $400 million offer on the table, Ohio leaders certainly seem to have had no trouble assessing the value of having the retailer in their state.
It might already be too late. Sears, while seeking to reassure workers, says it’ll stick to its plan to decide by the end of this year whether to stay or go. In light of that, comments by Senate President John Cullerton and others that the matter will keep until the legislature returns in January seem cavalier.
So many problems with so few paragraphs. The Senate passed its bill with a super-majority, but that’s not even mentioned. Cullerton was referring to the fact that Sears and CME might take heart in the fact that the Senate has already passed a proposal, and since the tax cuts don’t take effect until July 1st of next year there’s plenty of time to get something done. Also, there will likely be another session day this month, and there are no session days scheduled in January.
Sometimes, legislative matters take time. This is obviously one of those times.
* When “recalibrate” means “all but abandon”…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Friday disclosed plans to “recalibrate” former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s 10-year plan to end homelessness by creating jobs and permanent housing, improving 311 service and reducing “youth homelessness” that impacts 16,000 Chicago Public School students.
The mayor’s 2012 budget already includes a seven percent boost in city funding for homeless services—to $8.56 million–and a new 20-bed shelter for 18-to-24-year-olds, Chicago’s second “youth shelter.”
But that’s nowhere near enough to accommodate a 98 percent increase since 2003 in the number of CPS students either “doubled-up” with other families or living on the streets, said Ed Shurna, executive director of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
…Adding… Tribune…
Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria, sends every graduating high school senior in his district a congratulatory letter and a “certificate of special congressional recognition,” along with a voter registration form. That would be an exceptionally nice gesture if he paid for it with his own money.
Since April, Schock has been chairman of the House Franking Commission, a six-member panel that reviews taxpayer-funded communications to make sure the privilege isn’t abused. Schock told Skiba (in writing) that the panel is “focused on transparency and giving the public more information regarding member communications,” but he refused to be interviewed and wouldn’t say how much those graduation wishes cost the taxpayers.
We guarantee that if incumbents had to spend their own money, as their challengers do, they’d be more judicious about how they communicate with the people in their districts. Cheaper options abound: Email. Facebook. Answering reporters’ questions.
Since when do challengers, except for wealthy challengers, pay for anything out of their own pockets?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 12:32 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Progress on tax cut package
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Treasurer Dan Rutherford is actually responsible for this excess cash. His office reportedly notified the General Assembly that the surplus existed, but for whatever reason the House never included it in the budget. There’s no reason to give the pension funds more than they say is required when the rest of the budget is being cut.
Does DandyDan have a receipt? time stamped?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 12:38 pm
Regarding EITC, there’s a special kind of lunacy that presumes a poor person who is ALREADY WORKING would pass up opportunities to make more money to hold onto small-potatoes tax credits — and remain part of the working poor.
The fact that lunacy has seemed to taken hold among GOP members of the Illinois House is shocking and very sad.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 12:47 pm
Is the Illinois Policy Institute claiming there is little incentive to boost one’s income from $12,750 to $41,000?
What is the IPI claiming here? In one sentence, what’s the thesis?
Government does too much to help poor people? Poor people have it too good? The world would be better if poor people were poorer?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 12:47 pm
I don’t know, I’d rather make more money than depend on the EITC.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 12:59 pm
Carl: IPI claims that, because the amount of the EITC owed a family shrinks as that family’s income increases, working-poor households are uninterested in moving-up the wage ladder - in essence, that they’re counting on making more through tax-credit dependency than through advancing in work.
The study Rich cites above - by respected, national-level researchers - puts the lie to that assertion, pretty clearly. The working-poor recipients of the credit are happy to drop it once they’re able to improve their household finances and become more financially independent. And for most, that takes place within a couple-three years of claiming the EITC.
Comment by EITC guy Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:03 pm
PS It’d take several blog posts to list the decades’ worth of respected, national-level studies demonstrating the EITC to be an effective incentive in increasing workforce participation among low-income folks. Despite the IPI’s claim to 180 degrees the contrary.
Comment by EITC guy Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:08 pm
Wasn’t franking campaign literature at least part of what got Rosty in trouble?
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:17 pm
No. I think he was reselling stamps.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:18 pm
Wordslinger, et al,
Here is a bit of anecdotal evidence that some of the “poor” really do think that way on the various programs, including ETIC. You’ll just have to take my word the quote is a literal one.
As I’ve mentioned before, my son & daughter-in-law with two infants have been struggling the past couple of years and we’ve been helping them as we can. He is finally back at work about 3/4 time at one job and about 1/3 time at a second job; neither has benefits. They survive with help from the various government social / welfare programs.
He would love to have have a single full time job with benefits like he used to have. However, my daughter-in-law (who grew up in what can only be described as a long term “welfare” family) is constantly after him to “not work too much or she will lose her benefits” (Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, etc.). So yes, Virginia, there really are some people who think that way …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:22 pm
===Here is a bit of anecdotal evidence===
Anecdotes are not data.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:24 pm
Rich,
I agree they are not data. But, in at least this one case, it is a fact.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:25 pm
–He would love to have have a single full time job with benefits like he used to have. However, my daughter-in-law (who grew up in what can only be described as a long term “welfare” family) is constantly after him to “not work too much or she will lose her benefits” (Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, etc.). –
Sounds like a personal problem that maybe Dear Abby can help with. It’s not the basis for deciding public policy for millions.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:29 pm
Hmm, I took the “paid for it out of his own money” line as referring to non-government funds, such as his campaign fund. If that’s the case, the rhetorical question Rich asks about challengers should be turned around: since when do challengers pay for anything from government funds?
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:42 pm
I was being snarky, but paying for mail out of campaign funds would logically lead to even more campaign fundraising. I’m not sure we wanna go down that path, either.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:45 pm
Perhaps the Republicans should consider, instead, why working families can’t survive in today’s world on minimum wage pay.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:51 pm
Fair enough, Rich — it’s sometimes hard to tell when you’re being snarky or just commenting on snark-worthy events
But the fact is that we have several members of Congress from this state that really skate close to the line when it comes to franking, especially right before elections. Not a big deal, I suppose compared to the issues we elect them to resolve, but still . . . .
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:52 pm
Regarding the $48 million for the Stratton building post office, is it possible that they are somehow including the “cost” of the space it occupies in that building? I could sort of see that to a degree, as the space could be used for additinal office space or whatever. But even allowing for that, the whole $48 million amount just seems bogus.
Comment by cynical Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 1:58 pm
I’m probably in the minority among EITC recipients but I funnel as much as needed into my 457 to qualify for the full 50% federal retirement savers credit which then qualifies me for a partial, phase out EITC. As I recall, though, if I put that money into an IRA, it wouldn’t lower my “earned income” as it does when my employer takes it out. That gives me a good reason to save for retirement but I honestly don’t think I should be getting an EITC, at least not at the federal level where I pay nothing and still get back a couple grand each year.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:01 pm
I claimed the EITC for several years during the past decade, and while it did provide some much needed cash at tax refund time, it didn’t stop me from doing everything I could to boost my income until I no longer needed it. I’d much rather have extra money EVERY payday than only once a year!
Comment by Secret Square Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:12 pm
The goo-goos have never met any problem (real or imagined) that they didn’t have the same ineffective prescription for. You can’t even have a rational conversation when them, in a meeting, in a bar, over coffee, etc. It’s like a cult mentality.
Comment by The Captain Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:28 pm
**The goo-goos have never met any problem (real or imagined) that they didn’t have the same ineffective prescription for. You can’t even have a rational conversation when them, in a meeting, in a bar, over coffee, etc. It’s like a cult mentality.**
Are you actually responding to something on this thread?
Comment by dave Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:44 pm
–The goo-goos have never met any problem (real or imagined) that they didn’t have the same ineffective prescription for. You can’t even have a rational conversation when them, in a meeting, in a bar, over coffee, etc. It’s like a cult mentality. –
Perhaps if people knew what you were talking about, you would have much more stimulating conversations. What are you referring to?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:46 pm
==Perhaps the Republicans should consider, instead, why working families can’t survive in today’s world on minimum wage pay.==
Perhaps Democrats should consider, instead, why unemployed families can’t survive because their pet minimum wage laws raised the cost of labor among the working poor, thereby depressing their employment.
Comment by Neville Longbottom Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:48 pm
Neville, has the cost of labor gone up? Where and when? Real wages in the United States have been on the decline for the last thirty years among the vast majority of wage earners. It’s been in all the papers and thirty seconds at google will show you.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:54 pm
I’d defend the Institute on that one. First, Moody has a good reputation nationally. I ad hominem attacks reflect on the one making the attack.
Second, while I would criticize the line, “for most,” the other study mentioned it’s 20 percent in the abstract use the EITC for five years. That long period of time could be the incentive Moody identifies.
Third, the time series chosen may skew the results in the academic study. We’d have to look at the study. Why 1990 to 2006. There are two recessions in there that would need to be adjusted for.
Fourth, Moody is arguing that the incentive exists. I don’t know if he would argue that other incentives don’t out weigh the one not to work. He is just saying it exists, and from what I can tell he making a normative argument that tax policy shouldn’t include incentives not to work. I don’t know if that is all that ideological.
Moreover, I have to wonder what rigid ideology is Rich talking about? All economics is based on markets. That govt. intervention is good or bad in the marketplace is debated by people who all believe markets are better at organizing than central authorities. If you are reading an economics paper, guess what? It’s based on markets.
Comment by Greg Blankenship Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:56 pm
===Fourth, Moody is arguing that the incentive exists===
Without any evidence. That’s why I say they’re relying on ideology instead of data.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:58 pm
The idea that the EITC discourages work is such a joke.
As I said in a previous thread, I received an EITC credit when I was working part-time in grad school. I didn’t even know I qualified for the credit until I went to do my taxes and looked it up, so it had no bearing on whether I would work more. I would guess most people who qualify for the EITC are in the same boat in not making decisions based on how they can best qualify for the EITC and not having the luxury of economic security in being able to turn down the maximum paycheck today in the hopes of the maximum tax return in April.
Furthermore, if you make such little income you qualify for the EITC, you are probably not at a job where you get employee-provided health insurance and you probably do not have a job with vacation and sick time. Who is going to trade some piddling few hundred dollars in tax credits for a full-time job with benefits?
This is a perfect example why the Illinois Policy Institute should not be taken seriously as a policy shop and every news article that quotes them or one of their “studies” should point out the partisanship behind the outfit and the people who fund it.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Whos reads what their Congressman send’s them? My
guy Adam Kinzinger sends junk e-mail to me all the
time, mostly patting himself and the back.And then
uses his franking privlages to mail me. Telling all who will listen how hard he’s working passing bills that will never get passed by the Senate. Most of his stuff is like reading Alice in Wonderland. Only Alice’s group make’s more sense. I have come to have conclusion that if your an incumbent I’ll just vote for the other guy.
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 3:00 pm
The EITC was developed by Milton Friedman (he called it the Negative Income Tax in the 1960s) as an answer to Great Society welfare programs and it and had the full-throated support of Ronald Reagan through his presidency.
The idea was to help people to get to work and keep a roof over their heads and get them off the dole. People don’t need government money as an incentive to go out make as much money as they can.
In 2011, only big corporations need that.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 3:08 pm
This
Comment by The Captain Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 3:24 pm
==Regarding the $48 million for the Stratton building post office, is it possible that they are somehow including the “cost” of the space it occupies in that building?==
I checked with SOS, and the Capitol Station is provided rent free to the Postal Service. SOS also provides thir heat, water and electricity at no cost, and SOS changes their lightbulbs when they burn out. I have no idea where this $48 million savings would come from…
Comment by Agricola Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 3:59 pm
====Without any evidence. That’s why I say they’re relying on ideology instead of data.====
Unh??? An incentive is a motivator. He says in what you cite above that the higher marginal rate is the disincentive. The literature on higher marginal rates being a disincentive is pretty robust as I understand it. The idea that we should tax people at 99% because they’ll work that much harder for that 1% was discredited a long time ago. And no, I’m not making that example up. It comes from Britain in opposition to the tory govts of the 80’s.
My rigid ideological theory — if your interested — is that the average taxpayer EITC eligible isn’t an economist or a tax accountant who wouldn’t bother untangle the rules to figure out what Moody is arguing. I would also argue against bashing the EITC to build up your case for repealing the tax increases which is what the Institute is doing. The better argument to me would be to cheer on the EITC and call for more tax cuts targeted at the middle class.
There are valid criticisms to be made, dismissing this as “ideological” isn’t one of them. The ultimate goal of any think tank is to get guys like you and me talking about it. In that sense, it’s a winner.
Comment by Greg Blankenship Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 4:02 pm
I am the author of the Illinois Policy Institute’s study on the Earned Income Tax Credit. The analysis I did is showing that in the year that someone takes the EITC, folks have a strong tax incentive to keep their earning within the plateau region to maximize their EITC benefits—among others. Taxpayers in the phase-out range of the EITC face an effective marginal tax rate of 21 percent (22 percent when the state EITC is added). So, contrary to the stated legislative goal of the EITC, it does not always encourage work effort when someone is on it. In fact, it’s a de facto 22 percent tax in the phase-out range.
The cited article offered as a refutation of my conclusions is dealing with another issue which is how long does someone stay on the EITC. There are many reasons for why someone would get off of the EITC and not all have to with getting a job or earning more income. For instance, a single mom might get married and their combined incomes exceed the income thresholds. A single, minimum wage worker may decide to go back to school full-time to get a college degree and quit their job. They may win the lottery.
As such, the article does not disprove that the EITC is poorly designed tax policy that fails to accomplish the goal of rewarding work. Better alternatives to the EITC would be to lower the marginal tax rate or increase the personal exemption. Increasing the personal exemption is particularly attractive since it would also help low-income households with children (half of all exemptions are claimed by those earning less than $50,000 a year).
Comment by J. Scott Moody Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 4:03 pm
Scott, you cite zero data in your piece to buttress your hypothesis that the EITC “discourages work.”
Actually, one has to work to get EITC.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 4:05 pm
==Neville, has the cost of labor gone up? Where and when?==
Minimum wage laws set the floor of labor costs. Raising the minimum wage raises that floor. When that floor raises, the cost of labor among the working poor (who are those most likely to be affected by such a change) rises. It ends up pricing workers out of the market when their productivity is not be high enough to justify the new floor. Is it any surprise that minimum wage laws supress employment among the working poor and unskilled laborers? Basic economics and supply-and-demand theory predict such. Nearly 70 years of research confirms it further.
==Real wages in the United States have been on the decline for the last thirty years among the vast majority of wage earners.==
BLS data on real earnings among production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls show an increase since 1989 (the farthest back their historical data releases on the subject go).
January 1989: $7.68/hour (constant 1982 dollars)
October 2011: $8.74/hour (constant 1982 dollars)
A 0.6% annual increase over inflation doesn’t seem quite like being “on the decline.” But maybe that’s just me?
Comment by Neville Longbottom Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 7:43 pm
Ooooo, a buck an hour more than 22 years ago. How will they ever spend all that cash?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 7:55 pm
==Ooooo, a buck an hour more than 22 years ago. How will they ever spend all that cash?==
Funny, Rich. I don’t recall ever saying that a $1.06/hour increase over monthly inflation was some crazy-high increase. (Though the fact that people earn over $2,000 more today for the same work to buy the same goods or services doesn’t really seem like something to sneeze at.)
I said that raising minimum wage floors increase labor costs, which thereby depress employment among the poor, especially young minorities.
That position was attacked with the premise that real wages (adjusted for inflation) have been on the decline for decades. I was pointing out that such a premise is bunk. The data doesn’t support it. Real wages have risen. Hardly seems like the constant decline your commenters insisted on.
Whether you think real wages have risen enough is wholly distinct from whether they’ve risen at all.
Comment by Neville Longbottom Monday, Dec 5, 11 @ 8:29 pm
–I said that raising minimum wage floors increase labor costs, which thereby depress employment among the poor, especially young minorities.–
You said it, now show me.
Google “real wages on decline for 30 years” and then peddle your dorm-room nonsense.
Geez, you guys reject Friedman and Reagan now? What’s your ideal society? China? Somalia?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 6, 11 @ 7:54 am
==You said it, now show me.==
Try these studies for starters: http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm
When you get through those, I’ll be back with the studies from the last 15 years that further confirms. Or, you know, you can open any economics textbook… even Krugman’s.
==Google “real wages on decline for 30 years” and then peddle your dorm-room nonsense.==
I looked at the BLS data on real earnings. Which, you know, is how “real wages” are tracked. You can check it out yourself: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/realer_nr.htm
So, I did a little more digging. Wages peaked in 1974 (which is more than 30 years ago, but I digress). Okay, great. What has happened since? They declined for a while and started to rise, again. As I said, real wages are above 1989 levels. When wages are higher than they were 22 years ago, it’s hard to claim that there’s been a decline for the past 30 years.
What’s more, when you look at real compensation, not real earnings, you get a very different picture. Real compensation (wages + benefits) have risen for at least 50 years.
Your talking points might be fun, but they’re wholly unsupported by the data.
Comment by Neville Longbottom Tuesday, Dec 6, 11 @ 9:50 am
Neville, read the summaries of the “research” cited. Many of them contradict the conclusions of the House GOP Circa 1995 that precede them, such as:
Betsey, Charles L., and Dunson, Bruce H. 1981. Federal Minimum Wage Laws and the Employment of Minority Youth. American Economic Review, vol. 71 (May): 379-384.
Argues that employment losses from higher minimum wages have been overstated and that much of the higher unemployment among minority youth has been due to cyclical factors.
and…
Card, David. 1992a. Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 46 (October): 22-37.
Finds no evidence that the April, 1990 increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment, but does find evidence that it led to higher wages.
I understand that you long for the glory days of the House GOP in 1995 (and who doesn’t?), but have faith:
Your guy’s back. And he can barnstorm the country selling your message of a lower minimum wage and a repeal of child labor laws.
Seriously, Newt did a presser in New York yesterday with Donald Trump on repealing child labor laws and the virtues of 10 year olds working as janitor apprentices, tossing “union” adults out of jobs.
Trump. “The Apprentice.” Get it?
That’s gold, Neville, gold. Go for it. Believe me, I’m pulling for you.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 6, 11 @ 10:12 am
I have a list of research that illustrates my point (some of which appear in that list), but I posted their list because they took care to cite the studies that disagreed with their conclusions and I felt that was more academically honest.
I guess academic honesty is a vice for you folks, not a virtue.
Comment by Neville Longbottom Tuesday, Dec 6, 11 @ 11:39 am