If Paul Krugman and other liberals are sold on the minimum wage, then instead of experiment on the U.S., why don't they test their theory in other countries like Mexico and South America where presumably it is needed more. And, if it works, then liberals will have bragging rights and may even solve the poverty and illegal immigration problem--two birds with one stone.
If it doesn't work (count on it), then at least the liberals won't have damaged the economy any more than the already have.
Econ 101: not that it should be the government's business what people are paid by private corporations, but too many people are looking at the minimum wage debate all wrong. They aren't considering the basic economic reason behind wages. By economic definition, wages are the price of labor, and like with other prices, they are a function of supply and demand as well as productivity, ability, etc. (see HERE)
In short, wages are the VOLUNTARY exchange rate for product and services supplied to employers by employees.
Optimally, the greater the market value supplied by the employee, the greater the wage. This is why, generally, brain surgeons are paid more than paper delivery boys.
Minimum wage laws turn this basic and sound economic principle on its head, and arbitrarily sets the minimum price of labor based not on value produced--i.e. paying people what they are worth, but on perceived needs and some distorted notion of fairness..
To see just how inane this is, consider were the government to set and arbitrarily raise minimums on other prices such as for produce, and this on the basis of assuring farmers need a living profit. What would you think were the government to set the minimum price for all produce at $4 lbs, making bananas equal in value to Braeburn apples and Granny the same price as Honeycrisp. Would you buy watermelon at $4 lbs.?.
In their inane quest to promote perversion and obliterate the valued differences between men and women, liberals are unwittingly violating the right of women to privacy in their own bathrooms. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
Over the years the Global Warming movement has produced various economic studies on climate change, including some alleged cost/benefit analyses, or CBA's.. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
For the most part, these CBA's "weigh the consequences of the projected increases in carbon emissions versus the costs of current policy actions to stabilize CO2 emissions" (see HERE)--or in other words, they compare the projected benefit of decreased CO2 emissions vs the cost of decreasing those emissions, and not surprisingly, they have concluded that the benefits far outweigh the costs, and that action is economically and morally imperative. They suppose that liberal governments must rescue the planet from pending doom.
In spite of claims that the "science is settled", some scientist believe that global warming is actually a benefit rather than a cost (see HERE), thus turning previous CBA's on their head.
Others believe that the CBA's were misleading--shocking, I know. (see HERE)
Nevertheless, even though the chicken little cacophony on global warming continues unabated today, we can now look back over several decades since the hue and cry went up, to see not only how accurate were the predictions upon which the CBA's were made, but also look at the amount of money spent on climate change compared with the results.
Evidence suggests that the models used to make the catastrophic projections have failed to match reality. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), thereby seriously compromising the CBA's.
This is made all the more apparent by the cost/benefit analysis I performed. (see above). We've spent more than $200 billion on climate change over the last 12 years (see HERE), which is twice as much as spent each year on boarder security, thus indicating priorities.
. And, this is a drop in the bucket compared to were congress not to have stopped Cap and Trade--i.e. the largest project in government history. (see HERE).
This also doesn't factor in private, or "dark" money, which dwarfs skeptic research. (see HERE)
Obama recently declared that things are great right now. (see HERE and HERE)
However, you would think just the opposite listening to the Democrat candidates at the first presidential debate. (see HERE)
Some of the direct or implied criticisms of current leadership included: involvement in Iraq and other war, scandals, lack of honesty, increased income and wealth inequality, money corrupting the political process, empowerment of Wall Street, turnstile government, power of the financial sector in politics, leaders co-opted by the D.C. system, lack of bi-partisanship, wrong reputation overseas, lack of common sense foreign policies, deep economic injustice, increased poverty, poorer are getting poorer, 70% making the same or less, burdensome college debt, series of crises, middle class disappearing, millions of people working longer hours for less pay, wealth accumulating only to top 1%, money pouring into elections to support special interests rather than working people, campaign finance system is corrupt, failure to transform from fossil fuels that cause real climate change, too many people in jail, unemployment among black youth is 51%, Hispanic youth at 36%, government is taken over by a handful of billionaires, lack of good-paying jobs, lack of investment in science and research, low minimum wage, insufficient sharing of profits with workers, loopholes in tax code that favor the rich, unequal pay for equal work, no paid family leave, divided country--economically, racially and sexual orientation, as well as sexism. And, all this was just in the opening statements.
Surprisingly, this isn't an isolated case. The conflict between Obama and his fellow Democrats began before the debate, and will likely continue thereafter. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) This is no more true than with the Clintons, and vice versa. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
Evidently, not a few leading Democrat politicians share Obama's rosy view of current conditions. And, since politicians tend to reflect their constituents, it is likely that the Democrat masses aren't all that pleased with the state of affairs.
You have to love when the candidate most against big money in politics and huge campaign war chests (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), has banked more donations ($26 million) during the third quarter ($41.5 million total) than all the other 20 or so presidential candidates, save one. (see HERE).
To his credit, though, 88% of Sander's contribution came from donations of $200 or less. (ibid)
