Friday, April 18, 2014

Red states are finding minimum wage enforcement unwelcome.

The controversial law bans cities from setting a minimum wage higher than the state's. (click here)

Posted: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:00 am 
Updated: 7:17 am, Fri Apr 18, 2014.
By BARBARA HOBEROCK 
World Capitol Bureau

OKLAHOMA CITY — Criticism is mounting regarding Gov. Mary Fallin's decision to sign a bill that prohibits cities and towns from increasing the minimum wage to an amount higher than that of the state.
The state has adopted the federal rate of $7.25.
Fallin on Monday signed Senate Bill 1023 that prevents the increase. It appears to have shuttered efforts to circulate an initiative petition in Oklahoma City to increase the rate.
President Barack Obama has advocated for increasing the rate to $10.10 an hour.
Fallin on Wednesday issued a statement saying Obama's plan ignores economic reality.
"President Obama and the Democratic Party are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.75 (sic) to $10.10," Fallin said. "They believe that on this issue, like on so many others, the government can just mandate prosperity and growth with no consideration of economic reality. Now they are taking that fight to Oklahoma, urging their liberal allies to push for mandatory wage increases.

"President Obama and his Oklahoma surrogates say they want to raise the minimum wage to reduce poverty. They are ignoring the fact that most minimum wage workers are young, single people working part time or entry level jobs. Many are high school or college students living with their parents in middle class families." 
Mandating an increase would result in lost jobs, she said.... 

Stop lying about increasing the minimum wage. Job growth occurs with each raise.
 
The Massachusetts minimum wage (click here) has increased six times since 1995, and during this time employment growth in industry sectors with high concentrations of minimum wage workers has been more positive than total employment growth, and markedly higher than growth in sectors with low concentrations of minimum wage workers.

For many years the Massachusetts minimum wage was the same as, or close to, the federal minimum wage level. Legislation passed in 1995 increased the state's hourly minimum wage from $4.25 to $4.75 starting in January, 1996 and to $5.25 in January, 1997, slightly ahead of increases in the federal minimum wage. Two sets of subsequent increases followed during the next decade—to $6.00 and $6.75 in 2000 and 2001, and to $7.50 and $8.00 in 2007 and 2008. Figure 1 shows the change in employment levels for all industry sectors and for sectors with high and low concentrations of minimum wage workers from January 1995 to January 2012. During the first part of this period, in the 1990s, all sectors—including those with a high concentration of minimum wage workers—experienced roughly similar growth levels, despite implementation of a higher minimum wage.

The minimum wage increases that went into effect in 2000-01 were followed by a slight dip in employment levels for sectors with higher concentrations of minimum wage workers, and a deeper dip followed the phase-in of the 2007-08 increase. However, sectors with low concentrations of minimum wage workers experienced much deeper declines during these periods. The declines in both sets of sectors were at least partly the result of recessions that began in March of 2001 and December of 2007, but by January, 2012 the low wage job sector had recovered the jobs lost during the recession, in contrast to other sectors. This experience suggests that the six increases in the minimum wage have not impeded growth in jobs for minimum wage workers. In fact, a recent analysis of the effects of a potential increase in the national minimum wage to $9.80 suggests that such an increase could help stimulate the local economy....

Increasing the Minimum Wage increases circulating capital in the USA economy.

If government doesn't care about the people, they won't care about the minimum wage. Those that don't want to increase job growth and economic viability will always see Wall Street profits as more important than any Middle Class or Impoverished citizen. 

I mean. Let's face it. If people can't pull themselves up by the boot straps to succeed in this democracy, they are less than human, right? 

Republicans are dependent on Wall Street for their campaign funds. Why act to decrease any perceived threat to those profits and campaign donations. It is far better for the GOP to lie about the 'mechanism' that actually provides job growth than actually pursue it.

To Republicans, the 'common man' only needs to understand what appears to be 'intuitive knowledge.' If employers have to pay more for workers, regardless of obscene profit margins, then they will go out of business, right? Sure. Whatever they say. No questions, simply rhetoric that has attracted simpletons to the ballot box for generations.  

So, sorry. Simpleton wasn't a good choice; 'the faithful' is far better a description. Lord knows, the faithful are far more sophisticated and complex than anyone can understand. After all, does anyone really understand god? Of course not. No one needs secondary schools once they know how to write their name and can balance a check book, not even the Ukrainians in Russia.