If you look up populism in the dictionary, it should read “shameless pandering.” True to form, Edwards unveils his ‘plan’ to lift 10 million people out of poverty:
Unlike President Bush, Edwards will reward and encourage work by raising the minimum wage by at least $1.50 and increasing the earned income tax credit and the refundable child credit for the working poor. Together, these proposals will raise the earnings of an individual making the minimum wage by $3,500 or more. His proposals help both parents and workers without children, and include relief from the heavy marriage penalty that falls on the working poor. These steps will offer as much as $500 per year to millions of Americans earning less than $15,000. Edwards will also create new jobs with good wages and benefits in struggling communities by offering billions of dollars in new venture capital to businesses that create quality jobs. Finally, Edwards will guarantee free health care for every person in poverty and offer generous tax credits for lower-income Americans to purchase health care, so that poor families will not have to worry about losing their health care if they enter the workforce.
New ideas from the Democrats in this new millenium- raising the minimum wage, transfer payments, and corporate welfare.
I will never understand the left’s fetish for the minimum wage as anything other than an election tool. If you raise the minimum wage, it would seem to me all you are doing is reducing employers willingness to hire new employees, and increasing the production costs to all producers. Thus prices rise, and although you may temporarily inflate the paper wealth of the working poor, in essence you are actually decreasing their purchasing power. Then, when the poverty rate is re-indexed, you are right back to where you started or worse.
Of course by then it will be another election, and you can propose increasing the minimum wage another $1.50.
Are there things I am not considering?
Kimmitt
The minimum wage has not been shown to have anything but the most miniscule possible effect on unemployment. Mostly it represents a shift of income from the owners of businesses to the lowest of wageearners. The EITC is much more effective at specifically targetting low wage earners who are responsible for their household’s income.
That said, don’t ask me to defend Edwards. I voted for Dean yesterday, and I’d do it again without hesitation.
Mito
There seems to be this whole aspect of Republican thinking based on the same silliness. The reason you don’t understand it is because your post makes no sense logically.
If you raise the wages of certain people then they have more money in their pockets, and while employers may or may not reduce employment the people who had a wage rise end up with more not less.
If their wages go up it is possible some will lose jobs but there’s no evidence that it will all balance out and leave them as worse off as before. That’s just a nonsense argument, the subtext of which is to give all the money to the rich as anything else won’t work. It’s all hopeless the invisible hand will just pickpocket anything the government tries to put in your pocket.
The same argument gets trotted out with the tax cuts, making sophisms by false generalisations. Generally speaking tax cuts may spur economic growth, but specifically where those tax cuts go determines how well they work.
The Republican line is to try to pretend there are no specifics and hide behind meaningless generalisations. The whole Republican position seems to be to string together an imposing enough sounding set of lies, half truths, rationalisations, and delaying measures to imply giving them what they personally desire is good for everyone.
Republican economic philsophy is as bankrupt as Enron. The problem is they are not capable any more of policing themselves. Lawyers do a reasonable job with their bar association as to doctors and most professions.
They tend to know what is defensible and reputable and that’s why these institutions survive by self policing.
Modern Republicans by contrast have nothing left but trying to fit the nearest lie handy into a debate to give themselves or to keep an unearned handout. That’s why their economic policies don’t work because they don’t care if they work or not. They just care if they get the money.
Veeshir
Interesting arguments in favor of raising the minimum wage. Too bad they don’t make any sense. Price controls don’t work. Every time they are instituted they do more harm than good.
Supply and demand works. Tinker with that and you invite disaster. Just ask Boston about their little rent-control experiment. Or San Francisco.
Matthew
Mito if you think a $1.50 raise in the minimum wage is good wouldn’t a $3.00 increase be better? Why stop there? Why not make the minimum wage $15.00 an hour? This way a person working a regular 40 hour week can make at least 30K a year. Where do you draw the line? How high are you willing to raise it?
You say:
If their wages go up it is possible some will lose jobs but there’s no evidence that it will all balance out and leave them as worse off as before
So the people that lose jobs would be no worse off? Really??! I bet the person that lost a job wouldn’t see it that way. I guess they must sacrafice so other can make more. What happens to them?
I own a small business and I have a few high school students working for me. I start them out at $7.00 per hour. That’s about what the local fast food places start at. If I go below that the kids are going to go flip burgers instead of working for me. The proposed increase wouldn’t effect me. May be in other parts of the country there are people that make minimum wage. Where I am in New England the free market sets it at about $7.00 per hour.
anon
jeebuz, high school economics would be enough to understand the downfalls associated with raising the current minimum wage over 25%. this is ‘shameless pandering’ with no hopes of being passed, even if by some miracle edwards became POTUS.
Kimmitt
Veeshir, bumper-sticker economics doesn’t work either. Low-wage workers do not face a competitive labor market, they face a series of asymmetric bargaining situations. Game theory implies pretty strongly that the result of said bargaining will be a wage rate set significantly lower than a competitive wage rate.
This is very different from, say, a computer programmer. Those bargaining situations are much more symmetric and the market will retain its usual characteristic of being the best possible allocation mechanism.