FACT CHECK: Raising The Minimum Wage Will Spur Job Growth In Illinois
FACT CHECK: Raising The Minimum Wage Will Spur Job Growth In Illinois
On Nov. 16, the Illinois State Senate approved a $1 increase in the state minimum wage, putting it at $7.50 an hour. The proposal would go into effect on July 1, and would increase every year to account for inflation.
Conservative lawmakers objected to the measure, saying a minimum wage increase would come “at the expense of Illinois jobs” and put “our business climate in jeopardy with the surrounding states when we increase the cost of doing business.”
But a March 2006 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that increasing the minimum wage actually helps job growth:
[T]his report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workers and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed.
This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workers at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes, “Illinois’ minimum wage last was raised in 2003 to $6.50 an hour. At that level, a mother working full-time to support her child makes $13,520 a year, barely above the federal poverty line.”
It’s now up to the Illinois State House to bring the minimum wage legislation to the floor for a vote. An increase would mean a direct raise next year for 308,000 people in Illinois.
If you live in Illinois, call your State Representative today and tell him or her to bring the minimum wage bill to the floor for a vote.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
64 Responses to “FACT CHECK: Raising The Minimum Wage Will Spur Job Growth In Illinois”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When Clinton came into office and was working on raising the minimum wage all of the media outlets including Nice Polite Republicans Morning Addition had on business folks small and large who said that the rise would put them out of business, cause layoffs and other dire predictions. One of them on NPR was a restaraunt owner from New Orleans who had her US Chamber of Commerce/ NAtional Restaraunt Association talking points down pat. We all know that the Clinton years ushered in record econmic growth.
A year after the new wage went into affect I asked NPR to do follow up on it and invite back the people they had on originally. Of course they ignored me.
Now the same bullshit lies that the ruling classes use everytime a rise in the MW is proposed are being recycled. At least it appears that a segment of the working people have gotten wise to them.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pmOk, on page 13 of the study, they manage to shoot themselves in the foot a bit.
But low-wage growth relative to total employment growth was highest in New York, nearly twice as high as the nation as a whole and more than triple that of the surrounding states.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:27 pmBecause NY’s total growth was BELOW the national average of growth, while sales jobs MATCHED the national average, in addition, the surrounding states, being split evenly between national minimum wage and higher minimum wage have lower job growth than the national average, thats not so good of a selling point for them to use.
thanks amanda! …i’m passing this along to all on my list…
November 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pmi’m very proud of the work a friend of mine has done to get minimum wage initiatives on many state ballots - all winners!
OK, I’m all for raising the minimum wage (Let’s me go to the boss and demand more money, cause I’m only making X amount more than someone at Wal-Mart)
But
FACT CHECK: Raising The Minimum Wage Will Spur Job Growth In Illinois
Interesting thing to call a fact.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pmRaising The Minimum Wage Will Spur Job Growth In Illinois
Interesting thing to call a fact.
Comment by Tundra
Sort of like “tax cuts will increase tax receipts?”
November 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pmSort of like “tax cuts will increase tax receipts?â€
So TP has resorted to using the same logic as the Republicans, Sweet.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:44 pmA lot of people don’t understand why the increase in minimum wage spurs an economy. It is because the increased buying power of the workers increases demand, which increases the number of workers, and so forth. This does not go on ad infinitum, but I don’t think anyone has ever explored what the upper limit on wage/demand/job growth curve is.
On the other hand, the increase in returns to wealthy folks only spurs demand for a limited product market: for instance, demand for gold encrusted cars will not create a significant number of new jobs, if any; demand for well aged venison isn’t going to do much for the multitude who need hamburger.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:54 pm[…] The traditional GOP talking point is that raising the minimum wage will result in the loss of jobs. Like so many GOP talking points, it’s counter-factual. […]
November 27th, 2006 at 1:57 pmThe more money people have, the more money they will spend the is how you spur economic growth. Giving all of the money to a bunch of uber wealthy people will not spur economic growth. Why? Because they can’t spend the money fast enough.
A rich guy goes and buys a new yacht for $1,000,000.
or
1 million people buy a Playstation 3 for $599.
Which one spreads the wealth around more?
The rich guy is buying his yacht from a single company.
Each company selling the PS3 was a max of 10 units.
So, it is $1,000,000 to one company or $600,000,000 spread to 100,000 companies.
The people need the money to spread around. The rich have enough.
BTW, if you make less than a million dollars a year, you aren’t rich you are middle class.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSpudge
So, it is $1,000,000 to one company or $600,000,000 spread to 100,000 companies.
Not to attack your point, which I tend to agree with, but wouldn’t the example work better if the total money spent is the same? Of course 600M is going to spur the economy more than 1M
November 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pmThe Republican line of thinking seems to be if those lowest on the totem pole are paid virtual “slave” wages, it benefits the rest by holding down their labor costs. Taken to extreme, that will backfire, as people will just not work or do lousy work if they know they can’t possibly recieve a fair paycheck. Might even encourage drug pushing. Ultimately, you get what you pay for.
The Russian slogan went, “they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.” We all saw how well that worked when people weren’t motivated to succeed.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWhat I am talking about is the luxury items that people can afford.
So, you want me to make the rich person look worse by stating that he is buying a $600 million dollar yatch. Okay.
What drives the economy more a rich a**hole buying a $600,000,000 yatch or 1,000,000 buying a $600 PS3?
The answer is still the $600 PS3.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pmwouldn’t the example work better if the total money spent is the same?
Comment by squegeeboo — November 27, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
Fair enough. SpudgeBoy was a tad wee off with his $1M yatch; see, that amount doesn’t buy a good, luxury yatch anymore.
Let’s change SpudgeBoy’s scenario to “Three rich guys go and buy three new yachts for $200,000,000 each.”
Does that sound better?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThe ruling class will shovel any bullsh*t into the mouths of the working class to get their way.
Huge corporations are still making record profit, while they try to skim off more hours off of their workers paychecks, have them work overtime for no overtime pay, and higher less people than they need to save money.
It’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s just that the CEO’s will kill themselves if they go from being super rich to rich.
In response to the ruling class, I say:
November 27th, 2006 at 2:20 pm“We don’t want your f*cking cake! We want the whole damn bakery!”
Don’t you guys know this is all communist propaganda?!
November 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
This is a fun way to solve the minimum wage gridlock: set a MAXIMUM WAGE, wherein no employee of a company can earn more than 50 times (plug in whatever number you like) the wages of the lowest paid worker in that company (including stock options and other deferred benefits).
November 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm“Conservative lawmakers..” would love it if there would be no MW at all. Like all those ‘great business’ guys that were running the cotton industry a while ago.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pmIt is always the same. Republicans would love to get slavery back. Well, $ 5.15 is basically exactly that. They don’t care about people working 40 hours and not getting out of poverty.
When will people decide to get the Republicans where they belong? Into the 5.15% votes margin.
#17=Great Idea!
But you can bet that the republican scum will call you a ‘Communist’…
November 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pmDuring our Thanksgiving weekend, we had the hilarious opportunity to receive the PC lecture du jour, from well-meaning, but naive in-laws and out-laws Too much fun!!
I knew it was going to be an enlightening lecture when my cousin’s wife started going on….and on….and on… about what a “horrible corporate citizen” WalMart is. (LOVE the buzz-words!!) I listened realizing that good taste would have precluded the discussion. Finally, Mr. Aphrodite asked, “When did WalMart start chaining their employees to the cash registers? I’ve always thought minimum wage jobs were great stepping stones to something better….”
Enjoy your Monday……
November 27th, 2006 at 2:35 pmMighty Assphrodite: You should’ve told your uniformed husband that Walmart has been charged with locking its employees in its retail buildings overnight. Including one employee who broke his ankle and was unable to leave until the manager showed up in the morning. Looks like they don’t need chains.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pmHey MA: where did I say anything about everyone making the same amount regardless of performance or effort? Couldn’t find anything wrong with my ORIGINAL proposal?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pm“Couldn’t find anything wrong with my ORIGINAL proposal?”
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
********Yes - it’s NONE of YOUR business.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhere’s your cite for your allegation in #22? You first. Have a nice day. I suggest you read a paper, for the first time.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmWow, that kind of says it all. Clearly the MA household is some sort of freaky, topsy-turvy matriarch-dominated dystopia…
November 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pmmighty aphrodite
Here’s your source:
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart’s vice president for communications, said the company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers — the company calls them associates — at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Google this:
walmart employee locked in
It’s the first hit, a NY-Times article.
That said, the Fire-Exit could have been used, instead of waiting for the manager to bring his keys from wherever he was.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pmHey MA: where did I say anything about everyone making the same amount regardless of performance or effort? Couldn’t find anything wrong with my ORIGINAL proposal?
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
MA’s usual MO. If you can’t find something wrong with the other persons arguement make up a bunch of crazy crap and attack that. Most comapnies have a salary structure already where you top out in your position. Its only the big fish that seem to have unlimited wage ceilings. To me having htem included would be a sensible business decision for any corporation. But MA can’t think that clearly. Mighty Afraidwhitey cna’t get past her fears.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pmback when my dad and most of his WW2 generation were building their businesses and homes and families, the top wage usualy WAS no more than 20-50 times that of the lowest employee… that is why there was such a well-off middle class, kids in college, homes paid off, etc…
now, with ceo’s making average 400 times that of the workers, there is slim chance for the dwindling middle class…
i’m still steaming about the story recently about the new FORD ceo being paid 200million, just the cash, just the first year… the next week ran the story of hundreds of layoffs…
November 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pmsinful.
Dear “And I think you ARE Stupid ” - I simply asked for a citation to bolster your allegation. Now if you got it off a picket sign - I understand….. But Googling Wal-Mart only turned up 5.4 Million sites…..Please waste your employers time on the internet - some people shine at work others take up space….
Til this afternoon……my imaginative “friend”….
November 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pmThis is a fun way to solve the minimum wage gridlock: set a MAXIMUM WAGE, wherein no employee of a company can earn more than 50 times (plug in whatever number you like) the wages of the lowest paid worker in that company (including stock options and other deferred benefits).
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — November 27, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
I’m just against the government running every business. Besides companies would just start using contract workers instead of hiring direct.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pm“MA’s usual MO. If you can’t find something wrong with the other persons arguement make up a bunch of crazy crap and attack that. ” - dlet
I’m sure your were busy refuting me before this answer was posted
#24 - “Couldn’t find anything wrong with my ORIGINAL proposal?â€
November 27th, 2006 at 2:58 pmComment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
********Yes - it’s NONE of YOUR business. “
“Mona Williams, Wal-Mart’s vice president for communications, said the company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime areas…” Squegeeboo
*****Thank you! I take the NYT to line the birdcage….and the op/ed is fun! “High Crime AREAS”…..Hmmmm, can you imagine if one of the high criminals assaulted or killed an employee, Progs would be shrieking that not enough was done to promote a “safe work environment”. Goes to show - there is no satisfying the braying of disconcerted Progs…
Late to lunch…..
November 27th, 2006 at 3:03 pmHere’s the best way to raise the minimum wage, and it’s guaranteed to work:
vdare.com/sailer/061119_wage.htm
November 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pmI’m sure your were busy refuting me before this answer was posted
#24 - “Couldn’t find anything wrong with my ORIGINAL proposal?â€
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
********Yes - it’s NONE of YOUR business. “
Comment by mighty aphrodite
If you want to use that line of “thinking” then why are you posting about any of the topics on TP? None of these topics are your business. I think you are getting bat skat crazier every day.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:12 pmThank you! I take the NYT to line the birdcage….and the op/ed is fun!
November 27th, 2006 at 3:12 pmNo problem, I aim to please, thats how I normally feel about the NYT, but when you have a VP saying that they do lock in’s at 10% of stores, regardless of the subsequent spin, it tells you that it’s done at several hundred wal-mart/sams stores nationwide.
So TP has resorted to using the same logic as the Republicans, Sweet.
Comment by Tundra
At least the “logic of TP” is backed up by stats. Tax cuts? Nope.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:25 pmHere you go, Aphrodite: http://www.usatoday.com/ money/ industries/ retail/ 2005-03-18-wal-mart-immigrants_x.htm. You’ve already disparaged the NYT and I’m sure you’ll do so again with USA Today.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWhy is the Mighty Hag (Chips) hanging out on this thread?
Anyone…?
*crickets chirping*
November 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pmEconomics 101 (tip Cato Institute)
The employment of the least-skilled members of the labor force—often new entrants—would be reduced.
The non-wage benefits and working conditions of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would probably be reduced.
Most of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would be secondary workers in non-poor families
November 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pmLet me make it simple so even a 3-yr old can understand it, and maybe you folks will, too.
The short-term impact is indeed an increase in unemployment as employers try to control costs. The layoffs mostly affect those under 23.
Then employers raise their prices and pass that along to consumers.
Consumers demand wage increases to cope with inflating prices, and then go purchase stuff.
Employers hire folks back at the new higher minimum wage.
But it’s a zero-sum gain, because when the minimum wage goes up everything else goes up. It doesn’t even help those who make the minimum wage at all.
But I agree. Lets hike the thing to $8 an hour, index it to the CPI, and never ever talk about it again. But the Dems won’t do that because they need it for an election year issue. LOL.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pmLet’s change SpudgeBoy’s scenario to “Three rich guys go and buy three new yachts for $200,000,000 each.â€
Does that sound better?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — November 27, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Or we could change it to George Clooney, Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand Each went and bought a $200,000,000 Yacht :)
November 27th, 2006 at 4:38 pmOr we could change it to George Clooney, Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand Each went and bought a $200,000,000 Yacht :)
Comment by Tundra
Okay.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pmboy you guys are weird
November 27th, 2006 at 4:48 pmOr we could change it to George Clooney, Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand
Comment by Tundra — November 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
In all seriousness, it’s not the celebrity-types who can aford that kind of high-end luxury yatch.
At least not according to Forbes. They have a list of the World’s Most Expensive Yachts 2005, and the owners are basically CEOs of companies in high-tech, fashion, oil, and manufacturing industries (Larry Ellison, Paul Allen, etc.).
This is the kind of people many conservatives spend their time defending, claiming we shouldn’t “punish success”. I fail to see how not having a luxury yatch (Ellison has two, if memory serves) is an unbearable punishment. The same goes for other execu-toys like private jets -a la Carly Fiorina (HP had two for her personal use).
All the while these conservatives fight, tooth and nail, a small increase at the lower end of the income scale. What is it about helping the poor that hurts them so much?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pmBut it’s a zero-sum gain, because when the minimum wage goes up everything else goes up. It doesn’t even help those who make the minimum wage at all.
Comment by muckdog
It does - by providing increased tax revenues for their communities - you know, the small town folk that conservatives’ “kinder, gentler” policies were supposed to help, but didn’t.
But since ingrates like Muckdog look for every opportunity to skip paying their fair share of funding the government, it’s no surprise he (and they)can’t see any farther than a myopic Bassethound.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm“At least the “logic of TP†is backed up by stats. Tax cuts? Nope.”
Comment by barfly
******Dear barfly - If you decide to read anything to the right of NPR on tax cuts increasing tax REVENUE (as they’ve done for the last 2 years) let us know. The ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because of of increased tax revenue…..due to lower tax rates - which stimulate the economy….. But you knew THAT….
November 27th, 2006 at 6:12 pmOf course paying the average American a living wage will improve the economy.
How many toothbrushes will one Billionaire buy in a year? And - how many will 295 million Average Americans buy in comparision?
Now apply that reality to shampoo, aspirin, dog food, light bulbs, gasoline, bananas, and so on.
So, of course it’s much healthier for our economy for the 99% of average Americans to have more money than the richy rich 1-percenters. We consume more, and therefore more must be produced for us.
Not that complicated.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:20 pmThe ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because of of increased tax revenue…..due to lower tax rates - which stimulate the economy….. But you knew THAT….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
What a load of nonsense. As usual. The deficit is out of control and you’re trying to take credit for it not being as out of control as it could be? Talk about rationalization…
Seriously, stop banging your head against the wall. It’s causing severe brain damage.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pm“Conservative lawmakers objected to the measure, saying a minimum wage increase would come “at the expense of Illinois jobs†and put “our business climate in jeopardy with the surrounding states when we increase the cost of doing business.â€
Why does this argument apply only to those making minimum wage, but the millions of dollars paid to CEOs and other top-level executives of corporations doesn’t also equal increasing the cost of doing business?
November 27th, 2006 at 6:28 pmIf you decide to read anything to the right of NPR on tax cuts increasing tax REVENUE (as they’ve done for the last 2 years) let us know. The ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because of of increased tax revenue…..due to lower tax rates - which stimulate the economy….. But you knew THAT….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
No, the ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because the projection was inflated. And lower tax rates, when most beneficial to the top 1-2%, stimulates the economy for that group…the investment class. The ordinary middle-class American is losing ground, and the poor are poorer. Question for you MA…are you in that 1-2% top economic class…or just striving (to believe) you can join those ranks? If it’s the second, the train has already left the station.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:46 pmThe reasoning behind such arguments is that an increase in worker pay will lead to increased productivity which will benefit the business/employer. This is, of course, true so long as people feel ‘happier’ and wish to keep their job - which is now better paid - maintain productivity at such a level (it should increase given that we have a record of doing so each year…).
It also matters what sort of workers the minimum wage attracts. It is unlikely that a motivated (and educated) senior will take a position at the current fed minimum but may reenter the work force at the a higher wage (we did see this during the late 90s and very early part of this decade).
Incidentally that’s good for the economy.
At some point, though, all the ‘attractive workers’ will have been hired and the ones who are unable to justify such a wage (their marginal product is less than their marginal cost) will exit the workforce. This HAPPENS. BUT it happens on a very small small scale and is usually counteracted by net gains in employment as more people are attracted to work who are attractive to employers.
I frequently post ’sceptical’ comments on econ issues which lead some to believe I am a right wing nutjob. Not true at all.
Of course, there is a point where you can’t increase the miniumum wage without incurring net job losses but those WITH jobs will be better off. That’s also a union phenonmenon btw.
As it is the current fed minimum wage at it’s REAL LEVEL has remained essentially static over time and in recent years has become less than it was decades ago (in REAL TERMS, not nominal dollars). This is because the minimum wage is not adjusted to inflation.
And yes I also believe the minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation ANNUALLY so we don’t have to have a fight every decade after workers have seen a decrease in real wages over that decade.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pm“But it’s a zero-sum gain, because when the minimum wage goes up everything else goes up. It doesn’t even help those who make the minimum wage at all.”
You are assuming that the inflationary effect of an increase in the minimum wage will lead businesses to increase prices by the same percentage that the minimum wage increase was (I am referencing a quote, not your original comment so this may be out of context but still relevant).
Minimum wage earners are a MINORITY and the net inflation impact of an increase in the minimum wage would be an increase that is much less than the percentage increase in the minimum wage precisely because the consumers who receive the new wage are in the MINORITY.
Even if we assumed that all wages increased (ie a minimum wage increase leads to an increase in wages for ALL WORKERS) the percentage change in consumer products would likely be somewhat less than the the actual percentage increase in wages. This is a productivity effect (higher wages should lead to higher productivity which will mitigate price increases - lots of research on that) and because producers will have to bear some of the new price burden, ie, the consumer isn’t the only one that is impacted.
And again, this new legislation NEEDS TO HAVE AN INFLATION ADJUSTMENT IN IT. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE that real purchasing power DECREASES until congress decides to increase it again (which is definitely NOT ANNUALLY).
November 27th, 2006 at 7:01 pm#49
How do we or should we define this term called a “livable wage’?
November 27th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#55
Lower tax rates don’t stimulate the economy?
November 27th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#57 - “No, the ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because the projection was inflated. And lower tax rates, when most beneficial to the top 1-2%, stimulates the economy for that group…the investment class. The ordinary middle-class American is losing ground, and the poor are poorer. Question for you MA…are you in that 1-2% top economic class…or just striving (to believe) you can join those ranks? If it’s the second, the train has already left the station.” Comment by impeachcheneythenbush
*********Dear Imp, Your scenario reminds me of the teacher’s unions and hammock slackers. If they have received a certain percentage increase in funding their budget, and the following year receive more money, but a LOWER percentage, they start screaming and crying about “the cuts”.
Who do you think the rich employ - other rich people?? Who do you think produce the goods and services used by “the RICH”??
Re: are the Aphrodites’ in the top 1-2%? It’s none of your business….
November 27th, 2006 at 7:41 pmHow do we or should we define this term called a “livable wage’?
Comment by Tracy — November 27, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
A wage that one can live on…
A study a few years ago showed that it was impossible to rent an apartment anywhere in the United States on a minimum wage salary… Therefore, $5.15 is not a wage that one can live on. Morgan Spurlock and his fiancee did a real world experiment on this and validated it.
Clear?
Lower tax rates don’t stimulate the economy?
Comment by Tracy — November 27, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
How did you pass Economics in college?
November 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pmRe: are the Aphrodites’ in the top 1-2%? It’s none of your business….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 27, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Translation: He’s poor. He’s too vain not to brag about being loaded.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pm“A wage that one can live on…”
That’s not a good answer or even a decent one. Let’s try again…what is a wage that one can live on? I agree that $5.15 is not a wage that I or you would accept but, what hourly rate would you find to be “livable”? Should it be $8/hr., what about $15/hr? Who makes the determination on the amount?
“How did you pass Economics in college? ”
Tax cut do stimulate the economy, unless you can prove otherwise thru long term historical data. I would like to know how you passed your business classes, if you think that increasing taxes helps the economy. Now if BS government spending isn’t kept in check then the it doesn’t help as much and if it gets out of control like it has for the last five years then it really doesn’t help the economy grow like it could.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:45 pmI guess my argument (Devil’s advocate type) would have to be, Does every job at all, need to pay well enough for someone to completely live off of?
Should High School kids be making enough money to get an apartment and stop going to school?
Employers will add tasks to jobs that qualify. Perhaps now the greeter at Wal-Mart has to get carts to justify the extra expense. Now you have the retiree that liked the job just to get out of the house, who can’t fill the new role.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:59 pm[…] read more | digg story Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: . […]
November 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#70
“Tell me TUNDRA, how has this TAX CUT RECOVERY affected tax receipts, compared to Clinton’s TAX INCREASE RECOVERY?”
In the 1990s government spending was kept in check by the balanced budget amendment and at the same time taxes were increased resulting in paying down the national debt and creating a surplus. Something the governement should never be running BTW. You do know that Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthy did only one thing to help the economy…pay off the debt. It’s also amazing how good the economy can do despite increasing taxes when spending is kept in check. Please explain in economic terms how increasing taxes stimulates the economy. Clinton’s tax increase did little to stimulate the economy. The economy, because of it’s own strength overcame the tax increase and passed it.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pmLovetta
Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:18 amJack
I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide. Hopefully you can find the time to visit my site.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pmProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 4:44 amresidual income business opportunity
I enjoyed that. You said it right.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:25 am