> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:28:27 GMT, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:

>>

>

>>>Of course its a safety net issue.

>>
>>But that's why an increase does not generally create unemployment.
>>And as subsidies go, it's one of my favorites - it helps
>>people who might not otherwise seek employment.
>>
>>I'm optomistic about these things because I spent my early
>>20's during the "Repo Man" era of the early '80s. Turned
>>out fine - but it was looking *scary* then.

>
>
> Ah we largely agree. I misunderstood.
>

>> But 14 million out of a work force
>>

>>>of about 140 million is not "almost nobody".
>>>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
>>>

>>
>>Nice website.
>>
>>That's not 14 million at minimum wage - that's 14 million
>>at a wage level expected to be perturbed by minimum wage.
>>
>>Even if it *were* 11%%, that just means that for
>>a work-life of 50 years, a person can expect
>>to spend 5/0.9 of them at minimum wage - which
>>seems roughly about right.
>>
>>

>>>Another 8.3 million work slightly above minimum wage and would likely
>>>see increases as well.
>>>

>>
>>I do have to wonder if the statement "A minimum wage increase would help
>>reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers." is
>>true, though.
>>
>>I agree - we're probably due for one, though.
>>
>>I do hate this: "Today, the minimum wage is 31%% of the average hourly
>>wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II."

>
>

>>Why? Because it's beter interpreted that market wages
>>are pulling away from minimum wage. That's a good thing.

>
>
> Not entirely. If you take minimum wage at the old levels and adjust
> for inflation it's lost a lot of ground.
>

> ________________
> "You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an
> argument for it." Noam Chomsky