Kerry/Democrat Economic Proposals...

[AndrewTS 0]

Bush: Economy Defies Gloomy Predictions

 

Updated 7:37 PM ET June 19, 2004 

 

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fresh off a Western campaign swing, President Bush told Americans on Saturday that the economy is growing stronger and more jobs are being created despite Democrats' claim that he presided over a downturn for the country.

 

"Time and again, our economy has defied the gloomy predictions of pessimists," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

 

"Because of the hard work of so many Americans, and because of the good policies in Washington, D.C., our economy is strong, and it is getting stronger," the president said in remarks taped while he was in Washington state.

 

"America has added more than 1.4 million new jobs since last August. Our economy has grown at the fastest pace in almost two decades. And the recession was one of the shortest and shallowest in modern American history."

 

Bush also said 46 states saw falling unemployment rates over the last year, and many of the new jobs are being created in industries that pay above-average wages, such as construction, education and manufacturing.

 

 

But to keep America on the right track, Bush said the Senate needs to make his tax cuts permanent, pass an energy bill, keep the policies of open trade going and improve schools and worker training programs.

 

"Our nation is ready to face the economic challenges that lie ahead," he said. "We have millions of confident entrepreneurs who work hard and take risks and create opportunities for others. We have a culture of innovation where people are encouraged to come up with new solutions to old problems. We have a great work force. With these strengths, there is no limit to how much we can accomplish."

 

But Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas, in the Democrats' weekly radio address, said Bush's term has seen more and more jobs heading overseas with little done by the president to stop it.

 

"No matter how hard some of our friends and neighbors work; no matter how much training or retraining they've gotten; the opportunities before them are shrinking," he said. "America's jobs are being sent overseas; even the accounting and computer jobs that we once thought were secure are now disappearing."

 

Democrats have the better plan to turn the economy around and bring more jobs back to the people, Lampson said.

 

"The 'American Jobs Plan' would invest in our work force, helping those who have suffered under the existing policies, and those who will lead us into the global marketplace of the future," he said. "Our proposal would put over 2 million people back to work almost immediately, rebuilding the highways, transit systems, and other infrastructure that are the backbone of our wonderful nation."

 

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign also weighed in with a critique of Bush's economic record and his speech.

 

"George Bush is touting an economy that has seen health costs, bankruptcies, tuition, energy prices, child care and other vital household expenses hit record highs while family incomes have declined," the campaign said in a statement.

 

Meanwhile, the Kerry camp argued, employment growth has lagged under Bush, the hourly wage of new jobs created is below the national average and the administration has filed few unfair-trade complaints with the World Trade Organization.

 

First off, naturally a Democrat brings up outsourcing... *chuckle*

 

So, is Kerry going to outlaw outsourcing if elected?

 

Okay, while Kerry's camp has a point about the new jobs if correct, a better alternative is paid community service? Although Bush mentioning the new jobs "are in fields that" pay above-average wages but neglecting to mention the wages of the new jobs is rather annoying.

 

 

Kerry Says He Would Raise Minimum Wage

 

Updated 5:54 AM ET June 19, 2004 

 

By NEDRA PICKLER

 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Friday proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007, arguing that such an increase could boost the wages of more than 15 million Americans.

 

Focusing on an issue that resonates with core Democratic voters, Kerry stressed the need to increase the minimum wage and dismissed Republican concerns that a hike would hamper small businesses.

 

"If a president can go out and fight for four years to provide over a trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, we can fight for a few months to raise the minimum wage for the poorest people in America," Kerry said.

 

Kerry's proposal, which calls for phasing in the $1.85 increase, mirrors Democratic-sponsored plans proposed in the House and Senate. President Bush has supported a federal minimum wage increase, provided that states could opt out and choose not to raise it.

 

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Bush would consider any reasonable, gradual increase but wants to avoid additional costs for small businesses and companies creating jobs.

 

 

 

Kerry rejected that argument. "Some people stand up and say, 'Oh gosh, don't raise the minimum wage, that's going to hurt us in this small business.' But you know what? It never has."

 

Kerry's campaign said 7.4 million people who make less than $7 an hour would directly benefit from his plan, while another 8.2 million who make $7-$8 hour are likely to benefit from "spillover effects," as low-wage workers are pushed higher on the pay scale.

 

Kerry announced his minimum wage plan in front of an invited audience of about 100 supporters at Northern Virginia Community College. He moved through the crowd like a talk show host, handing his microphone to audience members and asking them to share their struggles as he railed against Bush.

 

"Getting worked up here," Kerry said at one point as he stripped his suit jacket.

 

The four-term Massachusetts senator turned each person's hardship into evidence that Bush has neglected the less fortunate.

 

Kerry asked if anyone in the audience worked on minimum wage, and only one woman raised her hand. She said her name was Wendy and that she makes $7 an hour at a Food Lion supermarket, apparently unaware that minimum wage is $5.15 and that $7 is Kerry's goal to raise Americans out of poverty.

 

Wendy said on her income, she struggles to support her family and can't build any savings. She said she lives with her boyfriend's mom, and although her two children have health care through their grandmother's insurance, she can't afford coverage for herself. Kerry said if elected, she would be able to get health care.

 

"You're living with the Bush plan, which is pray you don't get sick," he said.

 

Another man rose to say that he only makes $2.13 an hour plus tips as a waiter, which works out to $7-$10 an hour total. He said he had health care, but was kicked off his plan recently when he had a stroke and can't afford to pay for more coverage.

 

"So this is the other side of the Bush plan," Kerry said. "This is where the insurance companies cover you until you sick, and then they cut you off."

 

Schmidt dismissed Kerry's argument that Bush is responsible for the health care problems faced by several in the audience as specious.

 

Kerry said an increase in the minimum wage would not just help teenagers because many minimum-wage workers are primary breadwinners whose families depend upon their income. Kerry said three of four women who would benefit from his minimum wage increase are adults.

 

Kerry said he wouldn't allow a lower wage for working teenagers, but he said he would be willing to consider a different standard for part-time summer employment wages. "I'm not trying to stop the ability to be able to hire for the summer and things like that," he said.

 

Such a boost in the minimum wage, which has not changed from $5.15 since 1997, would provide a family with enough money to buy 10 months of groceries or pay for eight months of rent, he said.

 

Eileen Appelbaum, a Rutgers University labor economist who supports the proposal, said raising the minimum wage by $1.85 would translate into more than $3,800 a year in additional income for a minimum-wage earner.

 

Now certainly *this* will end all fears about outsourcing. I could be wrong, but wouldn't an increase in minimum wage cause increased layoffs?

 

I don't necessarily find Bush's economic policies to be completely sound, but these proposals seem suspect.

 

Either way though, isn't 2007 when the crap is really going to be hitting the fan with the Boomers retiring? Whoever's in office is going to have that problem to contend with.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite frankly, I think Rush had the best response to raising the minimum wage:

 

"Why not make it $100/hour? That's MORE fair, correct? What makes $100/hour ridiculous --- but $7/hour isn't?"

 

Honestly, if Kerry is hoping for the economy to be a PLUS for him --- he's gonna have problems. Looks like Bush will end up governing over a net job gain during his term.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Kerry is insane if he thinks increasing the minimum wage will help anyone. People will hire less, work smaller staffs harder and outsource more. So essentially someone will have to work probably twice as hard for an extra dollar an hour because the company can't afford to hire a bigger staff.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So, is Kerry going to outlaw outsourcing if elected?

 

Kerry isn't against ALL outsourcing -- just those entacted by "Benedict Arnold" Companies.

 

Don't ask...

[Guest MikeSC]

So, is Kerry going to outlaw outsourcing if elected?

 

Kerry isn't against ALL outsourcing -- just those entacted by "Benedict Arnold" Companies.

 

Don't ask...

He wouldn't support outsourcing for companies that produce a product that the gov't once tried to label as a vegetable, would he?

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Why not make it $100/hour? That's MORE fair, correct? What makes $100/hour ridiculous --- but $7/hour isn't?"

 

Um..93 dollars? Seven bucks is a gross of $280 in a week, full-time. A hair over a thousand a month (not including what taxes takes out), that's enough for shitty rent, meager food, and a shitty conveyance for a single person with a lousy job. That's fair, and what minimum wage jobs are worth.

 

I hope that quote's just out of context from the rest of what Rush was trying to say, otherwise it's one of the dumber things I've ever read.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

First off, naturally a Democrat brings up outsourcing... *chuckle*

 

So, is Kerry going to outlaw outsourcing if elected?

This is my man, he's made of straw.

 

Nobody is going to "outlaw" outsourcing, but companies are getting tax breaks by making themselves less and less of an American company. Perhaps it should be the other way around?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I wish someone would just honestly come out and say that they want to abolish the minimum wage.

 

Because part of the problem is that companies go to countries where they can do that sort of thing.

 

Actually, has the Minimum wage ever been lowered?

[tommytomlin 0]

It hasn't been raised since 1997?!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I wish someone would just honestly come out and say that they want to abolish the minimum wage.

 

Because part of the problem is that companies go to countries where they can do that sort of thing.

 

Actually, has the Minimum wage ever been lowered?

Raising the minimum wage doesn't really affect that much on the skill-based jobs end. Most of those people are paid more than the minimum wage already. Most the minimum wage layoffs are around the high-schooler wage slave lackey jobs (i.e. the kid at McDonalds or the Target checker.)

 

People who craft clothes in America would demand more than the minimum wage even if it didn't existed. People with skills would not want to work at that price. The only people who want to work at the current minimum wage are the aforementioned kids scraping up money for a video game and some DVDs, so why would someone who makes jeans want to work for less?

 

In those other countries, the people there usually have no choice.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

It's been proven several times that raising the minimum wage does NOT drive prices inexorably higher.

 

The mechanism is simple: people who work the minimum wage generally spend ALL of their paychecks just to get by. When you give them a $2/hour raise, they don't suddenly become frugal and suddenly start saving... they suddenly get a bit of a breather and generally spend that $2 as well.

 

What businesses lose by having to pay their employees a little more, they make up by having higher volume in sales as other minimum wage slaves spend more money in their stores.

 

The Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hour. It hasn't been raised since 1997. Since 1997, the real-dollar purchasing power of the Minimum Wage has fallen some 14% (i.e. the REAL inflation-adjusted minimum wage is $4.29/hour). That's just ridiculous.

 

In this gaping void of responsibility, some 13 states have stepped in to raise their own MinWage above that ridiculous amount because the impact of MinWage induced poverty was destroying their own state budgets. When a quarter of the states are using a higher rate than the feds are willing to dole out, you know you're in trouble and that leadership is needed. I'm glad to see that Kerry has stepped forward... it's the first really bold stance on an issue that I've seen him take and it's certainly the first DEMOCRATIC stance on an issue I've seen him take which separates him from the Other Guy.

 

Considering that Minimum Wage jobs are the only ones which seem like they're going to be available to Americans (since everything else which pays better is being outsourced to China & India), maybe we had ALL better get on board with a Minimum Wage increase.

 

And just so MikeSC and such can't say SOURCES~ on those numbers:

 

 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib195

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

[AndrewTS 0]

First off, naturally a Democrat brings up outsourcing... *chuckle*

 

So,  is Kerry going to outlaw outsourcing if elected?

This is my man, he's made of straw.

 

Nobody is going to "outlaw" outsourcing, but companies are getting tax breaks by making themselves less and less of an American company. Perhaps it should be the other way around?

Nope, it isn't a straw man. It was just me saying that if the Dems think it is such a major problem, I want to know what they plan to do about it.

 

I've seen Kerry and other Democrats complaining about outsourcing, but have not actually proposed anything to "fix" it.

 

That would have to be one hell of a tax break to convince companies to keep operations within in the country, though. Fair enough suggestion.

 

It's been proven several times that raising the minimum wage does NOT drive prices inexorably higher.

 

I wasn't saying that, especially since the fed has been keeping inflation low, but I was wondering if it would actually hurt jobs. It doesn't seem like it should provided it's increased gradually, as the plan seems to call for.

 

However, if minimum wage across the board is increased...would States increase their minimum wage laws about that? If so, would that have a negative effect?

Should any federal increase made mandatory or left up to the States? Wouldn't minimum wage be strictly a State issue anyway?

 

Considering that Minimum Wage jobs are the only ones which seem like they're going to be available to Americans (since everything else which pays better is being outsourced to China & India), maybe we had ALL better get on board with a Minimum Wage increase.

 

And just so MikeSC and such can't say SOURCES~ on those numbers

 

Where's your source on that last part? Of all the reasons to support a minimum wage increase, that's about the poorest one I could think of.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Considering that Minimum Wage jobs are the only ones which seem like they're going to be available to Americans (since everything else which pays better is being outsourced to China & India), maybe we had ALL better get on board with a Minimum Wage increase.

 

Wow, take a few economics courses there buddy. Most jobs that are being outsourced are jobs that you would have to pay minimum wage for. Nike for example has it's shoes made overseas because they'd have to pay someone over $6/hr. which isn't cost effective for them. They ship the crap jobs overseas. The only jobs that could even be considered decent paying where the call centers that have moved to India.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why not make it $100/hour? That's MORE fair, correct? What makes $100/hour ridiculous --- but $7/hour isn't?"

 

Um..93 dollars? Seven bucks is a gross of $280 in a week, full-time. A hair over a thousand a month (not including what taxes takes out), that's enough for shitty rent, meager food, and a shitty conveyance for a single person with a lousy job. That's fair, and what minimum wage jobs are worth.

 

I hope that quote's just out of context from the rest of what Rush was trying to say, otherwise it's one of the dumber things I've ever read.

No, it's quite logical.

 

The work, CLEARLY, is not worth $7/hour. If it was, they'd be GETTING $7/hour. So, since we're going to overpay them ANYWAY --- let's go all out. Let's GUARANTEE $1M/year for every person. Let's make sure everybody is rich.

 

If you're going to pay people more than their work is actually work --- go all out with it. I want a Republican to reject the $7/hour minimum wage bill and propose a $100/hour minimum wage bill instead.

It hasn't been raised since 1997?!

Why should it be? Why should companies be forced to pay increasingly MORE money for a job that CLEARLY is not WORTH the minimum wage?

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

And how do you know what the monetary value of work is? I'm sure that guy making $7/hour believes he's worth every cent of it, and then some.

If people have more money in their pocket, then they will spend it and help the economy; at least that's the logic Bush used when introducing his tax package, but of course it's better for the economy if people on minimum wage stay just hovering or actually below the poverty line, since they don't really deserve the little pay they already get.

Edited June 20, 2004 by Naibus

[Guest MikeSC]

And how do you know what the monetary value of work is?

If you can't get $7/hour for the work without gov't intervention --- the work isn't worth $7/hour. Market dictates what work is worth.

I'm sure that guy making $7/hour believes he's worth every cent of it, and then some.

I think my work is worth billions. Does not make it actually worth billions.

If people have more money in their pocket, then they will spend it and help the economy; at least that's the logic Bush used when introducing his tax package, but of course it's better for the economy if people on minimum wage stay just hovering or actually below the poverty line, since they don't really deserve the little pay they already get.

Wow, you really are missing a lot here.

 

OK, employers are forced to spend MORE on labor that is not worth the money. Thus, they either higher fewer people --- or outsource more.

 

Young kids have a harder time getting jobs.

 

Thus, fewer young kids have jobs.

 

Thus, more unemployed kids.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

No, employers pay their employees whatever they can get away with. If they don't pay them enough, they go to a company that will more favourably pay them.

 

Your logic for opposing any sort of wage increase is flawed, especially after you so vigorously defended the tax rebate, or was that only because that was a Bush initative and this appears to be a Democratic one?

 

Higher pay = more money to spend = more goods and services bought = boost to economy.

[Highland 0]

Companies move to countries that pay less than a $1 to their workers because they currently can. That measly minimum wage has never forced a competent company into bankruptcy, it's just used as an excuse for outsourcing.

I see nothing wrong with a required minimum wage that brings those receiving it above the poverty line.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yeah because companies shift the costs onto the consumers. Shoes would be a lot more expensive if they were made here in the U.S. Some jobs are just not worth minimum wage. And all this does is hurt smaller companies.

 

Being a small businessman this would make it challenging for me to hire more people. Where I could potentially hire 2 people at the current minimum wage there's no way in hell I could afford to have 2 people if the minimum wage goes over $7. So there's a job right there that someone could've had but won't because the minimum wage became too high.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, employers pay their employees whatever they can get away with. If they don't pay them enough, they go to a company that will more favourably pay them.

EXACTLY!

 

That's how the MARKET works.

 

Employers pay employees enough to prevent them from going to other companies.

 

THUS, if they're work is worth more than $7/hour --- they get PAID it to keep them. If the gov't says you HAVE to pay them this much --- then the work isn't WORTH that much.

Your logic for opposing any sort of wage increase is flawed, especially after you so vigorously defended the tax rebate, or was that only because that was a Bush initative and this appears to be a Democratic one?

The tax rebate lets you keep more of YOUR money (it ain't the government's money). Minimum wage hikes forces employers to overpay for certain labor by even MORE.

Higher pay = more money to spend = more goods and services bought = boost to economy.

Then suggest $100/hour. That is EVEN MORE money to spend.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

That would make sense, and would convince me, if the markup on items such as shoes and softdrinks wasn't aburd.

It doesn't cost $100 to make a $100 set of shoes, it costs more like a few dollars, if that.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Wow, take a few economics courses there buddy. Most jobs that are being outsourced are jobs that you would have to pay minimum wage for. Nike for example has it's shoes made overseas because they'd have to pay someone over $6/hr. which isn't cost effective for them. They ship the crap jobs overseas. The only jobs that could even be considered decent paying where the call centers that have moved to India.

 

Umm....it was a joke. Most people would've got that, I hope. I obviously don't think that all jobs will be shipped overseas. By the way, have any of you that are so against a minimum wage hike ever had to live on the minimum wage? Just a thought.

[AndrewTS 0]

Companies move to countries that pay less than a $1 to their workers because they currently can. That measly minimum wage has never forced a competent company into bankruptcy, it's just used as an excuse for outsourcing.

I see nothing wrong with a required minimum wage that brings those receiving it above the poverty line.

I don't completely support outsourcing, but it don't believe it is the problem with the current economy. I believe a recent Business Week had a big article about it blaming corporate focus on efficiently for the cutting down of hirees. Since the "new jobs" Bush touted are taken at lower-than-usual wages for those fields, that seems to support that idea. I've not really seen any concrete proof that in-sourcing is terrible for our economy.

 

Also yeah, companies don't outsource because they have to, they do it because they can and they want to maximize profits.

 

If some one would like to give me a good idea about how to cut down on outsourcing--since so many Demos think is it a major problem, I'd like to hear it.

 

Also, I've heard arguments that a good deal of higher-paying jobs, more than those are being outsourced, are being in-sourced to the U.S. Anyone have more info on it? I'm curious about that.

 

Another thing that worries me is that Kerry's economic advisors are almost all former Clinton advisors. I've seen plenty of info about the myth of the Clinton boom era--even though the overall economy was strong during the Clinton years, disparities between rich and poor widened, and the overall economy was fueled more by the internet, dot.com business, and other related technologies than they were by Clinton's policies. Michael Moore himself had issues with the Clinton policies as seen in "The Big One."

 

The extent to which Kerry could actually pull off any major economic changes hinges on who controls Congress after the elections, of course.

[AndrewTS 0]

"It doesn't cost $100 to make a $100 set of shoes, it costs more like a few dollars, if that."

 

HA!!--it costs Nike a couple of pennies to have a pair of shoes made overseas.

 

"Being a small businessman this would make it challenging for me to hire more people. Where I could potentially hire 2 people at the current minimum wage there's no way in hell I could afford to have 2 people if the minimum wage goes over $7. So there's a job right there that someone could've had but won't because the minimum wage became too high. "

 

That's what I was thinking. Kerry disagrees.

[Guest MikeSC]

That would make sense, and would convince me, if the markup on items such as shoes and softdrinks wasn't aburd.

It doesn't cost $100 to make a $100 set of shoes, it costs more like a few dollars, if that.

The cost for making products is largely DUE to labor. So, if we're going to jack up the minimum wage to give people more money to spend --- let's go all the way.

 

Why does a McDonald's checkout person DESERVE $7/hour?

Umm....it was a joke. Most people would've got that, I hope. I obviously don't think that all jobs will be shipped overseas. By the way, have any of you that are so against a minimum wage hike ever had to live on the minimum wage? Just a thought.

If you have a family and have to work a minimum wage job, you've got yourself a problem.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah, so they should just get evicted and not eat.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Wait.. doesn't giving more money to people allow them to spend more, helping the economy?

 

or am I confusing this with the "Massive Tax Cut" debate?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Yeah, so they should just get evicted and not eat.

No, there are alternatives available. Get a second job. Have your significant other work. And there are always federal entitlement programs to fall back on for a while. The minimum wage isn't designed to support a family, and it never has been.

 

The point is that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses. Companies like McDonald's and Wal-Mart can roll with the punches more, and keep their people by raising some of their prices. Mom-and-pop stores don't have that luxury. They have a set budget for employees, and increasing the minimum wage usually means one or more of those employees have to go. So now you've just created unemployment. That person won't find a job at another small business. Meanwhile, all the supposed extra money coming into the economy is effectively neutered by price increases that companies use to pass their rising costs onto the consumers. If you got a nice raise because the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $7.00 an hour, maybe you can spend $15 on snacks per week instead of $12. The problem is, that $15 might buy you the same amount of snacks $12 used to, since the grocery store you're buying from had to raise its prices to keep people around at wages their jobs don't deserve.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I was actually about to bring up govt. assistance programs, since I see the same people crowing about that as I do a proposed min. wage hike.

 

The mom and pop places still have a solution, though. Pay under the table. Considering small business owners tend to hire people they know (especially in the case of corner grocery stores, roofing companies, shit like that) it's not like the feds are going to kick the door in because a guy's paying his nephew what he can afford, minus the taxes.

 

The minimum wage isn't designed to support a family, and it never has been.

 

I didn't say it should be. Seven bucks an hour still isn't enough to really live on, anyway.

[Guest Cerebus]

An increase in minimum wage would not increase in layoffs. I have no basis in economics, but it seems that most places that actually pay minimum wage are service jobs (McDonalds, convience stores, shops etc.) and small buisnesses. Naturally, you can't outsource these types of jobs, so it really wouldn't.