WingNuts ripped a new one .......

[lothario]

Perhaps TK did not deal with the issue because it is generally agreed to be a red herring.

I do not think many mainstream economists in the US believe that an increase in the minimum wage of two dollars will have anything but a marginal impact in demand for labour.

At the moment, the insatiable demand for lower-skilled labour is so high in the US that the influx of Latin American immigrants coming to fill it is causing social instability in some states like Arizona and California.

Also remember, it is but a cost of living increase over the last decade really, when the minimum wage went up not at all.

Yes, I'd agree, an increase of $2.10 over two years is likely to have but a marginal effect on the demand for labour. If the objective is to help curb immigration perhaps it should be hoped that the change will be more than just marginal, but at least I can see how the policy could help to achieve the objective.

To be thorough, you must then set against this objective the loss suffered by those poorly skilled and inexperienced workers and their would-be employers who are adversely affected by the change. Such a cost-benefit analysis seems impossible to me, but maybe someone out there can do it. At least it's refreshing to get past the rhetoric, cheers.

[Pax]

I was watching THIS VIDEO on YouTube, and I began to think of the line from Pulp Fiction.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Here's hoping this is just the beginning of the Democrats dealing out the whup-ass in liberal doses! (pun intended!)

Go Teddy! 8)

Woah, excellent speech. This is a basic cost of living increase at a time of a huge increase in inequality. That's the objective, to minimise this. It's gone past 1928 levels now and is entering the robber baron era.

As regards those saying it'd be damaging, the largest component of aggregate demand is household consumption and this is determined mainly by the size of a household's disposable after-tax income. I'd say no economic relationship has been more empirically tested and validated than this consumption-income relationship.