Story 1, Republican House Speaker John Boehner Reminds Obama That U.S. Constitution Gives Only Congress The Power To Create Laws — Constitution Crisis — Drama Queen or Impeachment — Videos
Boehner Quotes Obama 22 Times on Immigration Action
Speaker John Boehner on Executive Action on Immigration (C-SPAN)
Boehner: House will fund DHS, fight Obama on immigration
Mark Levin slams John Boehner on the Sean Hannity TV Show 1 – 7 – 2015
Rush Limbaugh not surprised Trey Gowdy supports John Boehner
‘Enough is enough!': Boehner fills House chamber with high drama as he lashes out against Obama in high-stakes immigration battle – and throws his own words back in his face
House speaker mocks Obama for going outside the US Constitution after teaching constitutional law
President ‘has ignored the people, ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements’
Republicans aim to use Homeland Security funding bill to kill Obama’s plan to mainstream 5 million or more illegal immigrants
White House promises to veto the plan and most Democrats will support him – setting up epic showdown and possibly a DHS shutdown
GOP budget amendment that would hamstring Obama passed 237-190
By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
John Boehner created the first live-action high drama on the House floor Wednesday, staking out a no-compromise position on blocking Barack Obama’s sweeping immigration plan and reading aloud 22 examples of the president’s past claims that he lacked the authority to put it into action.
Obama outlined the plan on Nov. 20, promising to mainstream 5 million or more illegal immigrants by guaranteeing – without input from Congress – that they won’t be deported during his time in office.
Angering Democrats, the House speaker spoke during a floor debate to defend an amendment to the Homeland Security Department’s budget bill that would forbid the cabinet agency from spending any money to implement it.
Boehner openly mocked Obama for what he said was an effort to evade the U.S. Constitution, throwing in his face his past claims that he wasn’t a ‘king’ or an ’emperor.’
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to control America’s immigration policies.
IN YOUR FACE: Boehner took Obama to the woodshed on Wednesday over immigration, reading aloud nearly two dozen Obama quotations that indicate the White House can’t act unilaterally
NO COMPROMISE: Boehner didn’t buy what the president was selling on Tuesday during a high-stakes White House meeting with all of Congress’s top leaders
”To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law!’ he boomed. ‘He didn’t just learn constitutional law. He taught it himself.’
‘Enough is enough!’
The move came less than 24 hours after Boehner and other Capitol Hill leaders met with Obama in the White House to air their differences over legislation that would likely make up the bulk of congressional business for in the coming months.
On Wednesday, Boehner was in no mood to compromise.
Obama’s unilateral move, he said, is an ‘executive overreach … an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.’
‘What we are dealing with here is a president who has ignored the people, ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements,’ he said.
‘In fact, on at least 22 occasions he has said he does not have the authority to do what he did.’
And then Boehner read them.
Obama, he recalled, told an El Paso, Texas audience in May 2011 that immigrants’-rights activists ‘wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.’
Sessions Warns House GOP: Immigration Bill Is Bad Politics, Bad Policy
Offers a better way forward.
By DANIEL HALPER
Yesterday afternoon, before President Obama’s State of the Union Address, Senator Jeff Sessions’ staff hand-delivered to each Republican member of the House an important memo on the so-called immigration reform bill being debated on Capital Hill. The 3-page document, written by Sessions, argues that pushing the current immigration legislation forward is bad politics, bad policy, and that there’s a better way for Republicans.
Sessions believes House Republicans are at risk of falling into President Obama’s trap. “[A]ccording to news reports, House Republican leaders are instead turning 2014 into a headlong rush towards Gang-of-Eight style ‘immigration reform,'” writes Sessions. “They are reportedly drafting an immigration plan that is uncomfortably similar to a ‘piecemeal’ repackaging of the disastrous Senate plan—and even privately negotiating a final package with Democrat activists before consulting with their own members.”
It’s bad politics, Sessions writes. “In the rush to pass an immigration bill, there has been a near absence of any serious thought about the conditions facing American workers. The last 40 years has been a period of record immigration to the U.S., with the last 10 years seeing more new arrivals than any prior 10- year period in history. This trend has coincided with wage stagnation, enormous growth in welfare programs, and a shrinking workforce participation rate. A sensible, conservative approach would focus on lifting those living here today, both immigrant and native-born, out of poverty and into the middle class—before doubling or tripling the level of immigration into the U.S.
A sensible immigration policy would also listen to the opinion of the American people. Not the opinions of the paid-for consultants trotted out with their agenda-driven polls to GOP member meetings—but the actual, honest opinion of the people who sent us here. There is a reason why none of the corporate-funded ads for amnesty breathe a word about doubling immigration levels. According to Rasmussen Reports, working and middle class Americans strongly oppose large expansions of our already generous immigration system. Those earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase by an overwhelming 3-1 margin.
And bad policy, the senator from Alabama details. “Coordinating with a small group of the nation’s most powerful special interests, last year President Obama and Senate Democrats forced through an immigration bill which can only be described as a hammer blow to the American middle class. Not only would it grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants at a time of record joblessness, it would also double the annual flow of new immigrant workers and provide green cards to more than 30 million permanent residents over the next decade. These new workers, mostly lesser-skilled, will compete for jobs in every sector, industry, and occupation in the U.S. economy.”
He adds, “House Republicans, in crafting immigration principles, should reply to the President’s immigration campaign with a simple message: our focus is to help unemployed Americans get back to work—not to grant amnesty or to answer the whims of immigration activists and CEOs. In turn, that message could be joined with a detailed and unifying policy agenda for accomplishing that moral and social objective.”
As for Sessions’ “Better Agenda,” he lays it out very precisely:
The GOP’s 2014 agenda should not be to assist the President in passing his immigration plan. Rather, it should be a consuming focus on restoring hope and opportunity to millions of discouraged workers. The GOP’s 2014 agenda should be a national effort—announced proudly and boldly—to reduce the welfare rolls and get America back to work, including:
More American energy that creates good-paying jobs right here in the U.S.
A more competitive tax and regulatory code that allows U.S. businesses and workers tocompete on a level global playing field
A trade policy that increases U.S. exports and expands domestic manufacturing
An immigration policy that serves the interests of the American people
Converting the welfare office into a job training center
Making government leaner and more accountable to U.S. taxpayers
Restoring economic confidence by continuing our effort to balance the federal budget
An all-out immigration push is inimical to these goals.
Rep. Ryan: GOP Looking at Legal Status, Chance for Citizenship
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), a leading GOP advocate for tackling immigration, confirmed Wednesday that Republicans are looking to give illegal immigrants legal status right away, with the chance for a green card—and citizenship—down the line.
Officials familiar with the planning had said as much before. But Mr. Ryan is the first member of the GOP leadership to lay out the Republican vision publicly.
At issue is how to handle more than 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally. Most House Republicans oppose the Senate approach, whereby all qualified illegal immigrants would first win legal status, then have the chance to apply for legal permanent residence (also known as a green card), and then for citizenship. House Republicans call that a “special path to citizenship” that is unavailable to those who followed the law.
First, illegal immigrants would be offered a “probationary” status, allowing them to work while the government tightened border security and interior enforcement. Officials have explained that this would allow people to work legally while they wait for permanent legal status. (Officials have explained that this group could revert to illegal status if enforcement benchmarks are not met.)
Mr. Ryan said it would make sure that the Obama administration went ahead with the enforcement provisions. “We want to make sure that we write a law that he can’t avoid,” Mr. Ryan said.
After that, they would be eligible for a “regular work permit,” he said.
“If those things are met, you satisfy the terms of your probation, you’re not on welfare, you pay a fine, you learn English and civics, and the border’s been secured and interior enforcement independently verified, then you can get a regular work permit,” he said.
At that point, this group could apply for green cards using the same system available to any newcomer.
“That’s the kind of process we envision,” he said. “Which is not a special pathway to citizenship and it’s not going to automatically in any way give an undocumented immigrant citizenship.”
Some Democrats and immigration advocates have signaled that they could accept this approach, depending on the details. It’s unclear whether enough Republicans would feel the same. The idea will get its first full airing on Thursday afternoon, when House Republicans are scheduled to discuss immigration at their retreat in Cambridge, Md.
Story 1: The Stupid Republican Party Leadership About To Commit Political Suicide By Supporting Legal Status For 40 Million Plus Illegal Aliens — The Party Will Split and Their Base Will Stay Home On Election Day 4 November 2014 — Videos
Immigration Reform Bill May Offer Protections For Illegal Aliens Convicted Of Certain Crimes!
John Boehner’s Sad Excuses On Immigration Reform
Backing in G.O.P. for Legal Status for Immigrants
The House Republican leadership’s broad framework for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status — but not citizenship — for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the party’s statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the party’s leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.
“It’s one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year,” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push “a recipe for disaster.”
At the same time, Republicans have seen their support from Latinos plummet precisely because of their stance on immigration, and the “statement of principles,” barely more than a page, is intended to try to reverse that trajectory.
The statement of principles criticizes the American higher education system for educating some of the world’s best and brightest students only to lose them to their home countries because they cannot obtain green cards; insists that Republicans demand that current immigration laws be enforced before illegal immigrants are granted legal status; and mentions that some kind of triggers must be included in an immigration overhaul to ensure that borders are secured first, said Republican officials who have seen the principles.
With concern already brewing among conservatives who call any form of legal status “amnesty,” the document has the feel more of an attempt to test the waters than a blueprint for action. House Republican leaders will circulate it at a three-day retreat for their members that begins Wednesday on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Several pro-immigration organizations that have been briefed on the guidelines say they are not intended to serve as a conservative starting point for future negotiations, but as a gauge of how far to the left House Republicans are willing to move.
The principles say that Republicans do not support a “special path to citizenship,” but make an exception for the “Dreamers,” the immigrants brought into the country illegally as children, quoting a 2013 speech by Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents,” Mr. Cantor said at the time. “It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home.”
Even ardent proponents of an immigration-law overhaul are, at best, cautiously optimistic. In June, a broad immigration overhaul — with a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants now in the country illegally, and stricter border security provisions that would have to be in place before the immigrants could gain legal status — passed the Senate with bipartisan support. But that legislation has largely stalled in the Republican-controlled House, where Mr. Boehner has rejected any negotiations with the Senate over its comprehensive bill.
“This is obviously a long, hard road,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, who helped negotiate the Senate bill, “but I think since August, the number on the other side vehemently opposed has stayed the same, the number who think it should go forward has grown, and numbers in the wide middle are less opposed than they used to be. But that doesn’t guarantee an outcome one way or another.”
Republican Party leaders, backed strongly by business groups, have said an overhaul is critical if they are to repair their political position with Latino and other immigrant voters.
Barry Jackson, Mr. Boehner’s former chief of staff, is consulting for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports an overhaul that expands high-technology visas and guest worker programs.
But immigration is less of an issue during midterm elections, when immigrants are not as likely to vote and House members in safe districts are insulated somewhat from the wrath of more moderate swing voters. Often the biggest threats to Republicans are primary challenges from more conservative candidates who say that changing the immigration status of someone who is in the country illegally amounts to amnesty for a lawbreaker.
Santa Obama’s $9 minimum wage: good propaganda, bad economics
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
Presidential economic policies like the proverbial “road to hell” are often paved with good intentions.
In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said:
“Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.”
Why not increase the minimum wage to $18 per hour and win America’s war on poverty?
What are the economic consequences or impact of a $9 minimum wage on young high school and college students seeking employment? A decidedly negative impact if economic history is any guide.
The large increase in teenage unemployment is partly driven by the increase in the minimum wage. When the minimum wage rate was increased in July 2008 from $5.85 to $6.55 there was an upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 20 percent. When the minimum wage was again increased in July 2009 from $6.55 to its current rate of $7.25, there was another upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 25 percent. This rising trend of upward spikes in teenage unemployment rates after an increase in the minimum wage is reflected in the following chart.
Unemployment rate or percent of 16-19 years from 1948 to present
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor
David Neumark, professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine and William L. Wascher, deputy director in the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board, in their book, “Minimum Wages,” provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wage laws. They concluded that such laws reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers, tend to reduce their earnings and are not very effective in reducing poverty.
If Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage to $9 as proposed by Obama, young, inexperienced, low-skill workers, especially blacks and Hispanics, will again be hurt for they will not be hired by businesses who cannot afford to pay them the higher mandated minimum wage. This will be reflected in yet another spike upward in the teenage unemployment rate that might exceed 30 percent.
Furthermore, young American citizens, especially blacks and Hispanics, will face stiff competition from the more than 11 million illegal aliens who predominantly seek low-skilled jobs. Obama and progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties want to grant these illegal aliens immediate legal status to work in the U.S.
Obama is repeating the past economic policy mistakes of progressive presidents from both political parties such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and the Bushes in mandating higher than free market wage rates. These well-intentioned but massive government interventionist economic policies lead to prolonged depressions and recessions with high unemployment rates, especially for young, inexperienced, low skilled and minority workers.
Thirty years ago the black economist, Walter E. Williams, explored the effects of federal and state government intervention into the economy, including minimum wage laws, in the PBS documentary, Good Intentions, based upon his 1982 book, “The State Against Blacks.” Those favoring a rise in the federal minimum wage would be well advised to view this video together with “Milton Friedman on the Minimum Wage” on YouTube before advocating an increase in the minimum wage.
For young American citizens an entry-level job paying a lower competitive market wage rate is preferable to no job at a higher government mandated minimum wage.
Good intentions are not enough. Results measured in jobs created count.
Digital Age-Why is Coolidge the Forgotten President?-Amity Shlaes
Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st Century
Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st
By Joshua Lyons 9/25/09
As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of Y – to remedy the evil and help X.
Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X.
As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but C is forced to comply with the new law.
All this is done while Y looks on with glee and proclaims that A and B are so good for helping poor X.
A is the politician B is the humanitarian, special interest, do-gooder, reformer, social speculator, etc. C is The Forgotten Man (i.e. you, me, us) X is the downtrodden, the oppressed, the little guy, the misunderstood, etc. Y is the Mainstream Media
In other words…
As soon as THE POLITICIAN observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which THE DOWNTRODDEN is suffering, THE POLITICIAN talks it over with THE HUMANITARIAN, and THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA – to remedy the evil and help THE DOWNTRODDEN.
Their law always proposes to determine what THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN or, in the
better case, what THE POLITICIAN, THE HUMANITARIAN and THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN.
As for THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN, who get a law to make themselves do for THE DOWNTRODDEN what they are willing to do for him, we have
nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but THE FORGOTTEN MAN is forced to comply with the new law.
All this is done while THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA looks on with glee and proclaims that THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN are so good for helping poor THE DOWNTRODDEN.
The preceding commentary was based on William Graham Sumner’s explanation of The Forgotten Man.
Obama: “Raise Minimum Wage to $9 an Hour” – SOTU 2013
More on Minimum Wage
Obama’s $9/Hour SOTU Minimum Wage
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
Power of the Market – Minimum Wage
Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage
The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws
“Good Intentions” by Dr. Walter Williams
Dr. Walter Williams’ 1982 PBS documentary “Good Intentions” based on his book, “The State Against Blacks”. The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder.
In “Good Intentions”, Dr. Williams examines the failure of the war on poverty and the devastating effect of well meaning government policies on blacks asserting that the state harms people in the U.S. more than it helps them. He shows how government anti-poverty programs have often locked people into poverty making the points that:
– being forced to attend 3rd rate public schools leave students unprepared for working life
– minimum wages prevent young people from obtaining jobs at an early age
– licensing and labor laws have had the effect of restricting entrance of blacks into the skilled trades and unions
– the welfare system creates perverse incentives for the poor to make bad choices they otherwise would not
Dr. Williams presents the following solutions to these problems:
Failing Public Schools – Give parents greater control over their children’s education by setting up a tuition tax credit or voucher system to broaden competition in turn revitalizing both public and non-public schools
Minimum Wages – Remove the minimum wage from youngsters to give more young people the chance to learn the world of work at an early age instead spending their free time idle an possibly falling into the habits of the street
Restrictive Labor Laws, Jobs Programs – Eliminate government roadblocks that prevent new entrepreneurs from starting their own business
Welfare Programs – Enact a compassionate welfare system such as a negative income tax which would remove dependency and dis-incentives for the poor to get themselves out of poverty
Scholars interviewed in the documentary include Donald Eberle, Charles Murray, and George Gilder.
Good Intentions 1 of 3 Introduction and Public Schools with Walter Williams
Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter
Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams
Government Intervention and Individual Freedom | Walter Williams
Obama: “Time to Pass Immigration Reform” – State of the Union 2013
Contrasting Views of the Great Depression | Robert P. Murphy
Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes
Calvin Coolidge: The Best President You’ve Never Heard Of – Amity Shlaes
Amity Shlaes, Author, “Coolidge”
Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business
Walter Williams Good Intentions 1 of 3 Introduction and Public Schools
Good Intentions 3of3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams
Walter Williams Good Intentions 3 of3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws
Thomas Sowell On Minimum Wage
With today’s increase in the U.S. minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25, small to medium size businesses will be laying off people and cutting the number of hours their employees work each week.
This will result in at least hundreds of thousands more unemployed starting in July and continuing as the Obama Depression (OD) gets worse and the economy takes longer to recover.
The July unemployment rate is expected to increase from 9.5% to 9.9% in July with another 600,000 more unemployed many of them low-skilled and young workers who previously earned the minimum wage and now are unemployed.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS13000000
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS14000000
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over
Yet President Obama would like to increase the minimum wage even more as would the majority of progressive radical socialist of the Democratic Party.
One might think that when it comes to basic economics, the progressive radical socialist are not very intelligent.
Far from it.
All of them know that raising the minimum wage will increase the unemployment rates of low-skilled workers primarily young teenage workers.
Then why do they persist in this folly especially during the Obama Depression when over 15,000,000 people are searching for a full time job!
Who are the largest campaign contributors to the Democratic Party?
Yes, the unions.
Who benefits the most from a higher minimum wage?
The unions–both the leadership of the unions and its members.
When the minimum wage goes up so does the wage scale of most union members.
If you are an employee and an union member, your pay check goes up.
So, does your union dues.
Just hope you are not laid off.
The progressive radical socialist of the Democratic Party may feel you pain, just do not fall for their good intentions if you value your job.
Ever wonder why the Democrats are big supporters for open borders with over 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 illegal aliens living and working in the US.
The progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party see them as future voters and union members once they pass “comprehensive immigration reform” with its “pathway to citizenship”–a code word for amnesty for illegal aliens.
Sure the progressive radical socialist feel your pain.
They simply do not give a damn that between 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 American citizens are unemployed.
The total civilian labor force is about 155 million of which about 16.5% are looking for a full time employment.
This means there are over 25,000,000 American citizens looking for full time employment.
There are now nearly twice the number of American citizens seeking a full time job than the 13,000,000 unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression in 1933!
Illegal aliens number between 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 in the United States.
Roughly 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 million illegal aliens are now working in the United States of which a large percentage work at or below the Federal Minimum Wage.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS11000000
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS13327709
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
By not enforcing immigration laws, millions of American citizens are now unemployed.
The reason why the unemployment rates among young unskilled and minority workers is so high is that illegal aliens are being hired to do the jobs once performed by young unskilled American citizens.
Unemployment in the United States could be reduced by over 15 million by simply enforcing immigration laws and requiring all employers to use E-Verify to determine the legal status of their employees to work in the United States.
Yet both political parties have repeatedly delayed even requiring Government contractors to use E-verify.
Again the political elites do not give a damn about American citizens as long as they are in power and receive campaign contributins from companies and unions that benefit from the mass hiring of illegal aliens or more accurately criminal aliens.
Time to wake up America and join the Second American Revolution.
Give pink slips to the political elites of both political parties who support open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and minimum wage laws.
illegal immigration and my tough job as united states minimum wage dude worker
Background Articles and Videos
What Causes Unemployment?
by Thomas Sowell
“…Prior to the decade of the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand. There was no federal minimum wage law and labor unions did not usually organize inexperienced and unskilled workers. That is why such workers were able to find jobs, just like everyone else, even when these were black workers in an era of open discrimination.
The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from “taking jobs” from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from “exploitation” but to protect white workers from competition.
Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.
Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers’ choices depend on the relative costs.
The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive — thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.
That is their effect whether the particular minimum wage law applies to one sector of the economy like the Davis-Bacon Act, to the whole economy like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or to particular local communities like so-called “living wage” laws and policies today.
The full effect of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was postponed by the wartime inflation of the 1940s, which raised wages above the level specified in the Act. Amendments to raise the minimum wage began in 1950 — and so did the widening racial differential in unemployment, especially for young black men.
Where minimum wage rates are higher and accompanied by other worker benefits mandated by government to be paid by employers, as in France, unemployment rates are higher and differences in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, or between different racial or ethnic groups, are greater. …”
“…A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees or workers. Equivalently, it is the lowest wage at which workers may sell their labor. Although minimum wage laws are in effect in a great many jurisdictions, there are differences of opinion about the benefits and drawbacks of a minimum wage. Supporters of the minimum wage say that it increases the standard of living of workers and reduces poverty. Opponents say that if it is high enough to be effective, it increases unemployment, particularly among workers with very low productivity due to inexperience or handicap, thereby harming lesser skilled workers to the benefit of better skilled workers. …”
“…Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, but others consistently confirmed the original view. Today’s consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects.
According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.
A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, “a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers”, 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is “likely” due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.
A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association. Whaples found that 37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.
Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents split exactly 50-50 when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution. Klein and Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, “the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members.”
In 2007, Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conducted a non-anonymous survey of supporters of the minimum wage who had signed the “Raise the Minimum Wage” statement published by the Economic Policy Institute. They found that a majority signed on the grounds that it transferred income from employers to workers, or equalized bargaining power between them in the labor market. In addition, a majority considered disemployment to be a moderate potential drawback to the increase they supported.
Head & Shoulders top, second stimulus & minimum wage hike
Glenn Beck – Minimum Wage – Feb 12, 2007
Pelosi’s Double Standard on the Minimum Wage
Minimum wage – How it works in REAL TERMS 1/2
Minimum wage – How it works in REAL TERMS 2/2
Ted Kennedy on Republicans and Minimum wage
YouTube Debate: Would you work for minimum wage?
History of the Federal Minimum Wage
The U.S. Federal Minimum Wage, originally created by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, has risen in nominal terms over time. Originally $0.25 per hour, the federal minimum hourly wage for nonfarm workers rose accordingly: