Nothing to it. I guarantee there are many more on the right who can give a convincing liberal argument than the other way around.

Says a lot about who really understands both sides of the issues.

That article is one of the most depressing reports that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

I honestly cant believe that in the year 2008 the best policy that bureaucrats can devise to solve the teenage unemployment problem is state funded job training and job fairs.

GROSS!!!

Quote from Reason Magazine On-Line.

And this paragraph in particular gives me chills about Obama's apparently deeply felt belief about how to "give hope to those left behind in a globalized world":

Obama
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all."

This, Mr. Hopey, is the moment where the two greatest anti-poverty policies known to mankind − immigration and free trade − are under constant attack in the rich West, precisely from the type of hope-floating politicians who would blame global warming on the Chinese, talk '70s-era bollocks about economic "sustainability," and use the kind of labor vs. capital rhetoric that fell out of fashion long before the kind of people cheering you back home today were jeering Ronnie Ray-gun for asking Gorby to "tear down this wall" two decades ago.

Crusader…you didn't give any clues!!

LOL. Nice job. The scary part is how much your sarcasm resembled real leftist arguments.

Here is a suggestion: start a busness and pay your employees what ever you want. Don't try to use the government to coerce others to pay people what you think they should earn, and then feel like you've been charitable. I love how leftists are charitable with other's money. You should feel really good about your sacrifice to help the "working class."

Posted by: dave smith | Jul 25, 2008 1:55:59 PM

Nah nah nah nah nah nah.

I just have to keep up my name-calling indefinitely to tire out your side. That way my side wins on election day and we can have the tyranny of MY majority! Hahahahhahahaha

*this is just sarcastic posting. I'm really a hard-core libertarian.

All of this can occur without calling it a public service.

–I_am_a_lead_pencil

Well, I didn't say they do out of charity. Walmart could have any number of reasons, including public relations and goodwill.

But speaking of charity, the late John Walton who was Sam Walton's son, was a board member of Walmart, and decorated war hero, was a generous philanthropist thru the Philanthropy Roundtable and was dedicated to helping low income families send their children to private schools to enable them to get the best possible education. I have no inside information but I can see Mr. Walton using his board position to advocate hiring people who might not be given much of a chance by other employers. He was that sort of person and died way too young.

Another comment: you don't think that someone who hires min wage workers work themselves?

Is name calling the best you can do?

Here is a suggestion: start a busness and pay your employees what ever you want. Don't try to use the government to coerce others to pay people what you think they should earn, and then feel like you've been charitable. I love how leftists are charitable with other's money. You should feel really good about your sacrifice to help the "working class."

I just received this from my sister:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU

it is a fantastic glimpse into the future, but will it be squashed by those forces that will claim it should not be done because it won't be made available equally and the rich should not have it if the poor can not get it? Will it be squashed because the forces of the left will claim that it must be proven 100% effective in every case or it can't be done?

"Someone who can't do much of anything of value to anyone else would seem to be expensive at any hourly wage so I assumed they would paid the legal minimum. Any employer who is wiling to hire such people is doing a public service, in my view."

What would lead you to believe that Walmart (which frequently gets many many applicants for positions that it offers) would choose to engage in charity rather than hire the applicant whose productivity was most promising?

It appears as though the person that you cite who has "flowered into a productive citizen" and is still working for Walmart "at a wage I assume to be substantially above minimum wage" WAS hired based upon her potential for productivity – and she lived up to that potential. Good for her in getting there…and good for Walmart in seeing something in her that distinguished her from the other applicants.

All of this can occur without calling it a public service.

Maybe after a disaster more people want an inexpensive meal cooked by someone else?

That is, the demand for the burger flipper's services go up, and using econ lingo, their marginal revenue product increases.

You could be right, I don't know what Walmart pays workers that I have called Ultra low-skilled. Maybe a better term would be non-skilled. Someone who can't do much of anything of value to anyone else would seem to be expensive at any hourly wage so I assumed they would paid the legal minimum. Any employer who is wiling to hire such people is doing a public service, in my view.

I know of one such person who was hired by Walmart and has flowered into a productive citizen and is still happily working for Walmart, at a wage I assume to be substantially above minimum wage. If Walmart had not hired her she would either still be on welfare or living on the street. Her children would be in foster homes, but they are living with her and doing well. I have seen tears come to her eyes when she talks about what Walmart has done for her.

No. It would be a fundamental error to equate Michael Brown's inadequate skills with the skill level of (basically unskilled) entry-level workers. And it would be another error to define "low skilled" by these workers even though it is correct to define the workers as "low skilled."

Finally, there's another fundamental error of interchanging bargaining power with bargaining competence. A hurricane does nothing to affect a worker's negotiating skill, and to the extent that it improves his negotiating position, it does so through rather conventional supply-and-demand terms, in exactly the same way it limited his position before the storm.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

Jonah Golberg wrote a really good editorial on this about four years back. Good stuff and good Economics & History lesson, too!

Nope. I'm saying there are low-level unemployed people saying "aw crap, why can't I get a job like everyone else?" But that's okay because they're mostly non-voting, minority teens who lack the economic sense to understand what's going on, and who are only more likely to vote for a Democrat if they ever do decide to vote. So, I'd say the party of populism can safely dismiss that tiny demographic's rights in its political calculations — as it always has done.

So you saying, CPUrick, there are low-level workers saying "aw crap I wanted for $3 an hour"? But talking of pies why would wages rise in a disaster? If anything the local pie should be smaller. How does a burger-flipper become more productive thanks to a disaser when all they are doing is still flipping burgers? It'd be understandable if "there's money to be made after a disaster" if you were referring to already well-skilled workers such carpenters, plumbers, welder, concretors, etc. After all, for me to be trapped in the desert and have someone charge me $1000 for a water bottle is engaging in bargaining and playing a sort of zero-sum game – there's nothing more magical than a standard bottle of water and I have to pay that $1000 out of blue not because of any increase of any economic pie.

If you are arguing with those who believe in min wage increases, remember that you are arguing with people that have a fixed pie mentality. We (that is, free market thinkers) know that wealth can be created though competition and market forces. People who don't believe in free markets believe that wealth is a fixed pie to be divvied among people.

That's why any theory or empirical evidence will just roll off of those who want to raise the min wage. They don't think that wealth is created OR DESTROYED. They just think markets and governments push it around. A min wage increase takes from a few rich people and gives to a few poor people. People who thoughtfully agree with the min wage increase don't really care about anything else.

We all know that the min wage (or min wage increase) does redistributes income. The problem with it is that it 1) redistributes income in rather arbitrary ways (it is not just poor people winning and rich people losing…it is much more complicated that that, as anyone who has had a good econ 101 class knows.) and 2) makes the economic pie smaller.

Those two things together make the min wage horrible economic policy. It is difficult to assess all the winners and losers (meaning that there are losers that advocates of the min wage don't want to harm) and even in the best case the min wage is a inefficient way to help the poor.

Simply put, there are many, better ways to help the poor and unskilled in the US.