It makes some sense that Lieberman would caucus with Republicans or even switch parties since he was the de facto Republican candidate in the race and since it was Republicans that -- by a wide margin -- put him over the top in CT. Further, he has displayed again and again that he has no honor, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were to renege on him promise to caucus with Dems. BUT... If he does so, he gives up all hope of being re-elected as a senator from CT. He would lose every single one of the Dem votes and many of the indie votes he got in this cycle. If he flips, it's for a spot in the Bush admin (unlikely since Defense was the logical one) or for another insanely ill-advised run at the White House. As he always does, Joe will do what's best for Joe and that looks for now to be staying with the Democrats.
i'm glad about that and i am happy too, even though it's raining cats and dogs outside and i have to fly out of laguardia in a few hours. look, this is the first time in my life i've ever voted a straight ticket. i, like many, wanted to remove the ineffectual republican majority because they were doing damage to my country. look at rhode island for god's sake. they removed an incumbant with a more than 60% approval rating solely because he was a republican. the vehicle for change was provided by none other than bush et al., not the dems. i am sure they worked hard but did they have a choice. change the course, yes, but have we heard any suggestions as to how?
Allen not sure of calling a recount... http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...allen_deliberating_whether_to_request_recount 7000 votes is quite a margin to overtake in a recount.
Another positive: you guys flipping burgers at McDonalds will get that big minimum wage pay increase! Congrats!
National Senate vote total: Dems: 32,000,000 Reps: 24,000,000 Dems pick up 6 and win a total of 24 (includes VT and CT) out of 33 seats. Hard to spin 24/33 as anything but a whoopin'.
Unfortunately unemployment amongst this group will go up as well. An interesting read. http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd011400f.html
A very interesting read, for different reasons than you'd expect. Basically, because the dire Republican predictions turned out false. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase. A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. Nice try, though.
I think claims like that are generally very suspect and perhaps more likely to be baseless fear mongering. I can’t think of that many businesses that would actually lay people off if they had to pay them $1 more per hour. Can you? On the flip side, people making that little spend their money and that gives a boost to the economy. I think the bottom line , however, is that you need to ensure that these people make a living wage so they don’t fall into crushing poverty and desperation, which brings its own very significant costs to society.
That was 1990-1991, a long time ago, the global economy has evolved greatly since then. I still haven't heard a valid response on how a company competes against a low cost operation in China/India when the minimum wage is being raised?
Tester wins without recount!!! ---------------- Montana law may forbid Burns recount Major media organizations, including AP and CNN declared Democratic candidate Jim Tester the victor in the Montana Senate race against Republican Conrad Burns. Though Burns has not yet conceded, he'll be unable to request a recount, RAW STORY has learned. In 2005, Montana state code 13-16-201--the section concerning recounts in close or contested elections--states, "a candidate for a congressional office, a state or district office voted on in more than one county, the legislature, or judge of the district court is defeated by a margin not exceeding 1/4 of 1% of the total votes cast for all candidates for the same position." However, with all precincts apparently accounted for, and votes totalling 400,000, Burn trails Tester by 3000 votes. That margin, while slim, is greater than one-half of one-percent, and therefore not eligible for a state-sanctioned recount. The Burns-Tester race was one of the most hotly contested of the 2006 election season. Before yesterday's vote, many analysts had concluded that it would be a barometer for the national race to control the Senate. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Montana_law_may_forbid_Burns_recount_1108.html
If you own a business that pays the employees at minimum wage, you don't think if suddenly your cost of labor increased by 15-20% doesn't affect your operating margin? It very well could mean keeping the jobs here or opening a shop outside of US.
Did anybody else listen to Rush this morning smiling from ear to ear? Man, what a freaking great day to be alive.
No. That study included both the 1990 wage increase and the 1998 one. Numerous studies show the same things in most wage increases. China/India has no impact on this because the types of jobs that are minimum wage in the US are not outsourcable (janitorial, fast food, etc).
Nope... not unless labor is 40% of overall costs in which case I doubt you're paying minimum wage anyway. Food prices rise and fall more than this will impact the way you do business if you own a resturaunt, for example. I'm not saying it won't have an effect, I'm just saying if you are running a business and can't afford to bump your employees up to $6.00 an hour, you were doomed anyway. If you really want to save businesses in America, lets do something that REALLY messes with the bottom line of both businesses and really everyone in the country. That would be doing something about energy/fuel prices. The second biggest issue hurting businesses, is the astronomical prices of health care in this country. Min. wage hike isn't even a speck on the radar for most companies, and crying over it while there are several large white elephants in the room is laughable.
On a microeconomic basis, it certainly affects different business differently. But as an example, for a fast food restaurant, if the poor start making an extra $0.50 an hour, they probably also may eat at your restaurant more, increasing your net revenues that way. You can't just look at the immediate cost increase - you have to look at how that affects the economy and, in particular, your market. Overall, all the economic evidence shows that limited wage increases don't hurt the economy and actually help it. Another way to look at it is that, due to inflation, the real minimum wage has decreased over the past 9 years, so increasing it just puts it back to where it was a decade ago.
mc mark, I did not, and I'm damned sorry I missed it. I'm tempted to register at his site just to give it a listen. How in the heck did he spin this?? Anyone know a way to listen to today's Rush without registering at his website? What a grand and glorious day. Even Rumsfeld resigned, and the massacre at the West Wing isn't over. Look for Rove to leave at some point in the near future. For those of you who watched Bush's press conference, you were seeing vintage "Governor Bush," just in case you missed the first act here in Texas. He was Mister Bipartisan Guy, because he had to be. He'll dump the losers around him and replace them with people that have ties to his father. He'll shrug off attacks as "typical heat in a campaign," and smile and say it's nothing, and he wants to work with the Democrats. That they love their country, too. (insert "love Texas," for when he was governor) Yada, yada, yada. He's doing it only because he has to, if he wants any kind of legacy, and his Dad has told him plenty about the importance of a President's legacy. George Junior heard about it for years, but wanted to do things his way. Now, he'll be paying attention. Just watch... this is going to be fun. Keep D&D Civil.
Yes, I did. I thought his head might explode. I'm going to watch Bill O'Reilly tonight for the icing on the cake.
