The idea that minimum wage increases lead to hogher unemployment has been pretty thoroughly debunked here.
David Card and Alan B. Krueger . . . present a powerful new challenge to the conventional view that higher minimum wages reduce jobs for low-wage workers. . . . they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.
The Card-Krueger work is essentially correct: the minimum wage at levels observed in the United States has had little or no effect on employment.
--Richard B. Freeman, Journal of Economic Perspectives
These guys are serious economists -- Card is a winner of the Clark Medal, which is second only to the Nobel in terms of prestige.
There is no reason for progressives to fall for this junk economics argument ever again.
George Bush may have the best intentions in the world -- and in this case he probably did have the best intentions in the world -- but that still doesn't mean he has the kind of plenary power Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt exercised during their wars.
I hesitate to get involved in this whole clusterf***, but some of you Hackett folks really seem to be getting deranged.
Everytime I read one of these diaries about how Sirota has "lied" about Hackett, I click through a few links and find that all of Sirota's points check out, and that its you folks who are mis-characterizing Sirota.
Really, all Sirota is doing is responding to your constant posturing about how Hackett is the second coming and all that, where the facts are that Hackett seems to be no more or less pure than many other pols out there.
Look, Hackett's position on the Iraq War has moved around somewhat (but then so has the country's). He did suggest that Brown is "too liberal," an RNC talking point that should never pass the lips of anyone who claims to be progressive.
Hackett also did make a political calculation (horrors!) when he decided to run statewide for the Senate rather than re-fight a tougher congressional race. This is the kind of calculation that if Brown did it, you guys would kick the shit out of him for, but when Hackett does it its all because of his sense of "duty" or whatever. Please.
No human being, and certainly no politician, can be as pure and selfless as your characterizations of Hackett. He's just a man, not a god. Put the pods away, folks. You're just setting yourself up for long-run disappointment.
Now, let them both run in the primary and may the best man win. But please knock off these idiot diaries (and please stop recommending them).
Most troubling, however, is Alito's identification with the theories espoused by the so-called "Constitution in Exile" group . . . which argues that the most important rights are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that take away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.
the White House was reported to have consulted business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, headed by former Michigan governor and Bush friend John Engler, over potential nominations
I certainly hope that over the next several weeks pro-choice voters in Maine (Snowe, Collins) Rhode Island (Chafee) Ohio (Voinovich, DeWine) and the other haunts of "moderate" Republicans are made aware of the fact that Bush's nominee believes husbands have a vested property right in their wives' uteruses.
So if you were going to summarize this "moral norms foreign policy" or "America as a moral force in the world" in a pithy phrase as part of a list along with "smart growth" or "fair trade" or "tax fairness" that summarized progressive values (and characterized in a bad way what the other side stands for), what would you call it?