Yes I do. If people earn more money, they can in turn put more money back into the economy, thus providing business with greater profits, and a greater ability to employ more people.

I feel that it is the wrong thing to do but the right reason. Heart of gold, brain of shit. However the science of economics is complex enough and chock-full of catch-22s enough that I can't think of any other way to guarantee that the average American can eat every day and live indoors.... unless you want to beef up public assistance; welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etcetera. Of course that will wreak havoc with tax rates as the government will need to increase revenues in order to fund all that which will result in either a worsening of the situation or removing any incentive to succeed financially as any profits you work hard for will be taken in taxes. *** EDIT - 17 Mar 07 While I agree with your maximum wage idea in light of the upwards death-spiral of ticket prices to sporting events as the incomes of pro athletes climbs near/into the 8-digit range, I disagree with your assertion that abolishing the minimum wage will let poor people start businesses. Even if you work for yourself and don't have any employees to pay (thus rendering any wage-based argument irrelevant) you need a LOT of money to start a business. And given that poor people can't get loans, business will STILL be exclusively for the rich and the lucky unless housing/real estate costs drop by a factor of at least 10. *** EDIT - 2 Apr 07 For the record, I earn considerably above MINIMUM wage, but not what could be called a LIVING wage. I spend nearly half of my gross income (over 80% of my net income) on rent and utilities... and that's on one of the cheaper places within 100 miles! I believe that increasing the minimum wage is an attempt to ensure that we all can afford to live inside with heat, electricity, and enough food to physically survive. If I were not married to a person who earns about 140% of what I earn, I'd be screwed! I'd still earn too much to qualify for any aid, but not nearly enough to live on my own.

Given the fact that 87% of Republicans make up statistics, should we still answer their questions?

Sure give the starter worker a minimum wage hike. Of course, people with experience with also want and get one as well. (the trickle up effect.) The employers will then either cut quality, cut employees, cut benefits or raise prices to generate the money to pay the costs of the raise. (They don't have a magic money bag.) Folks will see a bigger paycheck and be happy. The resulting inflation of prices and the lower standard of living will not be as obvious as that paycheck. It is foolish to give the raise, but politically, there are no downsides to hurt the politicians.

Sherilane: Re-read your arguements: note that you repeat the following authoritative words: "cold hard facts", "this fact". the "fact that 99%..." These are not "facts, Sherri, these are your opinions, that somehow you have decided are "facts." Just because you call something a "fact" doesn't make it so. There are some arguements against raising the minimum wage, but none that I have read (yet) has posited the idea that paying a higher wage results in less money for the wage earner. It may result in less money for the wage PAYER. Perhaps that's why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes raising the wage. --But they have no opposition to rasing the multi-million dollar salaries for CEOs and other executives. I suppose that giving these million dollar salaries also "results in LESS MONEY" for the executives.

Good gosh, it's so obvious. Have some compassion. Raise the minimum wage. Let people make a living out of one job. Believe it or not it once was possible in America for one ordinary wage earner to make enough for a family to live. Now some families have a wife and husband each working two jobs. Not right. Raise the minimum. Oh, yes, I'd like to know who these 99% of economists are? Are they teaching in colleges or employed by foundations who subsidize their health care? Some even subsidize housing expenses. I love the hypocrisy when these subsidized ivory tower egg heads rant and rave about government interference with the marketplace. But they suck from the tit themselves. When they refuse to accept thse subsidies i'll begin to read them more carefully.

No, people need to get better jobs. End of story.

Raise the minimum.

The raise of the minimum wage is not targeted for those making minimum wage. It is really an increase for union wages. Union wages are based on the minimum wage. Most union contracts that deal with hourly wage employees have that hourly wage based on the minimum wage. So, if I make 17.50 an hour, that is really 5.15 plus an additional 12.35. If the min. wage is raised to 7.25, the union employee will now make 19.60 an hour. So it is wise for the POLITICIAN to vote for the increase because most union employees will see an increase in their hourly wage. The politician will point this out on a regular basis.

You seem to misunderstand economics. First of all, remember the old adage: put 10 economists in a room and you will get 12 opinions. No social science has such a consensus as 99%. Second, economists would not say that something is bad - any professional worth his/her salt does not make that kind of normative statement. They might predict what affect something might have on another sector of the economy, but they shouldn't make the value judgments as you have indicated.

I am kind of torn on this issue. I see the pros and the cons of it. Pros: More money in earnings means those in the lower income bracket will earn more. Then the more they have to spend, the more they will thus generating more tax dollars. Cons: By having to pay their workers more, businesses that already pay minimum wage will have to increase the price of their product/service in order to recoup their rising overhead. That in turn affects everyone who might not spend money on items they would normally buy because of the increase. Then that leads to a loss of tax dollars. I suppose it all depends on what happens with the businesses that are forced to increase the wages. If they raise their prices to cover the overhead, then it is either a win-lose or a lose-lose. If they are still able to keep prices down in spite of the increase in wages, then it is a win-win for everyone.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-01-99.html Please read.

No, it's a feel good measure because it does not keep up with the cost of living which is what our leaders should be concentrating on if they were worth their salt.

I think is safer for the economy, i.e unemployment-wise not to touch the wages, including the minimum. Instead let it to the forces of market,i.e. supply and demand, which is more efficient than politicians.

Given the fact that economist are wrong 90% of the time, politicians are pawns of their supporters and lobbyists exclusively. Even though, logically, raising min wages just creates inflation and higher prices and benefits HIGH wage earners (probably more than low-wage earners) ...the boat rising up with the water --...I chalk it up to human nature. It feels good and it appears you're doing something for the little guy even though you're really not and may even be hurting him.

1) I am not at all sure that this fact is true. It would probably depend on the actual situation of the economy. 2) Politicians do not always follow what the economists say. They usually are very interested to maintain their popularity, sometimes only in the short term.