The real reason Trump's tariffs won't work

And that is, contra his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, yes, buying a bunch of cheap shit IS, or has become, the American way of life.

It started becoming that 40-plus years ago, when Saint Ronald of Reagan first really signed off on not battling protectionism abroad. That said, the first big wave of modern imports was partially Merikkka shooting itself in the foot. At the time of the two oil crises of the 1970s, American small cards were crap. That was halfway acceptable at the time of the 1973-74 oil crisis and Arab partial embargo; at the time of 1979 and Iran, it absolutely was not.

So, Japan kicked American butts. This was primarily due to Big Three intransigence, but UAW workers were about as much at fault.

Skip backward a bit. 

In some ways, I consider JFK the first neoliberal president, not using that totally vaguely, but seriously and at least somewhat narrowly. If not him, it's definitely Jimmy Carter and I've written about that before.

Ronnie? Not really a neolib; nor Poppy Bush.

The Slickster? Absolutely. If James Earl wasn't full blown as a neoliberal, William Jefferson Clinton surely was. Rhodes Scholarship learning and all.

Remember, it was the Slickster who first touted how "engagement" with China would lead to political liberalization. Not!

Beyond that, at least as much as Carter, Clinton and unions weren't always on the same page. It was honestly, under Clinton, that Democrats first started looking really at the "knowledge class" as a basis for politics.

From there, everybody but Trump has been a neoliberal.

OK, along with that?

It's been 17 years since the last minimum wage hike. And, despite my pleas on these pages, Democrats did NOT attach a COLA provision to that last minimum wage hike. That means, contra Bessent, many Merikkkans can't afford to buy more than cheap shit. That's even as the vulture capitalists riding herd on stocks of retailers don't want it any other way.

Second, despite fishing for union support, and some unions dumb enough to give it to him, Trump cares about unions even less than national-level Democrats. He's fine with trashing out the NLRB. And OSHA and workplace safety. Etc., etc.

Safe American factories paying decent wages of course can't compete with China. And, Trump is not about to dish out a COVID-type stimulus specifically targeting lower-income workers to buy items from American factories, even if he did back an increased minimum wage that would slowly kick in.

Trump's tariffs address one symptom of a far bigger problem that he has even less desire of fixing than do Democrats.

Or alleged Trump librul nutters like Batya Ungar Sargon want to admit:

Just when I think Batya Ungar-Sargon can't get any more stupid, she does!
Pro-worker Trump? Really? As he wants to dismantle OSHA and the NLRB?
Anti-war? Guess your Zionism has blinded you to him bombing the hell out of Yemen, supporting genocide and wanting war with Iran. https://t.co/LHO0YWmv5q

— TheRealSocraticGadfly #GLM #PLM 🍉☢️🌻🌲🇵🇸 (@real_gadfly) April 12, 2025

That's in addition to her Zionist and other stupidities, of course.

This is like Ernst Röhm claiming to be a Nazi lefty the day before the Night of the Long Knives.

Ted Rall hits one of his more wrong moments on minimum wage

Besides not fully understanding the First Amendment (charitable version) or being a sort of butt-hurt solipsist (less charitable but more realistic version, based on a long past history of his) in his suit against the LA Times for canning him, petulancy that is now nearly 18 years old (go here for my take on Popehat's takedown), Ted Rall has other moments a-plenty of flat-out wrongness about American issues.

(Notably, the cluelessness is more often about domestic issues. When he takes controversial stands on foreign policy, he's relatively more likely to be right. Not that that means a whole lot.)

His latest? Per the above cartoon? Saying the US "really" should have a $25/hour minimum wage, or "really really" should have one of $80 an hour. Ted has since doubled down on the BS in his most recent syndicated column.

According to ... ShadowStats.com [no actual link to individual piece by Ted] $22 in 2013 comes to at least $35 today.

It does not, except in such a seemingly febrile mind. The idea that an actual inflation rate, per CPI (and not core CPI) which has not gone over 2.1 percent anywhere in the 2014-18 period and had an average during that time of just 1.52 percent, is "really" 10 percent is bullshit. It's like claiming that not only is the Department of Labor's official unemployment rate of 3.9 percent on the U-3 numbers is wrong (and it is), but that the U-6 numbers of 7.6 percent are also wrong, and the "real" unemployment in the US is 15 percent or more.

So, IF I accept Ted's claim that we "really" (that's going in scare quotes every time now, Ted) "should" (ditto) have had a minimum wage of $22 an hour in 2013, your $35 an hour in 2019 still doesn't follow. Per actual CPI, that minimum wage should be $23.71. Even if you claim the CPI is wrong by 100 percent? That minimum wage should still be just $25.44.

His Gollum-precious ShadowStats, to be a bit more generous, claimed an inflation rate of almost 10 percent in 2011, Ted. That's just triple the official CPI for the year of 3.0 percent. So, let's do this once more, tripling the CPI for each year of 2014, normal compounding (unless Ted has some "shadow compounding" to pull out of somewhere) and see what we have.

We still "really" only get up to $27.47.

At this point, Ted is clearly, from my perspective, pulling numbers out of either thin air or his ass. Your choice as to which, Ted. Oh, and to punk and troll Ted just a bit more, your precious ShadowStats is behind a capitalist paywall. Oh, you running dog capitalist lackey.

Speaking of? Ted, if you "really" cared about minimum wage and related employee issues, you wouldn't have donations to you laundered through a charity with heavy ties to USPIRG and to Fund for the Public Interest, which has been successfully (not SLAPP-reverse failed) sued multiple times for employment law violations. And yes, Ted and fanbois, your final stop laundromat, Sustainable Markets Foundation, has just such connections. Not to mention having the word "markets" in its title.

I've broken up my Twitter thread related to his individual cartoon about his stupidity into individual tweets, with bits of commentary in between.

Ted Rall is simply wrong (not the first time by any means) when he says today's minimum wage, based on the 1960s, "really" should be $25, or even $80 an hour. #MinimumWage https://t.co/jmyHtKW49V

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Wishes and reality are two different things, Ted, just as your LA Times suit has shown. I won't repeat old jokes about having one thing in one hand and another in the other.

First, Elizabeth Warren was likewise also wrong with her $22/hour #MinimumWage.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Also not the first or last time she's been wrong. That said, on this particular issue, per her past, she should know better than Ted for a reason I'll note below.

Second, this page and its chart are representative of thousands of #RealNews websites. Adjusted for inflation, from the minimum wage's peak, it should be at $9-10/hour today. https://t.co/tzQxXiIQyy

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

I am going to post that chart I am talking about, to give us a clear visual.

Seems pretty clear to me, at least.

We should also note that the web post I linked to cites the Economic Policy Institute for some of its discussion. The EPI bats left of center on economic issues in general, so don't claim that I am citing some sort of wingnut piece. 

Tis true that one's a few years old, but here's a table that runs through 2018 that says the same.

Next?

Third, increased productivity, plus increasing urbanization of America, might allow for a bump to the $15/hour currently talked about, but .... more than that?

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

We are now at the point where Ted is simply phoning it in.

Third, Pt 2, increased productivity might allow for some bump, but ... measuring increased productivity on web-based jobs is a mug's game. That ignores the whole issue of bots making the Net not real, and you and I checking Book of Face repeatedly at work.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

And, that's the refudiation, nickel version, to Ted phoning it in.

Fourth, clearly neither .@TedRall nor .@ElizabethWarren have ever visited what remains of small-town America. $15/hour would gut it; $22/hour (let alone Ted's nutbar $80) would destroy it.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Actually, not true, but the Tweet stays, to tie in with my point above.

Warren, of course, grew up in small-town Oklahoma, which means that on the sociological side, she has even less excuse than Rall for such uninformed blather.

My stance comes in this last tweet:

Fifth, this is why I favor Oregon's $15/$12/$10 urban/suburban/rural split on #minimumwage

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

I don't know exactly how Oregon defines urban, suburban and rural in its law. Here in Texas, would Collin County be urban or suburban? Grayson County or Hunt Count suburban or rural? The idea is correct in general, though.

After we get something like that nationally? We then, per that table and graph above, institute a COLA. I faulted Nancy Pelosi for not doing that when she and her House Dems last raised the minimum wage.

As for Rall? In this case, in my opinion, it's not "just" the mix of laziness and willfulness that characterizes many of his columns, as well as both the content and drawing style of his cartoons.

I personally can't see this one as anything but deliberate lying. The statistics are out there in factual form, not Rall's distorted versions.

That's only increased by Rall's response on Twitter that he spends plenty of time in small town America. Then, in addition to telling apparent lies about the minimum wage, he doesn't actually care about small-town America, I guess. He's either exaggerating downward the size of places he's visited or else engaged in other exaggeration. Given his clear misstatements on the actuality of the minimum wage, whatever the exaggeration, IMO it's surely deliberate, though.

The per-capital income for the entire state of Mississippi is about $23,000, Median HOUSEHOLD income is about $43,000, less than one person working full time at $22/hour, Ted. So, if you "really" spend a lot of time in small-town America, you haven't "really" learned anything about "real" economic stats you "should" know.

In other words? Ted, I don't trust you. And others who do, the remaining fanboys, shouldn't.

(And, speaking of, per your suit against the LA Times? THIS is why they don't carry you any more. Idiotic mendacities and made-up information.)

Let's look at his past, too.

Among Ted's other larger mistakes in both domestic and foreign affairs?

The biggest was his whopper claiming Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 actually landed safe and sound in Kazakhstan, which he doubled down on for some time.

Then there was claiming Glenn Greenwald is a liberal. (He's become more librul on some things, but like Mark Ames and others, I consider him a libertarian just like his boss, Omidyar.)

Other ideas of his, which sounded deeply different at the time just sound dumb now. Like drafting cops. (That would probably also be unconstitutional, or very close to it. Certainly a violation of the spirit of the 13th Amendment.)

I used to halfway agree with his ideas on abortion, but have moved away from that now. Semantically, he's probably wrong, if he's going to stick that route, on using "murder" rather than "manslaughter" in many such cases. "Human life" may not be defined — or definable — as starkly as he would have it, either.

Trivialization by hyperbole is what he does here, is perhaps the best way to explain it.

Or else, gotcha by outrageous statement, like some of his editorial cartoons.

Basically, because he had, pre-9/11, traveled to Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, and had good insights overall on invading Afghanistan, and because he pissed off Hillbots already in 2008, I read him fairly credulously until the Flight 370 and Greenwald. The flight issue, and his stubbornness revealed on it, showed a new side. Then, per the Popehat link up top, I learned a lot more about him in comments there.

(I'm also in the middle of reading a book about pre 9/11 travels to Afghanistan that is almost certainly more realistic than whatever Rall wrote.)

Finally, if Warren made such idiotic claims, then, as a member of the really reality-based community, I see that as another strike against her presidential campaign. (Hiring Hillary Clinton's 2016 communications team would be another.)

==

This reminds me — once or twice a year I do a blog post when I do a major blogroll cleanup. Maybe I need to do one explaining those who I keep, even or especially when I disagree with them a fair amount.

Dear Leader shot himself in the foot on overtime rules; #WithDemocratsLikeThis

Federal District Judge Amos Mazzant III has granted a nationwide injunction against the Department of Labor's proposed changes in overtime rules, that would have upped the salary ceiling for salaried employees, outside of certain managerial classifications, to almost $50,000.

Now, here's where it gets fun.

Mazzant is apparently a lifelong Republican, or nearly so. He ran for a state district court position in 2004, and lost in the primary. No worry. Tricky Ricky Perry named him to a vacancy on the Fifth Court of Appeals. And people in Texas know that appointments to appeals courts vacancies, above district court ones, are definitely a matter of "connections."

Proof of how dyed-in-the-wool he is can be seen from things like a 2004 general election campaign filing for the seat, which he held for eight years. His campaign contributions from that include money from a legal general counsel at eXXXon. A later one, still in BushCo years at the White House, lists an assistant US attorney, among others. Beyond that, a lot of his campaign money came from lawyers and lawyers' PACs. It's perfectly legal, but not very ethical, even if the firms have no cased pending before the court in question.

And, he was of the giving sort, too. Like $1,250 to the Republican Party of Dallas County in 2006. He also, per this link and the screenshot, gave a total of $500 to John Cornyn's 2006 run and $750 to Shrub Bush's re-elect bid in 2004.

Add in that Mazzant, though not a native Texan, or even a Texas bachelor's degree college graduate, went to Baylor Law. Clear enough picture?

And, Dear Leader nominated him to the federal bench. Why? A tradeoff with Senate GOPers, or specifically, Texas senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn having a hold on judicial nominees, along the lines of pushing Merrick Garland for SCOTUS this summer?

We'll never know; that's probably the least sinister interpretation, and it's bad enough. Yes, Republican presidents, in the face of Democratic home-state senatorial judicial holds, might substitute a more moderate GOP nominee for a wingnut, but I'm unaware of the likes of a President Bush, when faced with Democrats opposing two judicial nominees of his in a state, replacing one of them with a clear Democrat.

Per my hashtag, surrendering hostages to fortune like this may have may have made Preznit Kumbaya feel more successful over the power of his mellifluous voice, but he would be wrong.

This isn't the first time Mazzant has recently made headlines, either. He's also the judge who recently tossed the SEC's original filing against our state's spavined mule attorney general, Ken Paxton.

This all said, setting aside the issue of whether or not Mazzant's legal ruling was right?

The Department of Labor regulatory changes weren't perfect.

I definitely like the idea of a COLA on the new overtime level. Hell, I blogged a decade ago, after the Dems regained control of Congress from the 2006 elections, that they should make a COLA part of a minimum-wage increase. (Which they did not.)

But, doubling the salary level, and immediately? Erm, no.

And, while the 47,000 and change might have been the right price for the coasts, it's too high for the heartland, especially with the immediate phase-in.

The Labor Department should have had this starting earlier, like after the 2012 presidential election, and on a graduated basis of, say, $2,500 a year over four years. Typical of Obama to think he could Kumbaya the GOP for too long on that issue, though.

Question is, can individual states set their own standards here, just as they can go beyond the feds on minimum wage?

Why $12 an hour, or $15 an hour, isn't enough for workers

Whether or not you agree with me that a $15/hour minimum wage, whether in the "flyover" heartland or in small towns in even "rich" coastal states, might be too much, I hope we all agree the minimum wage needs to be increased.

But, that's just one small thing.

When the Democrats in Congress got a minimum wage increase back in 2007, I said it needed a COLA provision as part of it. No, it wouldn't be $12 an hour now, with that, but it might at least be around $9 an hour instead of $7.25. It's still needed, no matter what the next minimum wage hike is. It provides assurance to employees and stability to business owners and managers alike for this.

But, minimum wage increases, even with COLAs, are just a drop in the bucket.

Bernie Sanders has raised a bit of one or two other employee issues in his Democratic campaign, but he's taken a pass on most of these.

Let's look at what else is needed.

1. Paid time off for family emergencies. We're talking more than the five sick days — if that — that your employer gives you. We're talking about taking the 1992 Family and Medical Leave Act's unpaid time and making it paid.

The US is one of just three nations in the world that offers zero paid leave. The others? Oman and Papua New Guinea. Nice company, eh?

Now, the Bern has talked a bit about this.

The following issues? Not at all.

2. Guaranteed vacation. Now, we're in a slightly larger pool than just three, but still. The US is the ONLY nation in the G-20 group not to have guaranteed vacation time every year. Nearly one-quarter of private sector employees in the US get no paid vacation time. Even those of us who do start with two weeks, and have to stay with the same company to extend that; the average for US employees is behind 19 other countries.

And, in most the advanced world, just as true national health care makes health insurance portable, not only do you get more paid vacation days than in the US, you don't go back to square one when you change jobs.

Sanders hasn't really talked about this. Probably not on his radar screen.

But, that's still not the biggie. That would be ...

3. Guaranteed annual income. This starts us thinking more and more outside the capitalism box, though a few libertarians past and present have favored the idea, too. Bernie's probably too good a Democrat to bring up a really socialist idea like this, though.

But this trio, combined with Western lifestyle offerings in general, is probably why many Western Europeans, not just Scandinavians, are happier than in the US, despite weather that, especially in those Scandinavian areas, often is abysmal.

That said, part of this, per Pogo? The enemy is us.

The "get no paid vacation time" link reports, accurately, I'm sure, that US employees have been so hypnotized by hypercapitalism as to value money over time off, even when they've got enough money for at least a bit of income security.

Having taught adjunct college classes to UAW workers in Michigan, I can anecdotally attest to the truth of this.

I'm no rich Democratic "liberal" elitist looking down at workers; I'm a left-liberal, nowhere near rich myself, shaking my head at many Americans.

Three numbers for 2016: 67, 3, $10

Those are three numbers that are key for my presidential vote.

First, I don't want any neolib Democrat, let along a Republican, raising the age of full Social Security eligibility any higher. And, of course, I don't want any privatization talk. Instead, try making all income subject to FICA taxes. And, we can use that to better means-test Medicare. (Which could be a backdoor way to do single-payer national health care as "Medicare for all," but that's another story.)

Second, if not like Europe, we need to at least be like Canada, and guarantee employees above certain age and experience three weeks of paid vacation a year. Given the tumult of the US economy, this shouldn't be chained to specific jobs. The sad part is that this isn't even on the radar screen of many Americans, whether their work collars are blue, white or gray. And it should be.

I'm sure wingnuts would say "We can't afford this." Well, it's more affordable than people burning out on jobs, eventually to take early Social Security, and maybe even, especially if their collars are blue, to find the need to file for SSDI.

Third, we need to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. That's in line with what it was at its peak in the 1950s 1960s. It's never been more than $11 an hour, even in Eisenhower Johnson-era prosperity, when far fewer married women, especially with kids, were working. So, and I've blogged about it before, while $15/hour might (even then, I'm not sure) be OK as a local minimum wage in pricey places like Seattle, it's way too high as a national standard. You'll kill red-state and blue-state rural areas alike.

But, $10 is needed. Then, let's make a COLA for the minimum wage part of the bargain, like Social Security, so the minimum wage doesn't start lagging again. We get both liberals and conservatives of various degrees and stripes to do this and take it off the table afterward.

And, I'm not alone in this!

Arindrajit Dube, an economics prof, says the same thing. Move to $10 an hour, then implement a COLA and take this out of the realm of politics. He discusses the issue in detail here.

$15? Or $10.10? And how quickly?

After figuring out that Thomas Piketty has written a left-neoliberal book on capitalism's faults that ignores organized labor, and also figuring out that Bill Clinton will never, ever apologize to labor for NAFTA and the WTO, I can sympathize with the international fast-food employees' strike in wanting a higher minimum wage.

(Hat tip to Perry for reminding me of this.)

But, per the header of this piece? That said, in details of the strike, I think $15/hr, without a phase-in of seven or so years, is too high. Even then, it might be a bit much. The $10.10 of Beltway rounds, with a four-year phase-in, AND a COLA clause as part of that, sounds about right to me.

And, that's in part due to strategy reasons — reasons of what's realistic — as well as other considerations. And, I'm not alone:

Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, said Thursday’s protests were an example of “the labor movement reinventing itself. It’s the most experimental thing labor has done in a long time.”

But he characterized the goal of a $15 hourly minimum as overly ambitious.

“They seem to forget you have to take little steps at a time,” he said. “When you don’t have very much, getting a little can mean a lot. You can’t get it all at once.”

Exactly.

And, expecting $15 an hour and almost immediately? Your store managers would put you all on salary and abuse comp time laws. Or try to figure out a way to classify you as independent contractors. Or simply shut down less profitable locations.

Yes, I know big businesses often use threats of closure or cuts as their own negotiating tools. And, I know that McDonald's jobs can't be outsourced to China.

And, I know it's true that wages are a fairly small portion of overhead for fast-food restaurants. Nonetheless, asking for them to be more than doubled off the current US minimum wage of $7.25 is a bit much.

And, if wages get to honestly be too big a portion, businesses will do more than just threats. Besides closures, or cuts, you could have cuts combined with split shifts. Every day of your work week. Or, even more of last-minute call-ins, or last-minute stay-homes, on your work schedule.

We also have to remember that a country as fast, populous and diversified as the US has great regional income disparities. In my current location in Texas, a $15/hr minimum wage would pretty much gut half the jobs here.

I blogged about this a bit before with Seattle's push for a $15 minimum wage. Protesters need to, per Chaison, have some sense of political reality.

They also need to have some sense of economic reality.

And, that's not just at the local level. The movement behind this all, Fast Food Forward is reportedly backed financially by Service Employees International Union.

A $15/hr minimum wage, at a full-time, year-round job, would produce a higher wage than the current individual median income, per the Census Bureau. I can understand (unlike Barack Obama) a deliberate "overshoot" as part of negotiations, but when you're pricing yourself out of the ballpark at the start, you don't sound very realistic. Or very well-informed. And, it's not just small-town Texas. Let's take Maplewood, Mo., a down-on-the-edges, but not totally "out," St. Louis suburb. A minimum wage of $15/hr on a 40-hr week puts you at 95 percent of annual household income there, and at almost 45 percent above per capita income. Nearly the same is true in a nowhere near down-at-the-edges heartland city, Grand Island, Neb. About 40 percent above the per capita median, and while only about 75 percent of the household income, still.

And, given that these protests are being backed or organized to some fair degree by organized labor folks well above the level of individual fast-food workers, that too is sad. Even in the glory days of Eisenhower, when adjusted into real dollars, the minimum wage was never but a sliver above $10 an hour.

So, restaurant workers? Dial back to $10.10, but with unionization rights as part of the deal. As for the $10.10, the Center for American Progress agrees. Its reason? That would be 50 percent of the national mean (not median) per capita. Elsewhere, Dylan Matthews notes than $15 would be 75 percent of the national median. Given the amount of economic diversity I indicated exists in America, I am confident in saying that it would be more than 100 percent of the median for census tracts of 25 percent of America.

Sadly, per Matthews, Felix Salmon is dumb enough to tout the $15 minimum, too. He says it would help the feds by bringing in tax revenue and moving people off the Earned Income Tax Credit. He should know better. He should know that with as high of a hike as I propose, even in northeastern metropolitan areas, some of this will happen.

Of course, about nobody I link above has ever lived in small-town Midwest or South areas.

SEIU? The same for the bulk of the types of workers you represent. Don't overshoot; you won't get sympathy for the broader issues behind this, including ever-increasing judicial hostility. Beyond that, that hostility is backed by Rick Snyder's election as governor of Michigan, Scott Walker's election as governor of Michigan, and more. A lot of Americans think that "union" is a four-letter word.

That said, I know that not a lot of workers are working 40 hours a week on minimum wage and that American unions like to use the minimum wage to bolster employees on the first tier above that. That then said, that's why a $15/hr request is really bad. SEIU? Nobody's going to want to pay janitors and security guards $17/hr in Grand Island, Neb. Simply ain't happening. They'll put up with dirty banks and fewer security guards.

Tocqueville missed noting that America is a land of confrontations, as part of American democracy. Too bad he wasn't here in the 1880s.

Speaking of him, this is part of why the US can't be fully like Western Europe. Lower population density, and more diversity within the various states. Well, maybe Western Europe will learn its lesson that a "Western Europe" that includes places like Greece under the euro umbrella can't be fully like Western Europe, either.

Finally, it's also why I identify myself on this blog as a skeptical left-liberal. I attempt to subject left-liberal ideas to some form of logical and empirical analysis before discussing them.

Update, May 18: Another way to put this, per the comment of Simon, who's non-American, is that the minimum wage, with that much of hike, has a broad parallel to the European Union's Eurozone crisis, to more clearly spell out what I first said. The rural South and Midwest are Greece, and New York City is London. Raise the minimum to $15/hr, and fair chunks of the US become post-eurozone crisis Greece.

And, per Simon's one comment, I noted that at $7.25, wages are a relatively modest part of fast-food overhead; I specifically indicated that likely would not be the same at $15. (Also, per that link to the Washington Post blog about the Center for American Progress, Australia's $16+ minimum wage would only be about $12 at most, here, at least under CAP's sensical idea. Also, Australia's minimum wage has a variety of loopholes, per that same link.

So, with that, and the added links above, can we please stop believing that a $15 minimum would be a painless panacea? I've already knocked down attempts to link it and helping the homeless.

Minimum wage, $10.10, $15, homelessness and other issues

As the Senate, just in time for May Day, gave President Obama a rejection on bumping the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and Seattle activists continue to push for $15 an hour there, there are several other related issues.

First, a brief look at both measures.

The federal bill was decent overall. Beyond the actual rise, the 30-month phase in was long enough. And, hiking restaurant servers' minimum, at tipping restaurants, to 70 percent of the regular minimum, is good too. The biggest weakness is not indexing the minimum wage.

The Seattle bill? Socialist activist Kshama Sawant seems to be overreaching. Yes, Seattle is more expensive than the Midwest, but it's not that expensive. And, not including tips as part of that, so there's no separate minimum for servers? Yes, it probably would hurt a fair amount of restaurants. Fake protests aside, there's real concerns too.

And, not every other claim by the pro-$15 side in Seattle totally rings true, either. The biggest is linking the minimum wage hike with homelessness.

Well, social services type folks have generally split the homeless into three groups, with two of them often having some degree of overlap.

The first is those who have some sort of financial mishap. Would a higher minimum wage help them? Maybe, maybe not. Personal bankruptcies leading to homelessness are caused by medical cost burdens more than any other single cause. A higher minimum wage, at the Seattle level, is very likely going to lead to cuts in health care. Workers would have to pay a lot more out of pocket for private plans or else lose private coverage entirely. Beyond medical debt, a number of other financial issues can drive people into either short-term or long-term homelessness.  Right now, housing foreclosure is probably No. 2, especially for older people not working full-time. A higher minimum wage might help that, or it might lead to such people having their hours cut, if the hike is too high. Anyway, it's simplistic at best to connect a higher minimum wage to helping this roughly one-third of the homeless.

Yes, remember, I mentioned that homeless can be divided into three groups. While exact numbers fluctuate, they're roughly equal.

The second third? The mentally ill on our streets. A higher minimum wage won't help them. 

Better insurance may, in some cases. In many cases, though? Only a partial reversal of late-1960s libertarianism on de-institutionalizing some mentally ill may reach them. Short of that, there's not much you, I or society can do for schizophrenics who forget to, or simply refuse to, regularly take their medications. A higher minimum wage has nothing to do with that.

The third group, which overlaps somewhat with the second? Addicts and alcoholics. Again, a higher minimum wage will do nothing to help them.

Homelessness? Would be nice if the solution were so easy.

And, I think at least a few people in Sawant's camp know it's not so simple. Call me back in five years to see how well Obamacare has addressed the insurance-related issue, and also to see if Seattle, or San Francisco, or similar cities, or various states, have addressed how to get the mentally ill on the streets to be medication-compliant and, if necessary, in shelters focused on the mentally ill. Ditto for harm reduction measures for addicts/alcoholics, short of "open use" shelters. I'm divided on the issue of letting addicts or alcoholics have anything on site in a shelter. If they are allowed that, IMO, it should only be under supervision, with supplies kept by the manager. Open, individualized addictive drug or alcohol use shouldn't be allowed in shelters, though. And, without wanting to sound too much like a 12-Stepper talking about people "hitting bottom," however you phrase it, many of the non-mentally ill addicts and alcoholics, even if homeless, aren't (yet?) ready to quit.

And, with their mild climates and drug-friendly stereotypes, Seattle and San Francisco probably attract a fair number of out-of-area addicts/alcoholics. I'll bet Vancouver, B.C., does too.

Homelessness is also affected by housing costs, which in turn are affected by other issues. The same moderate climate that may draw homeless people, when mixed with scenic views, draws people to move there in general and raises housing costs. Is rent control part of the solution? Public housing which targets a wider income range than current, usually stereotyped, public housing? 

So, minimum wage advocates? I agree with the goal, in broad outlines. But, stick to the minimum wage.

That said, I suspect this is advice for deaf ears in Seattle. Seattle, home of the "black bloc" in the 1998 WTO meetings protests. Seattle, just across the border from Vancouver, home to Adbusters, friendly to such ideas. I'm not saying Sawant and the people in her corner are that confrontationalist; however, some degree of "overlap" wouldn't surprise me at all.

My ideal? $10.10, with no subminimum for restaurant servers. Restaurants can then decide whether to keep tipping as a policy or not. Oh, and index the minimum to inflation, please? Seattle's mayor's plan, to hit $15, but with a seven-year phase-in, isn't quite as bad as Sawant's. Still a bit stiff. If Seattle wants to stay ahead of the nation, maybe $12/hour with a six-year roll-in?

News briefs – First Amendment, minimum wage, labor laws

BushCo gutting labor laws?

It sure looks that way. The Bush “legacy” is shaping up to be a last-minute gutting of federal administrative rules around all departments, I think.

Child porn law or overly-broad child nanny law?

A federal appeals court agreed with the original district court and said that the Children Online Protection Act is the former.

COPA would have criminalized posting information online for commercial purposes that’s considered harmful to minors ,including not just obscene communication but also the depiction of sexual material that could be considered offensive, or material that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Pretty broad, especially with the “could be” phrase.

Look for Bush, or McCain, to start talking about activist child-porn-loving judges? Meanwhile, judges still prove better than elected Democrats, recently, in protecting civil liberties, it seems.

Min wage hike really isn’t

With rising gas prices, food costs, etc., instead, the upcoming minimum wage increase is just a wash.

More than once in the past 18 months, I have lamented Congressional Dems not attaching a COLA provision to the minimum-wage hike bill. See here, here, here (with link to signing a living wage petition), here,

$6.55 an hour is not enough

The July 1 increase in the minimum wage was a pittance even before soaring oil prices. Even the increase to $7.25 an hour next year isn’t enough.

Plus, Democrats were sellouts last year for refusing even to consider a COLA index as part of the minimum wage bill.

But, you can do something. Read about what a universal living wage should be.

Then, sign the petition.

Minimum wage hikes and the future of newspaper employment

With year one of a three-year, 70-cent-an-hour per adjustment minimum wage hike in place, I see three options for newspaper companies:

• At least partially keep pace with editorial staff wage hikes.
• Improve benefit offerings. Since all sorts of companies across industries struggle with health insurance, this means benefit improvements would include more vacation time, profit sharing, 401(k) accounts, flex time, or some combination of all the above.
• Do nothing, let more and more talented people walk, and resort even more to syndication groups, part-timers, stringers, and in the neon lights, fame-hungry “citizen journalists.”

Knowing how capitalistic the business is, my money is on option 3 being the first resort.