Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders 2016!!

[Scooter]

Did Julian Castro ever get confirmed as Secretary of HUD? Because that was supposedly the plan, wasn't it? To get high level executive experience in the federal government, to supplement his experience as mayor of San Antonio (which is a far more demanding job than Governor of Alaska), in order to make him a top tier candidate for the vice-presidency. And yes, while he might steal some of the spotlight from Clinton, with changing demographics he probably brings the first legitimate shot at delivering Texas for Dems since, what, LBJ?

[Lord Jim]

Well-informed, intelligent,

Actually, she has revealed herself to be a complete ignoramus on the topic of economics, (which may be the reason you see her as "well informed and intelligent") Warren is one of those ninnies who believes that increases in "worker productivity" are brought about by people working harder, so if "worker productivity" rises three fold that must means people are working three times as hard, or somehow making themselves three times more productive...

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... 00984.html

When the fact is the vast bulk of the increase in "worker productivity" is attributable to capital investment in new technologies, not by workers somehow magically making themselves "more productive"...

This isn't a particularly complex concept to grasp, but apparently it eludes the Senior Senator from Massachusetts...

Yeah, "well informed and intelligent" alright ...

Just because a person speaks in a "knowledgeable" tone, doesn't mean they actually are...(Kinda like that Kentucky guy discoursing on the temperatures on Earth and Mars...)

ETA:

There are certainly good arguments that can be made for increasing the minimum wage, but tying it to a dollar for dollar increase in "worker productivity" ain't one of them.

Of course it's also possible that Warren isn't actually ignorant enough to believe this herself, and was just engaging in the sort of class-warfare pandering that has become her trademark and caused so many in the media to go into a swoon over her...

[Long Run]

Despite her many shortcomings, stories about Warren must sell because she is getting a lot of love from the press as a viable alternative to the inevitable candidate.

[Lord Jim]

The deal the Libs are trying to run is this...

(And lefties who are more straight forward about their agenda, like The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel are more honest about it... )

They don't want to de-rail Hillary's Reagan-like March To The Nomination... (Because they see her as their strongest candidate)

What they want to do is have some idealistic left-wing gad-fly type create political pressure to force her further to the left...

The strategy is that they don't want to "unseat Hillary"...

They just somehow want to make her beholden to the "occupy" types...

Rather than to the Wall Street types, to whom she and her husband owe their entire success...

[Lord Jim]

I would like to personally thank all of those in The Party Opposite who believe that it would be a grand idea to force Hillary Clinton further to The Left...

It's folks like you who make the election of someone like Jeb Bush possible...

[BoSoxGal]

Honestly, I'd just as soon have Warren as President - I'm so damned tired of Bushes and Clintons, wholly owned corporate mouthpieces. Time for a populist uprising!

[Lord Jim]

Senator Warren knows as much about economics as I know about how to re-build the carburetor for a 69' Chevy Impala....

Which is to say she knows precisely nothing about the subject...

[Lord Jim]

Time for a populist uprising!

[Lord Jim]

You know, I said before that if the choice came down to Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul, I would uproot my family and move to Australia...

But that's the cowards way out; there's another option...

If it came down to a choice between those two, I would be fully supportive of a military coup...

I'd much rather have The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff running the country then either of them...



(Especially if it was Burt Lancaster... )

If the best choice we can render up after our 200 plus years "experiment in self-government" is Warren and Paul, we may want to re-think this whole "democracy" thing...

[Big RR]

I said the same about W and Gore. But we survived, a little worse for wear, but still going on. We get the government we demand, and lately that doesn't appear to be a very good one, at least in the executive office (not to mention the legislative branch).

[Crackpot]

Warren and Sanders operate on the same frequency as the tea party they're good at pointing out problems and giving partisan pie-in-the-sky solutions. But when it comes to making an a haul working solution they got nothing.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Senator Warren knows as much about economics as I know about how to re-build the carburetor for a 69' Chevy Impala....

Which is to say she knows precisely nothing about the subject...

I've rebuilt many a carburator. But a 69 impala was not one of them. Well maybe, you would first have to give me the engine size and "type" of carburator it had.

[Econoline]

Well-informed, intelligent,

Actually, she has revealed herself to be a complete ignoramus on the topic of economics, (which may be the reason you see her as "well informed and intelligent") Warren is one of those ninnies who believes that increases in "worker productivity" are brought about by people working harder, so if "worker productivity" rises three fold that must means people are working three times as hard, or somehow making themselves three times more productive...

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... 00984.html

When the fact is the vast bulk of the increase in "worker productivity" is attributable to capital investment in new technologies, not by workers somehow magically making themselves "more productive"...

This isn't a particularly complex concept to grasp, but apparently it eludes the Senior Senator from Massachusetts...

Yeah, "well informed and intelligent" alright ...

Just because a person speaks in a "knowledgeable" tone, doesn't mean they actually are...(Kinda like that Kentucky guy discoursing on the temperatures on Earth and Mars...)

ETA:

There are certainly good arguments that can be made for increasing the minimum wage, but tying it to a dollar for dollar increase in "worker productivity" ain't one of them.

Of course it's also possible that Warren isn't actually ignorant enough to believe this herself, and was just engaging in the sort of class-warfare pandering that has become her trademark and caused so many in the media to go into a swoon over her...

I've been meaning to respond to this for a while.

First, I think it's every bit as simplistic to say that NONE of the increases in worker productivity are due to the workers themselves as it is to say that ALL of the increases in worker productivity are due to the workers themselves--which, of course, is not what Warren was saying or even implying in that speech. That's a straw man invented by you and other opponents of an increase in the minimum wage--as is the assertion that she was arguing for "tying it to a dollar for dollar increase in 'worker productivity'". As a matter of fact, she was arguing for a proposal that would increase the minimum wage $2.85 (from $7.25 to $10.10)--NOT $14.75 (from $7.25 to $22).

There are many ways for an employer to increase worker productivity. One of them is to fire most of your employees and replace them with high-tech equipment that does the same job, but better and cheaper. Another is to fire half, or a quarter, of them, and tell those remaining to take up the slack or they'll be fired next. Another is to keep wages unchanged and gradually increase productivity goals and then replace anyone who doesn't meet these new goals. Just off the top of my head I can think of a half-dozen more simple, simplistic, strategies...and of course there can be all sorts of combinations of strategies (e.g. new equipment + mandatory unpaid retraining + 10% higher wages + new productivity goals 20 percent higher than the combined cost of the new equipment/wages). The point is, nothing is ever simple and black-and-white.

You say that the "vast bulk of the increase in 'worker productivity' is attributable to capital investment in new technologies, not by workers somehow magically making themselves 'more productive'..." (BTW...why not say "attributable to capital investment in magical new technologies, not by workers somehow making themselves 'more productive'"??? Why is one possibility more "magical" than the other?) Why would you not accept a figure of over 80% ($14.75—$2.85=$11.90; $11.90÷$14.75=0.80678) as the "vast bulk" of the increase?

And why is a proposal to help the bottom quarter of U.S. workers considered "class warfare" but not a proposal that would help the top 1% of the top 1%?

And finally, Jim...I would think that, given your chosen avatar ("Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."..."A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"..."If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."..."Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."..."The freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."..."Liberals fought poverty and poverty won."...and of course, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"), you of all people would understand that oversimpifying things for the masses is what all politicians do for a living!

[oldr_n_wsr]

Every increase in productivity is different for that industry. I remember back in the 70's-80's the auto industry had robots come in and eliminate many workers. Now the similar (aka technology) is moving down to other industries. The CNC machines have decimated the tool and die maker and machinist (my dad was a tool and die maker and could/can make anything out of nothing). I'm an EE and many of our designs are now sent overseas to be designed. Where this leads? I don't know other than the USA is in f$%$Y, f$%$Y land as far as the middle class is concerned. The salary paid for customer service "technicians" will not be what those making Chevy Impalas was.

It's nice to say "I've got mine" (which I do but it's less than my parents) but todays young'uns need some hope of a better life. I see it first hand. Even the best and brightest of my childrens peers are struggling.

[Lord Jim]

which, of course, is not what Warren was saying or even implying in that speech.

I think you should go back and reread what I quoted from the Huffington Post, (even though you copied and pasted it, it doesn't appear that you read it) because that is precisely what she was saying...(and it wasn't a "speech" it was Warren pontificating at a Senate hearing...)

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour,"

I don't see how she could possibly have made her "point" any clearer...

That's a straw man invented by you and other opponents of an increase in the minimum wage

And while you're going back and re-reading things, I suggest you also re-read my posts on the subject, because I'm actually in favor of raising the minimum wage...Here's an example:

I support the existence of a minimum wage for a variety of reasons, and I think rube has on occasion actually presented a valid argument about how low cost labor is subsidized by the state in a variety of ways...(the trick is how to balance the subsidy off against the wage in a way that doesn't cause businesses to go under and leave the state footing the entire bill for support)

If your ability to offer "X" wage is only possible because the state is providing food stamps and subsidized housing, then the state has a legitimate interest in determining what "X" wage should be...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10400&p=131967&hili ... ge#p131967

[BoSoxGal]

Seattle and San Francisco have the highest minimum wages in the country, and their job markets are very healthy and growing.

How is it that having a high minimum wage is allegedly hurtful to business, but the reverse seems to be the case in places that actually have a high minimum wage?

How is it in any way beneficial to our country's economy that CEO wages have increased some 700+% since the 70s, while worker wages have stagnated or decreased over the same period of time? In what way is that beneficial to businesses? If you don't have customers, you won't have business. The rich and uber-rich can only buy so many things; their concentration of wealth cannot in any way replace the spending power of a solid middle class.

The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage
1197 JUN 19, 2013 6:50 PM EDT
By Nick Hanauer
The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers. That’s why the extreme, and widening, wealth gap in our economy presents not just a moral challenge, but an economic one, too. In a capitalist system, rising inequality creates a death spiral of falling demand that ultimately takes everyone down.

Low-wage jobs are fast replacing middle-class ones in the U.S. economy. Sixty percent of the jobs lost in the last recession were middle-income, while 59 percent of the new positions during the past two years of recovery were in low-wage industries that continue to expand such as retail, food services, cleaning and health-care support. By 2020, 48 percent of jobs will be in those service sectors.

Policy makers debate incremental changes for arresting this vicious cycle. But perhaps the most powerful and elegant antidote is sitting right before us: a spike in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

True, that sounds like a lot. When President Barack Obama called in February for an increase to $9 an hour from $7.25, he was accused of being a dangerous redistributionist. Yet consider this: If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour -- three times what it is now.

CULTIVATING CONSUMERS
Traditionally, arguments for big minimum-wage increases come from labor unions and advocates for the poor. I make the case as a businessman and entrepreneur who sees our millions of low-paid workers as customers to be cultivated and not as costs to be cut.

Here’s a bottom-line example: My investment portfolio includes Pacific Coast Feather Co., one of the largest U.S. manufacturers of bed pillows. Like many other manufacturers, pillow-makers are struggling because of weak demand. The problem comes down to this: My annual earnings equal about 1,000 times the U.S. median wage, but I don’t consume 1,000 times more pillows than the average American. Even the richest among us only need one or two to rest their heads at night.

An economy such as ours that increasingly concentrates wealth in the top 1 percent, and where most workers must rely on stagnant or falling wages, isn’t a place to build much of a pillow business, or any other business for that matter.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production and hiring.

Studies by the Economic Policy Institute show that a $15 minimum wage would directly affect 51 million workers and indirectly benefit an additional 30 million. That’s 81 million people, or about 64 percent of the workforce, and their families who would be more able to buy cars, clothing and food from our nation’s businesses.

This virtuous cycle effect is described in the research of economists David Card and Alan Krueger (the current chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) showing that, contrary to conventional economic orthodoxy, increases in the minimum wage increase employment. In 60 percent of the states that raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment, job growth was faster than the national average.

Some business people oppose an increase in the minimum wage as needless government interference in the workings of the market. In fact, a big increase would substantially reduce government intervention and dependency on public assistance programs.

FEDERAL BENEFITS
No one earning the current minimum wage of about $15,000 per year can aspire to live decently, much less raise a family. As a result, almost all workers subsisting on those low earnings need panoply of taxpayer-supported benefits, including the earned income tax credit, food stamps, Medicaid or housing subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government spent $316 billion on programs designed to help the poor in 2012.

That means the current $7.25 minimum wage forces taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other large employers, effectively socializing their labor costs. This is great for Wal-Mart and its shareholders, but terrible for America. It is both unjust and inefficient.

A higher minimum wage would also make low-income families less dependent on government programs: The CBO report shows that the federal government gives about $8,800 in annual assistance to the lowest-income households but only $4,000 to households earning $35,500, which would be about the level of earnings of a worker making $15 an hour.

An objection to a significant wage increase is that it would force employers to shed workers. Yet the evidence points the other way: Workers earn more and spend more, increasing demand and helping businesses grow.

Critics of raising the minimum wage also say it will lead to more outsourcing and job loss. Yet virtually all of these low-wage jobs are service jobs that can neither be outsourced nor automated.

Raising the earnings of all American workers would provide all businesses with more customers with more to spend. Seeing the economy as Henry Ford did would redirect our country toward a high-growth future that works for all.

(Nick Hanauer is a founder of Second Avenue Partners, a venture capital company in Seattle specializing in early-stage startups and emerging technology. He has founded or financed dozens of companies, including aQuantive Inc. and Amazon.com, and is the co-author of two books, “The True Patriot” and “The Gardens of Democracy.”)

To contact the writer of this article: Nick Hanauer at Nick@secondave.com.

[Econoline]

I don't see how she could possibly have made her "point" any clearer...

She could have made her point clearer by including a bunch of "ifs" and "thens" to show that she was talking about a hypothetical situation, not the current situation in which Congress is actually considering a $2.85 increase, not a $14.75 increase.

Oh, wait, she did that.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case, then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour"

P.S. In case you didn't know: we did *NOT*, in 1960, say that "as productivity goes up, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same."

[Lord Jim]

So you figure she brought up this formulation because she thinks it would be an economically illegitimate way to compute the minimum wage, (which it is) or a fully justified way to do it?

I'm gonna guess it's the latter...

I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that her whole point in presenting this model could be anything other than because she believes this would be a perfectly fair and logical way to compute the minimum wage. (or at least she wants people to think she believes that.)

Now, if you can find some quotes from Warren to the effect of, "Of course I realize that it wouldn't be legitimate to attribute the entire increase in worker productivity to the workers", I'll be prepared to revise my view...

[Econoline]

So you figure she brought up this formulation because she thinks it would be an economically illegitimate way to compute the minimum wage, (which it is) or a fully justified way to do it?

Neither. The remarks you quoted were addressed to Dr. Arindrajit Dube ("a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage"). And her VERY NEXT SENTENCE (which you also quoted) was "So my question is, Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75?"

That strikes me as an EXCELLENT opening for a discussion of just how much of that $14.75 should go to the worker--especially considering the fact that raising the minimum wage to $22.00/hour was not even on the table; the Democratic proposal was to raise it to $10.10.

Unless you can show me a quote from Elizabeth Warren where she has explicitly stated that she favors a minimum wage of $22.00/hour, I will remain convinced that she favors a federal minimum wage somewhere between $7.25 and $22.00. (And the current Democratic proposal is still $10.10, which is indeed within that range--and that even, I think, agrees with your own view that "vast bulk of the increase" should NOT go to the workers.) As I said in my earlier post, I think it's every bit as simplistic to say that NONE of the increases in worker productivity are due to the workers themselves as it is to say that ALL of the increases in worker productivity are due to the workers themselves.

BTW, I am NOT in favor of Warren running for POTUS; I think she can do more good by remaining in the Senate. (Same for Bernie Sanders.)

[Lord Jim]

And her VERY NEXT SENTENCE (which you also quoted)[of course I did, since it further proves my point...]was "So my question is, Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75?"

That strikes me as an EXCELLENT opening for a discussion of just how much of that $14.75 should go to the worker--especially considering the fact that raising the minimum wage to $22.00/hour was not even on the table; the Democratic proposal was to raise it to $10.10.

Okay Econo, it's obvious to me at this point that you want act as some sort of "Warrenslator"...

"What the Senator really meant to say was this..."

If you want to do that, go right ahead...

For my part, absent any contradicting evidence, I will continue to believe that she meant exactly what she in fact said...