something worth thinking about.....

[atotaltotalfan2001]

This editorial struck me as particularly insightful, and also addresses something I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with: The idea that workers in this country shouldn't expect even basic necessities like decent health care insurance.





Bad for the Country
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 25 November 2005

"What was good for our country," a former president of General Motors once declared, "was good for General Motors, and vice versa." GM, which has been losing billions, has announced that it will eliminate 30,000 jobs. Is what's bad for General Motors bad for America?

In this case, yes.

Most commentary about GM's troubles is resigned: pundits may regret the decline of a once-dominant company, but they don't think anything can or should be done about it. And commentary from some conservatives has an unmistakable tone of satisfaction, a sense that uppity workers who joined a union and made demands are getting what they deserve.

We shouldn't be so complacent. I won't defend the many bad decisions of GM's management, or every demand made by the United Automobile Workers. But job losses at General Motors are part of the broader weakness of US manufacturing, especially the part of US manufacturing that offers workers decent wages and benefits. And some of that weakness reflects two big distortions in our economy: a dysfunctional health care system and an unsustainable trade deficit.

According to A. T. Kearney, last year General Motors spent $1,500 per vehicle on health care. By contrast, Toyota spent only $201 per vehicle in North America, and $97 in Japan. If the United States had national health insurance, GM would be in much better shape than it is.

Wouldn't taxpayer-financed health insurance amount to a subsidy to the auto industry? Not really. Because most Americans believe that their fellow citizens are entitled to health care, and because our political system acts, however imperfectly, on that belief, tying health insurance to employment distorts the economy: it systematically discourages the creation of good jobs, the type of jobs that come with good benefits. And somebody ends up paying for health care anyway.

In fact, many of the health care expenses GM will save by slashing employment will simply be pushed off onto taxpayers. Some former GM families will end up receiving Medicaid. Others will receive uncompensated care - for example, at emergency rooms - which ends up being paid for either by taxpayers or by those with insurance.

Moreover, GM's health care costs are so high in part because of the inefficiency of America's fragmented health care system. We spend far more per person on medical care than countries with national health insurance, while getting worse results.

About the trade deficit: These days the United States imports far more than it exports. Last year the trade deficit exceeded $600 billion. The flip side of the trade deficit is a reorientation of our economy away from industries that export or compete with imports, especially manufacturing, to industries that are insulated from foreign competition, such as housing. Since 2000, we've lost about three million jobs in manufacturing, while membership in the National Association of Realtors has risen 50 percent.

The trade deficit isn't sustainable. We can run huge deficits for the time being, because foreigners - in particular, foreign governments - are willing to lend us huge sums. But one of these days the easy credit will come to an end, and the United States will have to start paying its way in the world economy.

To do that, we'll have to reorient our economy back toward producing things we can export or use to replace imports. And that will mean pulling a lot of workers back into manufacturing. So the rapid downsizing of manufacturing since 2000 - of which GM's job cuts are a symptom - amounts to dismantling a sector we'll just have to rebuild a few years from now.

I don't want to attribute all of GM's problems to our distorted economy. One of the plants GM plans to close is in Canada, which has national health insurance and ran a trade surplus last year. But the distortions in our economy clearly make GM's problems worse.

Dealing with our trade deficit is a tricky issue I'll have to address another time. But GM's woes are yet another reminder of the urgent need to fix our health care system. It's long past time to move to a national system that would reduce cost, diminish the burden on employers who try to do the right thing and relieve working American families from the fear of lost coverage. Fixing health care would be good for General Motors, and good for the country.

[moonshine]

Paul Krugman? You're kidding, right?

If Krugman were to run out of gas while driving to the Piggly Wiggly he would blame the Piggly Wiggly for failing to properly implement the concepts of location theory. The man is a quack to the highest degree and not worth mentioning amongst learned economists.

Not picking on you atotaltotalfan2001 :)

[moonshine]

atotalfan, again not to pick on you...

It's interesting to compare the Krugman opinion piece you posted with a previous Krugman piece regarding Toyota and their choice of plant locations relative to healthcare costs:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072505.html

A critique is offered by Steffan Karlsson:


Today's Paul Krugman column is quite interesting, but not because it presents good arguments, but because it contains so many fallacies.

His entire column makes a big deal about a decision by Toyota to build a plant in Canada, which he claims proves the superiority of Canada's somewhat more extensive welfare state compared to the United States. That Toyota has also recently announced new factories in Texas, Kentucky and West Virginia is not mentioned, as it would contradict his "empirical evidence" of how beneficial Canadian welfare statism is.

From this single investment in Canada after many more investments in the United States by Toyota he alleges that this proves how the welfare state will attract investments. Well, that surely must explain why continental European countries and Scandinavia attracts so much foreign investments while we all know how no company must surely want to build factories in China who was attacked in The Economist for not subsidizing health care sufficiently.

...

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by moonshine
atotalfan, again not to pick on you...

It's interesting to compare the Krugman opinion piece you posted with a previous Krugman piece regarding Toyota and their choice of plant locations relative to healthcare costs:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072505.html

A critique is offered by Steffan Karlsson:

Interesting.

What I liked about this Krugman piece was that he didn't just say: The world is changing, peons. Unless your're rich, prepare for a life without health insurance, without retirement, without decent paying jobs.

I also thought his ideas about the trade deficit were interesting. It does bug me that the U.S. doesn't produce enough actual stuff to export.

Do you wonder if it will come back to haunt us someday?

[steven]

I was taught that any man that put in 40+ hours a week to support his family deserved to be treated with respect and should live at least make enough to provide for his family.

It is very sad for me to see the eltists attitude on this board and in general in american society now that somehow working with your hands or using the sweet of your brow to make a living somehow makes you less of a person/wage earner.

[300miles]

I notice the writer doesn't differentiate between basic health care coverage and 100% free health care.

Much of GM's problems are NOT simply because they provide health care to their employees. Most companies do that.

The real problem is the level of coverage: No co-pays, No deductibles, Full Vision coverage, Full Dental coverage, No incentive for generic prescription drugs..., etc...

If they provided basic coverage their costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

[WNYresident]

Originally posted by steven
I was taught that any man that put in 40+ hours a week to support his family deserved to be treated with respect and should live at least make enough to provide for his family.

It is very sad for me to see the eltists attitude on this board and in general in american society now that somehow working with your hands or using the sweet of your brow to make a living somehow makes you less of a person/wage earner.

But should men get paid 40 hours just for showing up?

What about the man that produces 2 widgets an hour while another man produces 20 widgets per hour?

Should the lower producing man be paid the same as the person producing 20 widgets?

If the pay is the same for someone making 2 widgets or 20 widgets what gives the worker any incentive to make more widgets?

[moonshine]

Steven, the following response is intended to engage you in this forum, not marginalize your comments.


I was taught that any man that put in 40+ hours a week to support his family deserved to be treated with respect and should live at least make enough to provide for his family.

Don't associate respect with productivity. Some weekends I spend 20 hours in my garden. Does this mean my tomatoes should be sweeter than the guy who spends five hours of time doing the same? No! I'm not sure where this idea of hard work equals a good standard of living comes from, but it is certainly fallacious.


It is very sad for me to see the eltists attitude on this board and in general in american society now that somehow working with your hands or using the sweet of your brow to make a living somehow makes you less of a person/wage earner.

I haven't witnessed the attitude you describe on this messageboard, or in American society in general. Can you show or describe some examples?

[moonshine]

What I liked about this Krugman piece was that he didn't just say: The world is changing, peons. Unless your're rich, prepare for a life without health insurance, without retirement, without decent paying jobs.

This is another example of government creating its own demand. Regulate, regulate, regulate until the cost of healthcare exceeds the common man's means to pay for it. Then provide it for "free" out of the sick man's taxes. The absence of a free market system, not the false presence of one, is what drives these healthcare costs thru the roof.

Furthermore, socialized medicine will render every healthcare worker a bureaucrat. Do we really need more government employees?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the economic growth rate of Europe hasn't surpassed China's yet because of socialized medicine. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[WestSideJohn]

I can provide an example: the living wage debate.

The living wage principle as I understand it says that a person who works 40 hours a week - regardless of their job - should make enough money to cover the basic necessities of life. That means shelter, food and health care. It doesn't mean digital cable or a Playstation.

Many people who oppose the living wage imply that everyone from neurosurgeons to the line cook at Burger King will make the same salary, and so there will be no incentive for someone to get an education, work hard, and advance. This isn't true, but the argument persists.

Others say that a person who does manual labor doesn't deserve a living wage, or that it would drive prices up. A common question is "do you want to pay four dollars for a Whopper?" My two answers are 1. I don't even pay 99 cents for a Whopper so why would I pay four dollars? and 2. if the true cost of putting that Whopper on my plastic tray is four dollars, then yes, I should pay four dollars.

This second argument against a living wage is a good example of the elitist attitude you're asking about. People don't want to pay a laborer a decent wage for their work because it will drive prices up. Well, too freakin' bad. If we can pay people tens of millions of dollars a year to throw a ball around a field, we can pay the guy who spends 40 hours a week cleaning toilets enough to live on.

Again, I'm not talking extras. I'm talking the basic necessities of life.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by moonshine
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the economic growth rate of Europe hasn't surpassed China's yet because of socialized medicine. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? This would be a valid question <i>if</i> China and Europe had economies and societal structures that were similar in nearly every way except for health care. But this isn't even comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to a migraine headache.

[moonshine]

People don't want to pay a laborer a decent wage for their work because it will drive prices up.

Nobody voluntarily pays a laborer the wages asked? I just gave a guy $5000 to put new windows into a house. He asked for $5000, I paid it. I just paid a guy $1500 to upgrade the electrical service in a house to 150 Amps. He quoted it, I paid it. Both of us were happy with the agreement. All completely voluntary without the need for the socialist, ahem...living wage.


This would be a valid question if China and Europe had economies and societal structures that were similar in nearly every way except for health care. But this isn't even comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to a migraine headache.

A common crutch of the defunct socialist arguments. Unless you have your heart set on a new world order or worldwide government there will always be disparities within geographies.

[300miles]

without getting into communism... what exactly is "a living wage". What are "the basic necessities of life"? It's easy to say it's enough to pay the basic bills with. But for who?

A single guy has one set of basic bills. A guy with a family of 6 has a whole lot more. Throw in another complication and it gets more and more costly.

If you pay the guy with the huge family more than the single guy, it would not be fair to the single guy.

But if they're doing the same job and getting the same pay, the guy with the huge family won't make enough money.

You can't take some high-road theoretical answer about paying 5 bucks for a big mac when it still doesn't solve the problem. because "the problem" cannot be solved without constructing a whole new financial system.

There's a famous quote that I can't remember but goes something like Capitalism is a horrible system, but it's best one man has.

[moonshine]

Capitalism is a horrible system, but it's best one man has.

RIGHT ON!

[moonshine]

The living wage principle as I understand it says that a person who works 40 hours a week - regardless of their job - should make enough money to cover the basic necessities of life.

When will these lunatic arguments end? Is this what public education has reduced us to?

I walk around the block 40 hours per week and pick up garbage. Therefore I deserve a "living wage". And, if I'm so inclined to walk an additional block I deserve time and a half?

Being a product of a trailer park even I have a hard time understanding the entitlement mentality of some people.

[WestSideJohn]

A common crutch of the defunct socialist arguments. Unless you have your heart set on a new world order or worldwide government there will always be disparities within geographies. You've missed the point completely. Your question was why hasn't European economic growth outpaced China's even with socialized healthcare, and I was pointing out that there are a lot of other factors involved in a comparison between China and Europe. This has absolutely nothing to do with socialist arguments or some new world order. It has to do with you isolating out a single factor and assigning it an unrealistic level of importance when there are many other variables that also play a role.

China and Europe differ in many ways, not just in their health care systems. The fact that I even have to explain this to you is amazing.

[WestSideJohn]

I walk around the block 40 hours per week and pick up garbage. Therefore I deserve a "living wage". And, if I'm so inclined to walk an additional block I deserve time and a half?That's not what the concept of living wage says at all. Walking around your block collecting garbage, while laudably civic-minded, isn't the same as holding down a job, so your scenario is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about employment. If you hold a job and you work that job 40 hours a week, you should make enough money to live on. That's not entitlement. That's working for a living. Now, if you <i>choose</i> to have kids, that's your problem. You can get another job or work hard to advance to a higher paying job. Again, that's outside the concept of the living wage. It's a red herring.
Originally posted by moonshine
When will these lunatic arguments end?Probably right around the time you log off.

[WNYresident]

I walk around the block 40 hours per week and pick up garbage. Therefore I deserve a "living wage". And, if I'm so inclined to walk an additional block I deserve time and a half?

I never understood over time and double time.

When I put more time working for my company i make more because I put more hours in. I dont magicilly make 1.5 times more every hour extra I put in. I had someone tell me once "Boy it must be nice to make twice as much as they did". I responded just work twice as hard as you do now and you will.

[WestSideJohn]

It depends on the job. Working twice as hard might not necessarily lead to twice as much money, or even more money at all. The way you'll be able to make more money varies from job to job. For example:

If you're in sales, you can work harder and/or work more hours and see an increase in your pay. Working twice as hard could very well lead to making twice as much money.

If you're a school bus driver you can't really work "harder" but you can work more hours.

If you're a surgeon I'm not sure you should be working more hours, but you can acquire new skills and specialize if you want to make more money.

If you're a manual laborer you can worker harder and/or more hours to get more money and advance to a higher paying position.

If you're a salaried professional you can take on free-lance clients to make extra money.

[moonshine]

If you hold a job and you work that job 40 hours a week, you should make enough money to live on. That's not entitlement. That's working for a living.

Can we put away this fatally flawed concept of a living wage?

Increasing the cost of production (labor) will increase the cost of the finished product. Set the minimum wage to $100 an hour and it will instantly be too little as the cost of goods will rise proportionately, unless you set a price cap or wage cap.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by moonshine
Increasing the cost of production (labor) will increase the cost of the finished product. Set the minimum wage to $100 an hour and it will instantly be too little as the cost of goods will rise proportionately, unless you set a price cap or wage cap. The facts simply don't bear you out. Opponents of minimum wage raises warn of job losses, inflation and other doom 'n' gloom scenarios, yet when the minimum wage is raised these things don't happen. I think it's Florida that just raised their minimum wage, and despite all the dire predictions - just like yours, actually - none of them have come true.

Again, there are many factors that determine the cost of a product. Wages are certainly a factor but they're not the factor. The cost of goods does <b>not </b> rise proportionately to the cost of wages. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.

Let's use the cost of producing a hypothetical Burger King Whopper as an example.

Ingredients: 40 cents
Packaging: 5 cents
Advertising: 10 cents
Labor: 20 cents
Total Cost: 75 cents

Now let's double the wage.

Ingredients: 40 cents
Packaging: 5 cents
Advertising: 10 cents
Labor: 40 cents
Total Cost: 90 cents

Notice that we doubled the wage but the total cost of producing the Whopper did not increase proportionally.

The crux of this discussion is: do we as a society value someone who works forty hours a week? I don't see how someone who works a job for forty hours a week to make a living is an example of the entitlement mentality.

[moonshine]

I'll give you one thing westsidejohn, you are myopic.

Your burger scenario fails to account for everywhere else in the production cycle that wages were increased. The guy who manufactures the wrapper. The guy who drives the burger to the store. The guy who cleans the windows on the drive-thru.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by moonshine
Your burger scenario fails to account for everywhere else in the production cycle that wages were increased. The guy who manufactures the wrapper. The guy who drives the burger to the store. The guy who cleans the windows on the drive-thru.

Nice try, but no cigar. Wrong. A minimum wage increase will only raise wages of minimum wage workers. The guy who manufactures the wrapper won't be affected. Factory workers make considerably more than minumum wage. The guy who drives the burger ingredients to the store won't be affected. Truck drivers make considerably more than minimum wage. The guy who cleans the windows? He's the one likely to be affected. Again, a minimum wage increase will be a factor in the final price of the product, yes, but the costs will <b> not</b> rise proportionally to the wage increase. There are too many other factors involved. Your claim is false.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by 300miles
I notice the writer doesn't differentiate between basic health care coverage and 100% free health care.

Much of GM's problems are NOT simply because they provide health care to their employees. Most companies do that.

The real problem is the level of coverage: No co-pays, No deductibles, Full Vision coverage, Full Dental coverage, No incentive for generic prescription drugs..., etc...

If they provided basic coverage their costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

Good points. But I worry about the number of companies that are opting out of the health insurance business altogether because of the cost. They aren't required in any way to provide that benefit.

[WestSideJohn]

Here's a quick example of the same idea at work. After Hurricane Katrina, gas prices jumped by about a dollar a gallon very quickly. This was (roughly) a fifty percent increase.

The effects were felt in many areas: transportation, industry, our private lives, etc. Yet I doubt your living expenses jumped by fifty percent. The price of gasoline has an effect on nearly every aspect of our economy, but there are so many other factors involved that this effect is not proportional.

It's the same with wages.

[moonshine]

A minimum wage increase will only raise wages of minimum wage workers.

Another fallacy. An increase in the minimum wage puts upward pressure on all wages.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by moonshine
This is another example of government creating its own demand. Regulate, regulate, regulate until the cost of healthcare exceeds the common man's means to pay for it. Then provide it for "free" out of the sick man's taxes. The absence of a free market system, not the false presence of one, is what drives these healthcare costs thru the roof.



Can you be more precise? Which regulations are you talking about and how are they impacting a free market system?

Believe it or not, I'm not being argumentative here. I just want to know.

[yokes]

A minimum wage increase will only raise wages of minimum wage workers

I disagree with this statement

Lets say I have 5 employees and the minimum wage is $6/hr

2 employees at $6.00 (brand new part time seasonal 20hrs/week)) ($240 per week not counting taxes)
1 at 6.75 (3 years experince P/T 30hrs/week) ($202.5 per week)
2 at 12.00 (5yrs exp full time 40hrs/week) ($960 per week)

Total straight wage cost per week $1402.50

Minimum wage is now raised to 6.60 per hour

My experienced part timer feels shafted because he/she is now at minimum wage with the seasonal help, so in order to keep said person I need to give them a 10% raise just like the government just forced me to do with my seasonal employees. he/she is nbow at 7.43/hour.

My full timers now start grumbling because everyone but them got a 10% raise, productivity stops unless I somehow apease them. Lets say I just give them a 7% raise they are now up to 12.84 per hour.

Total new cost for wages in a week $1514.10

the 10% increase in the minimum wage has cost me the small business owner $111.60 per week or $5800 per year.

How do you think I am going to make up that difference? Ill raise my prices, or I can get rid of one of the part timers and spend the same on wages

[moonshine]

Can you be more precise?

The entire FDA, just for starters.

Here is a decent article. Be sure to check out the paragraphs relating to the american medical association:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749

[tronix75]

YOKES, you are right on the money with your example.

And you are probably going to dump your part timers to make up the cost...which is why minimum wage laws are forced unemployment for the poor and the young.

And if you raise your prices instead, you may not be competitive with you bigger competition. That's why big companies usually don't complain about minimum wage hikes as much as small business. If the minimum wage hike puts you out of business or at a competitive disadvantage, then it's all the better for them.

Government has no business making wage rules.

Read this article to get an even better idea of how the minimum wage scam works in the governments favor

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=157&sortorder=articledate



Originally posted by yokes
A minimum wage increase will only raise wages of minimum wage workers

I disagree with this statement

Lets say I have 5 employees and the minimum wage is $6/hr

2 employees at $6.00 (brand new part time seasonal 20hrs/week)) ($240 per week not counting taxes)
1 at 6.75 (3 years experince P/T 30hrs/week) ($202.5 per week)
2 at 12.00 (5yrs exp full time 40hrs/week) ($960 per week)

Total straight wage cost per week $1402.50

Minimum wage is now raised to 6.60 per hour

My experienced part timer feels shafted because he/she is now at minimum wage with the seasonal help, so in order to keep said person I need to give them a 10% raise just like the government just forced me to do with my seasonal employees. he/she is nbow at 7.43/hour.

My full timers now start grumbling because everyone but them got a 10% raise, productivity stops unless I somehow apease them. Lets say I just give them a 7% raise they are now up to 12.84 per hour.

Total new cost for wages in a week $1514.10

the 10% increase in the minimum wage has cost me the small business owner $111.60 per week or $5800 per year.

How do you think I am going to make up that difference? Ill raise my prices, or I can get rid of one of the part timers and spend the same on wages

[WestSideJohn]

You simply can't isolate wages out of the equation and make the sort of predictions I'm seeing here. Wages are just one of many variables, and since I've mentioned it several times already I have to assume folks here are willfully ignoring this inconvenient but important point.

Here's a question: how have past increases in minimum wage affected the economy? When the wage was raised, did we lose jobs? Gain jobs? Stay the same? Did the wage increase affect inflation? Interest rates? Can these changes be blamed on the wage increase or were other factors involved?

Look at the past few years as an example. The Federal minimum wage has stayed flat, and taxes have gone down. Yet we've lost high paying jobs and tax revenue has dropped.

Why? Well, duh. There were other factors involved. Out of control Federal spending, the blow to the economy from 9/11, free trade agreements, interest rates, the dot.com bust, all sorts of things. But if I want to play the game I'm seeing here I could say "see, tax cuts lead to job losses."

So let's look at what happened in the past when the minimum wage was raised and see if it aligns with what I'm seeing here. Anyone have any facts?

[tronix75]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
You simply can't isolate wages out of the equation and make the sort of predictions I'm seeing here. Wages are just one of many variables, and since I've mentioned it several times already I have to assume folks here are willfully ignoring this inconvenient but important point.

Here's a question: how have past increases in minimum wage affected the economy? When the wage was raised, did we lose jobs? Gain jobs? Stay the same? Did the wage increase affect inflation? Interest rates? Can these changes be blamed on the wage increase or were other factors involved?.

All valid questions. You'll find that most economic theories support the fact that setting an artificial price floor on the value of labor is going to cause an increase in unemployment. Most studies of the real world effects of minimum wage laws do support the theories.

"Minority Report of Commissioner S. Warne Robinson," in Report of the Minimum Wage Study Commission, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 182.
"According to the 1981 Report of the Minimum Waqe Study Commission, the 46 percent rise in the minimum wage between 1977 and 1981 destroyed 644,000 jobs among teenagers alone. "The evidence is now in, and the findings of dozens of major economic studies show that the damage done by the minimum wage has been far more severe than even the critics predicted."

Richard B. McKenzie and Curtis L. Simon, "The Proposed Minimum Wage Increase: Associated Job Loss by State, Region, and Industry" (Washington: National Chamber Foundation, 1988).
“A study by Clemson University economists Richard B. McKenzie and Curtis Simon estimated that an increase in the minimum wage to $4.65 by 1990 would cost 764,000 jobs by that year and 1.9 million jobs by 1995. The economic output lost in 1995 would total $70 billion (in 1982 dollars).[10] The political embarrassment created by such estimates was graphically illustrated recently when the House Democratic leadership suppressed a Congressional Budget Office study that predicted a loss of 250,000 to 500,000 jobs if the minimum wage was increased to $5.05. The majority staff of the House Education and Labor Committee sent the study back and asked for a new version that lacked any reference to the bill's prospective impact on unemployment and inflation. The majority staff director explained that the CBO had "provided information that was not requested."

Senate Republican Policy Committee, "The Minimum Wage: A Case of Special Interest Politics versus Jobs," March 26, 1987.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee, citing a General Accounting Office study, estimated that increasing the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.61, as suggested by AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland, would eliminate between 124,000 and 619,000 jobs.

As far as inflation caused by minimum wage laws, I don't see any common sense reason why it would not contribute to price inflation in the market, since many companies would have to increase prices somewhat. Increase costs = Increased price to the consumer.


Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Look at the past few years as an example. The Federal minimum wage has stayed flat, and taxes have gone down. Yet we've lost high paying jobs and tax revenue has dropped.

Why? Well, duh. There were other factors involved. Out of control Federal spending, the blow to the economy from 9/11, free trade agreements, interest rates, the dot.com bust, all sorts of things. But if I want to play the game I'm seeing here I could say "see, tax cuts lead to job losses."


You're right there are a lot of factors involved, it's a complex issue.
It's easier to grasp if you take it one piece at a time.
The minimum wage issue alone is far more complex today than in the past. First we need to look at the history of government mandated minimum wage laws.
You have to go back to 19th Century England for that.
“Minimum wages were connected to mid-Victorian-era trade union movements and were an important item on the Fabian socialist agenda to “democratize” unregulated industries
and improve working conditions (Webb and Webb [1897] 1920)."
The first groups to lobby for minimum wage laws were trade unions, not for some egalitarian dream of fairness to all or anything like that. The trade unions were simply trying to block competition from such other groups like women, immigrants and young workers that were increasingly becoming a nuisance. Women were particularly a problem, since they would gladly work for lower wages just to supplement the family income. The object of the trade unions lobbying for a minimum wage was to price women and other groups out of the labor market.
Even though unions are still involved in promoting higher minimum wages today, other special interests and even government itself have found it to be a good trick to get special advantages.

The fact that the U.S. has been losing high paying jobs, I think really has nothing to do with minimum wage laws in a direct way, since those laws are primarily going to effect the young, the poor, the unskilled. or the person just looking for a part time job to supplement their income.
The loss of higher paying jobs is the result of other government meddling in the economy. High taxes, regulation, health insurance, monetary inflation and high administrative costs to cover social security, income tax, unemployment tax, Medicare & Medicaid are all factors that the US has far too much of. And that is either squeezing businesses to downsize, bankruptcy or to move production out of the country to greener pastures.
The illusion created by the government lowering certain taxes is just a gimmick to try to keep the economy from collapsing. They are saying that lowering taxes in the answer, and that would be true if they weren’t at the same time destroying the value of the dollar by inflating the currency, continued borrowing and spending us into a deficit that is unfathomable to conceive ever paying off.