I agree with your general point - if you are referring to average joe’s on the street. But I disagree strongly, and would consider you a bit naive for believing otherwise, if you thought the same of politicians.

Politicians, especially at the national level, do not primarily care about what policy helps who - they primarily care about the power they have and holding onto it. Sure, their secondary concern may be altruistic, but it’s so far removed from their primary concern that it could almost be ignored completely - a rounding error, if you will.

This is one of the reasons why I am a Republican. Education reform is one of my primary concerns but because Democrats are so controlled by the unions, real constructive education reform is not likely to come out of the Democratic side (its no coincidence that real education reform: vouchers, charter schools, NCLB etc have generally come from the Republican side with Democrats kicking and screaming). Do I think Republicans fight for education reform because they are more altruistic than Democrats? No, of course not, they care about education reform for the same reason that Democrats do not: they want to hold and increase the power they already have. For Democrats, kissing up to the unions increases their power. For Republicans, fighting against unions increases their power. So the right question for those of us deciding who to vote for is: Do unions, on net, help or harm education reform? Based on that question, you vote accordingly. Not because one party ‘cares’ more than the other party.

Take Obama as an example. If he wasn’t President of the United States, if he didn’t care about political power and all the party politics involved, I am fairly certain that he would have supported the Washington D.C. Vouchers program. Why wouldn’t he? It takes some of the poorest kids in the nation, removes them from what everybody agrees is one of the worst performing public schools in the nation, and transfers them to what everyone agrees are better schools - all, without costing the tax payer any more than what previous education subsidies cost. Yet as President of the United States, he took the drastic step of closing down the voucher program, see here. Only after a few days of rallying did he allow the current students to finish but still prevented any future students from receiving vouchers, see here.

Did he do this because, ‘after careful consideration, decided vouchers were somehow bad for the students’? Of course not. He did this because he knew the political calculations involved. The more vouchers work and the longer they are allowed to go on, the more they create advocates and beneficiaries. IOW, vouchers threatens to pit two of the most loyal Democratic blocks against each other: the teachers unions and minorities. Political suicide for any Democrat.

So Newt Gingrich is not parading around with Al Sharpton because he cares more about education reform than other politicians, he is doing this because education reform is in his political interest. Real education reform helps Republicans more than Democrats.

So the way I see politics is that the choices we have as voters is not ‘what party cares more’, but instead the question is ‘how do you pit political interests against each other to gain the most for society’? To think otherwise of politicians is, IMHO, naive. So I stand behind my statement above: the reason Democrat politicians primarily care about the minimum wage is because it really does, on economic grounds, help their constituents more: white union middle class workers. The reason Republicans don’t fight as hard to prevent the minimum wage from increasing - aside from the bad PR it brings - is because the people the minimum wage harms the most (poor, non-union minorities) are not Republicans, and worst of all, don’t understand the economics of what the minimum wage does to them.

But that doesn’t mean that me, as a voter, shouldn’t be disgusted by the whole situation.

In other words - I’m sorry, but my personal experience tells me that you are quite simply and obviously wrong in your anti-Democrat rant. You see I have absolutely no doubt that most, if not all, of the Democrats I personally know support the minimum wage because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it helps poor people - not because it’s politically advantageous, as you suggest. This is a fact. I’m certain others will agree with me on this point.

So… Now that I can see you are blinded on this point by politics, how can I trust your previous analysis on the intricacies of the minimum wage? - which, frankly, I thought was somewhat convincing at the time.

Your instincts are correct. Check out this link on Who Earns The Minimum Wage?:

Four-fifths of all minimum wage workers are not poor…. Part of the explanation for why so many minimum wage workers are not poor is that over two-thirds of them are in families in which at least one other member has a job.

Which largely explains why Democrats support the minimum wage: its not that it helps the poor, because it doesn’t, its because it helps their constituents.

Duke University’s Michael Munger said it best when he wrote, “We should just call it the “Legislation To Increase the Salaries of Middle Class White Union Workers Who Contribute Big Bucks to Ted Kennedy.” Then, at least we would be honest about who is benefitting.”

It seems to me that most people who work at minimum wage are working these jobs as a starting point into the work force or to make a few extra bucks. Living in NJ, anytime I’m dealing with let’s say contractors (with some being illegals), even they would not accept minimum wage in the course of doing business. For that matter, even kids over here would say that it’s not worth it. From HP’s contention, if there are jobs that need people with no skills, they need to have a lower wage set in order to afford to hire. Why should we accept this whole premise of minimum wage? Aren’t we just artificially raising the costs to the point that a small business can’t hire the extra help?

I ask these questions because minimum wage is a feel good liberal cause. However, I fail to see how it helps a broader spectrum of workers. If less jobs are out there due to raised cost of doing business, how can you honestly say that it helps people?

This is specifically what I was referring to:

Immigration is an intensely painful topic for a liberal like myself, because it places basic principles in conflict. Should migration from Mexico to the United States be celebrated, because it helps very poor people find a better life? Or should it be condemned, because it drives down the wages of working Americans and threatens to undermine the welfare state?

Allow me to give you a piece of advice when picking economists: There are usually two mutually exclusive camps. One camp is a big proponent of government, minimum wage and unions - and, not by coincidence, generally dislikes immigration, legal or not.

The second camp is a big proponent of smaller government, no minimum wage - and, not by coincidence, generally supportive of immigration, legal or not (most are even full on open border economists).

I prefer the second camp. It is also no coincidence that these views go hand-in-hand. You cant, for example, be a union supporter and be a supporter of immigration - the two really are, economically speaking, mutually exclusive. This is why Cesar Chavez, a hero too many, was really no different than modern day minutemen…doing what he can to stop illegal immigration. He knew very well that you have to choose sides - immigration or unions…not both.

Personally, I choose immigration. Alot of my minority friends choose unions (or not following their arguments through, claim to support both).

I likened the minimum wage to internships after college. In other words, eliminating minimum wage jobs for minorities is tantamount to eliminating entry level internships for minorities. Doing so is devastating to their future prospects.

How do your quotes contradict what I wrote above? Also, I was looking at specifically minority unemployment, as that is the hardest hit by the minimum wage. Your view cannot explain why the minority unemployment rate was so much lower under Bush - mine can.

Second, are you really a follower of Krugman? Do you care about minorities at all? Krugman, in case you haven’t noticed, dreams of an economic era that was largely supported by discrimination and suppression of minorities. His liberalism is a big reason why I despise liberals. Do me a favor and read this article on Krugman liberalism. Is that really a world you want for minorities? It’s no wonder he is in favor of the minimum wage…

Regarding Krugman’s point, see these direct responses to him: here, here and here.

And if you cut the minimum wage, all that means is that they are going to get paid less and earn less even if they keep their jobs and more were to be hired …