Economist's View: Should the Minimum Wage be Linked to Tax Cuts?

リンク: Economist's View: Should the Minimum Wage be Linked to Tax Cuts?.

President Bush's call for the two parties to work together in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal was, in may ways, a list of things he won't cooperate on (read my op-ed, no new taxes!). But turning to an area where he does want to barter over policy, minimum wage legislation, Bush is insisting that reductions in taxes on small business be given as a cooperative gesture and as compensation for signing minimum wage legislation.

But there is opposition to linking these two issues. First, Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel of the EPI:

Keep it Clean,  There's no good reason to lard the coming minimum wage bill with extraneous new tax cuts, by Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel: It should come as no surprise that one of the first acts of the 110th Congress will be legislation to raise the minimum wage. A bit more surprising is the endorsement by President Bush, who recently announced that a minimum wage increase was a policy on which he and the incoming Democratic congress could "work together."

Unfortunately, his cooperation comes at a cost. To the president, "working together" ...  means … guess what? … more tax cuts. There's every reason to keep this minimum wage bill clean and little rationale for tax cuts.

Bush's stated motivation for accompanying cuts is to avoid "punishing" small businesses, by offsetting the increase in their labor costs with "targeted tax and regulatory relief." Since all low-wage firms face the same increase (and thus no one firm is at a competitive disadvantage) ..., "punish" seems like an awfully strong word. Nevertheless, recent history suggests that any such offset will cost much more than the wage increase and will not be effectively targeted at low-wage employers. ...

The ... last increase -- from $4.25 to $5.15 -- ... passed with some tax cuts served up by the Gingrich Congress that Clinton had to swallow..., but legislators and the public should recognize that this pairing of tax cuts and minimum wage increases is not the norm: neither the 1990 increase under Bush I nor any others were passed with tax cuts. Raising the minimum wage is a very simple piece of work; most bills are literally a few paragraphs long. And the increase has virtually no budgetary impact.

Tax cuts, on the other hand, are costly, and history shows they are not likely to be well-targeted. ...

In 2000, the GOP leadership added these bright ideas to a proposed minimum wage increase: a reduction in the estate tax, increased write-offs for business meals and for business investments, tax breaks for timber companies and for tax-exempt bonds, a higher self-employment health deduction, and expanded enterprise zones. Whatever their merits, neither the legislated tax cuts in 1996 nor the proposed tax cuts in 2000 were "targeted offsets"...

And by the way, if raising the minimum wage has to be offset by small business tax cuts, shouldn't its real decline be offset by tax increases? Democrats in the new Congress will insist that any new tax cuts be paid for. Where's the revenue coming from?

No matter. Neither symmetry nor fiscal prudence are in play here. And we suppose you could write this off as the predictable horse-trading we're likely to see over the next few years. No one should be fooled, however, that a new bundle of tax cuts is either warranted or related to the much-needed minimum wage increase. So, Mr. President, let's keep it clean.

Next, Robert Reich agrees:

Congress Should say No to New Tax Cuts Tied to Minimum Wage Increase, by Robert Reich: The President says he wants to work constructively with Democrats. We'll see. One of the first items of business when the new Congress convenes will be to increase the minimum wage... The President says he’ll sign the bill -- but only if it contains new tax breaks for small businesses that will offset the increased cost resulting from a minimum-wage hike.

Congress should pass the minimum wage increase without any small-business tax break. Small businesses don’t need new tax breaks because the minimum wage increase won’t actually impose new burdens on them.

First, virtually all small businesses that pay the minimum wage compete in the local service economy. They’re retailers, contractors, providers of elder care and child care, local hospitals. They don’t compete internationally or even nationally. Their competitors are in same city or town, and all of them will be paying the same minimum-wage increase. So it’s likely that the increase will be passed on to consumers.

Besides, it’s not really an increase anyway. The current minimum wage was enacted ten years ago, and inflation since then has eroded its value so much that the new proposed minimum is more like an inflation adjustment than a real increase. Most small businesses charge prices that have risen with inflation. It’s only fair that their employees’ wages should rise with inflation, too.

In fact, a minimum wage hike may actually help small businesses. Evidence from states that have already increased their own minimum wages suggests that a modest increase convinces more people to enter the labor market – people like retirees, spouses, or teenagers who wouldn’t bother working at a lower minimum wage. With more people willing to work, small businesses have more choice of whom to hire. That means they can find more reliable employees, and reduce costs associated with turnover.

The nation can’t afford a tax cut anyway. That’s why Democrats have pledged to restore fiscal responsibility by requiring that any new tax cuts be fully paid for.

Maybe this is why the President says he’ll sign the minimum wage increase if it’s tied to a tax cut for small business. He knows that if the Democrats are true to their word, there can’t be any such tax cut. But he also knows how popular the minimum wage increase is. So by tying the two together, he can say he’s supporting the minimum wage and then veto it anyway.

It's possible to make the tax-system more efficient through restructuring. If the tax cuts and regulatory relief for small-business are balanced by an increase in taxes somewhere else, and it is good public policy for efficiency or equity reasons, then the tax-shift ought to stand on its own but there would be no harm in linking the two together.

If it's not good public policy as seen through the eyes of Democrats, then I'd send Bush the few-paragraph version with just the minimum wage legislation and dare him to veto it. At the same time, explain that Democrats will support small business relief so long as it is balanced by increases elsewhere. Things like farm subsidies come to mind as potential revenue offsets.

Posted by Mark Thoma on January 4, 2007 at 12:24 AM in Economics, Policy, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7373121

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should the Minimum Wage be Linked to Tax Cuts?:

Comments

Am I the only one to think that the mudslinging between the protagonists for and against Bush is sooooo boring in this forum?

The apex of nitpicking irrelevance was reached in the Krugman/Reynolds tussle. Who cares about the numbers … income inequality is a perceptible fact of life in America and one does NOT need two economists fuelling a methodology fracas to be convinced of it.

Ascribing the blame for something never once solved a problem or remedied the damage done. Concentrate on the solution.

And, waving merrily for the next Democratic victory at the polls is NOT the solution. It's just wishful thinking for the moment. Without a bona fide, sensible approach to the budget (and its handmaiden, the deficit) the Democrats will be no more believable than the Republicans in two years.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 2:38:18 AM

Reynolds would not agree with your statement that "income inequality is a perceptible fact of life in America." That's the problem. As we know from global warming, getting to a solution is difficult when one side denies there is a problem. It's only through continuous strong rebuttal that these attempts to cloud and confound the picture can be overcome. While you may not care about the numbers, it is the numbers that were at issue and getting it straightened out is important. It wasn't a methodological fracas - it was about what was correct and what was not and whether there has been any increase in inequality. That too is important. [And, briefly, ascribing blame can solve a problem if it gets the person in charge - the one who can make the decisions - to admit they were wrong and change their ways, but this is about correct and incorrect, not blame.]

Also, why is shaving 300 billion off the deficit through Paygo (a) not a plan, and (b) irresponsible? And that's just a start. Notice the insistence in Reich, the EPI piece, and in what I said of fiscal neutrality. That's new, or actually a return to the past. And notice also that what I described is Krugman's "soft on the deficit" strategy. Some would go much further than that, including rolling back all tax cuts. The choice isn't between soft and easy on the deficit, it's the choice of how tough to be.

There's already more serious talk about budget matters than you've heard for quite some time (unless you count tax cuts will fix the deficit as serious).

If that doesn't convince you, all I can do is steer you to the more apolitical posts on the J-curve, designer drugs, asset prices, Venezuela, markets for citizenship, free will, fiat money, exchange rates, health insurance, and so on that have appeared in the last couple of days.

Posted by: Mark Thoma | Jan 4, 2007 2:53:28 AM

Mudslinging? The debate is clear. The public overwelmingly supports a minimum wage increase. Many states are already above the Federal Minimum. Indiana looks to join OH, MI, and IL this year.

Bush is desperately trying to position himself to get something he wants out of the inevitable minwage increase. However, Bush is very weak, the train has already left the station and Bush must get out of the way or get run over.

Posted by: bakho | Jan 4, 2007 6:20:44 AM

"Their competitors are in same city or town, and all of them will be paying the same minimum-wage increase. So it’s likely that the increase will be passed on to consumers."

Stop the madness. Half of the time economists will tell you that markets are totally efficient at the margin, that supply and demand rule, and that markets clear. Then will turn around and explain that costs like minimum wage or taxes on corporations simply get passed on to the consumers. And this sin is shared by both the Left and Right.

Well you can't or shouldn't have it both ways. If for certain theoretical purposes you want to assume that all prices are set by demand/market then fine. If for others you want to build in that prices are set by costs plus the owners demanded rate of return fine. But this blithe assumption that certain costs can just be passed through to price is justified neither by theory or reality.

A minimum wage that erodes through time helps employers by decreasing relative cost. A minimum wage that is adjusted upward rapidly is going to hurt certain employers who are already charging top dollar for their product in their market. That is just a fact and not one to be dodged as Reich does "passed on to the consumers". Just as we don't let the Right get away with proposing to eliminate corporate taxes because ultimately customers pay for it. That is total nonsense, if companies are substantially undercharging for their product in ways that allow this free transfer of costs then someone should get fired.

An increase in minimum wage is an increase in cost and given whatever inelasticity there is in price then something is going to get squeezed, and that is likely to be profit or owner/manager compensation. I am really tired of people trying to explain that their opposition to minimum wage increases is job losses or cost increases when what they really are worried about are corporate profits.

Posted by: Bruce Webb | Jan 4, 2007 7:00:19 AM

Why should a company that can't aford to pay a living wage exist?

Posted by: ken melvin | Jan 4, 2007 7:46:56 AM

Bruce Webb;

"An increase in minimum wage is an increase in cost and given whatever inelasticity there is in price then something is going to get squeezed, and that is likely to be profit or owner/manager compensation."

Yes. I would think that the last few years of outrageous CEO salary compensation could easily pay for the minimum wage increase being proposed.
I would argue that the CEO's would not have been "hurt" if it had already occured.

Posted by: evagrius | Jan 4, 2007 7:52:42 AM

"I would argue that the CEO's would not have been "hurt" if it had already occured."

Wrong. One can never be too thin nor too rich.

Posted by: Isabel | Jan 4, 2007 7:54:53 AM

"Reynolds would not agree with your statement that "income inequality is a perceptible fact of life in America." That's the problem."

Then he's blind. Take a walk in any major town and the evidence is arrayed before your eyes.

The American people are unable to abstract the income inequality issue by means of elaborate explanations and rebuttals by economists. It's a silly pissing contest.

Poverty has been around America for a hundred years, because it is the American ethic that people are self-dependent in terms of health care. If you work, you’re covered. If you are not covered by private health insurance, then you can go to hell looking for a doctor.

At any moment, about 15% of working Americans (and God knows how many unemployed) have NO health insurance - and this in the richest country on earth.

Can someone please explain the immorality of that consequence? Is not heath care a basic human right, like secondary-school education or personal security on the streets or defense of the nation or interstate highways - all of which are provided by government subsidies/expenditures?

The ideal of Americans was to better themselves through hard work, by bootstrapping themselves from a lower to a middle class existence. That is not possible for millions of families who have been living in poverty for generations.

Shame on America.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 8:28:31 AM

MT: And, briefly, ascribing blame can solve a problem if it gets the person in charge - the one who can make the decisions - to admit they were wrong and change their ways, but this is about correct and incorrect, not blame.

This is politically naive.

Americans are fed up with politicians calling one another to blame. They want solutions not stigmatizations.

When did a "person in charge" ever change their ways in politics? When? They got voted out of office long before they admitted to have made an error.

Have you looked at the construct of Congress? There are more millionaires than you can shake a stick at. What do you expect from these people in terms of social services for the poor? Nada, niente, rien, nixt.

They are impervious to the explanations of either a Reynolds or a Krugman. "Income inequality" are words not found within their vernacular.

The arguments must be put in ways that simple people, who vote, can understand. The issues must be debated in simple terms that most Americans can digest if we are change their consciousness.

They will then elect people who propose solutions that appear to correspond with a problem they recognize. (Bin Laden proved that when he took down the Twin Towers. People responded vociferously to the immediate threat to thier security and Bush capitalized upon the situation.)

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 8:50:07 AM

Lafayette:

People did understand. That people understood how the economic pie was being divided up was important in the last election where populism dominated. Had there not been all the squabbling you want to go away, the GOP party line that the economy is perfect (so whatcha whining about) might have had more currency. That we are even talking about a minimum wage and other changes is a result of that process (and an example of a politician changing his ways, another is Bush being forced to eat his words about keeping Rumsfeld - blame was assigned, insisted upon, made clear by voters, and change happened. Might not change the war plans much in the end, but it's an example for you that's recent. A longer US history, e.g. through the 1960s at least would reveal lots of examples contrary to the assertions above - how did we get the Great Society programs at that time, or in the 1930s?).

I understand your points, but the idea that the political process will move forward without having a tough battle is the naive expectation (wouldn't say that normally, but since you are willing to cast "naive" my way, I'll cast it back). What would you have had Krugman et. al. do, just be quiet and take it (a la Kerry)? Do you really think Democrats have played the game tougher than Rove and the GOP? Should Democrats just be silent and not rebut op-eds that mischaracterize data?

Democrats got elected, so someone understood something.

[Added: I meant to say, please feel free to respond/disagree - I'll let you have the last word.]

Posted by: Mark Thoma | Jan 4, 2007 9:33:32 AM

Minimum wage should be applied to CEO salaries, and to congressional compensation. This may get them back in touch with a certain reality.

Posted by: callahan | Jan 4, 2007 9:48:21 AM

Lafayette wrote:

The arguments must be put in ways that simple people, who vote, can understand. The issues must be debated in simple terms that most Americans can digest if we are change their consciousness.

Do you really mean to say that the issue must only be debated in such terms? Ever?

I sometimes think that some commenters are a little confused about how many people read this (and similar) blog, who they are, and why they read. I see it in comments like the above, and in the occasional accusations levelled against those with a kind word for markets that they are engaging in propoganda to mislead the masses.

Guys: the "masses" aren't here. They neither know nor care what we quibble about on Mark's blog. Really.

Now, if the DNC should happen to call me up and say, "We're thinking about doing a $10 million media buy to raise the profile of the Census Bureau's income top-coding practices," I'd certainly advise against it. So on some level, I absolutely agree with Lafayette's point: this isn't the sort of issue that's going to turn an election around.

But this is an economist's blog, devoted, for the most part, to topics in economics. Of course, it is aimed at a "general reader" rather than at other economists (i.e. Mark usually stays away from technical content), and it focuses, mostly, on policy relevent topics. But I think it's possible to make a generalization about the readership: in one way or another, we're mostly "econ geeks." We're interested in econ theory (whether from a mainstream or a heterodox perspective) and we're interested in data. We actually do care whether top-coding causes the Census Bureau to underestimate the Gini coefficient (it does).

And if we want to dig into such a topic until we get to the bottom of it, I don't think we're doing the polity any grave harm.

Posted by: johnchx | Jan 4, 2007 10:28:21 AM

"The arguments must be put in ways that simple people, who vote, can understand. The issues must be debated in simple terms that most Americans can digest if we are change their consciousness."

Just the opposite is the problem. Issues are boiled down to sound bytes. Many of the problems we face are complex and require debate. That debate never happens. To avoid discussing the tough issues the current crew focuses their attention on wedge issues. Gay Marriage or Flag Burning. The tough issues get stuck on bumpers. "Stay the Course" or "Cut and Run"

If that's the way it is going to continue I would rather get the minutemen to build a wall around the capital instead of the border. It would be much more effective.

Posted by: Ken | Jan 4, 2007 10:37:53 AM

Bruce Webb wrote:

Half of the time economists will tell you that markets are totally efficient at the margin, that supply and demand rule, and that markets clear. Then will turn around and explain that costs like minimum wage or taxes on corporations simply get passed on to the consumers.

Remember: Robert Reich is not now, nor has he ever been, and economist. Robert Reich is a lawyer.

Posted by: johnchx | Jan 4, 2007 10:39:36 AM

Lafayette:

The arguments must be put in ways that simple people, who vote, can understand. The issues must be debated in simple terms that most Americans can digest if we are change their consciousness

Converting everything to sound bites is not the answer. The dumbing down of public debate is a tragedy, not something that should be accepted as inevitable. That's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime what is needed is both Krugman and the soundbite.

That the debate plays out at different levels, and the crassest one at the Limbaugh level is what drives outcomes, does not mean that a Krugman is irrelevant. Krugman calls Reynolds out, and yes, most people are not interested in that sort of detail. But the debate has to filter down to the sound bite level. At that level it could be as simple as this

The rightwing does not think "income inequality is a perceptible fact of life in America."

One cannot make such statements without a Krugman debating the likes of Reynolds.

For a comparison, I would look at how the Reynolds oped filtered down to Limbaugh audience. What liberals need is a similar mechanism for Krugmans oped to become accessible to all. To believe that neither a Krugman nor such a mechanism is needed because "income inequality is a perceptible fact of life in America", is wishful thinking. The right wing ideology is accepted as defacto wisdom today, because of the wishful thinking of liberals in the few decades past that there is no need to state facts as they are obvious; no need to attack outright lies because it's obvious they are lies; that because of these things, ideas, facts and the mechanisms to transmit them are irrelevant.

MT:
the idea that the political process will move forward without having a tough battle is the naive expectation

Indeed. I think tough is an understatement. No quarters given would be more like it. All the talk about "the Democrats should split the difference because the American people want both parties to settle issues amicably" is more of the rightwing hogwash. The American people elected Democrats to drive a hard bargain and get Democratic policies enacted. For amicable policies, there was no need for a new Democratic Congress, the last one would have been good enough.

Posted by: billy | Jan 4, 2007 10:40:02 AM

"Half of the time economists will tell you that markets are totally efficient at the margin, that supply and demand rule, and that markets clear. Then will turn around and explain that costs like minimum wage or taxes on corporations simply get passed on to the consumers."

Thats been debunked numerous times. Especially recently with the spike in raw mat (commodity) prices.
Companies have to find ways to overcome wholesale price increases when market competition is tight. Either producivity, hedging activities, economies of scale have to increase to protect profits. and lets face facts. there isnt a lot of pricing power out there.

Posted by: Ken | Jan 4, 2007 10:51:43 AM

Typically, K-12 history books do not teach about unionization, the struggles to get a 40 h work week, minimum wage, etc. They do not teach that the UMW required fierce battles between dynamite wielding miners and armed and licensed to kill Pinkerton Agents and yes people died. People died in the violent UAW strikes. In part, FDR and the US came to an accomodation with the unions during the Great Depression because they wanted to stem the rise of communism that might take enough root to overthrow the government.

The rough and tumble political discourse is tame by past standards.

Posted by: bakho | Jan 4, 2007 10:56:37 AM

CNN poll. These are policies listed by favor/oppose/no opinion.

Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1
Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1

Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1

Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2

Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3

Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4

Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10

Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6

Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6

Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2

Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5

Interesting, the most controverial parts of the Dem agenda are Paygo and oil tax. I suspect that people are afraid that reducing oil tax breaks will raise gas prices. Paygo is an odd result. Maybe the question is phrased poorly and people don't want tax increases or spending cuts.

Posted by: bakho | Jan 4, 2007 11:03:03 AM

Johnchx, thanks for the correction.

But the fact is that certain economists do want to have it both ways. Arguing that some costs (like tax increases) simply pass through and hurt the end buyer, while insisting that other costs (like wage increases) cannot and so result in job losses. Rarely if ever do they admit they don't like tax increases or wage increases because their effect is to squeeze profit.

And that is true whether they are actual economists or just playing one on TV.

Posted by: Bruce Webb | Jan 4, 2007 11:10:36 AM

"The American people elected Democrats to drive a hard bargain and get Democratic policies enacted."

Had that been true, the Democrat plurality would have been much larger instead of razor thin.

This last was a negative vote against the Republicans, not a positive vote for the Democrats. The Dems will have to give some to get some.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 12:50:21 PM

"Do you really mean to say that the issue must only be debated in such terms? Ever?"

You can debate in any manner that please you in a blog.

But, when you talk about effectively changing policy, then a different logic prevails. Politics is decided by voters and if you talk them about "gini", they nod off to sleep.

So, what is it that you want. A bit of intellectual masturbation regarding sundry economic subjects? Or, to concieve of policy instruments that are saleable to the general public via a political platform.

Either choice leads in very different directions.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 12:55:33 PM

"Converting everything to sound bites is not the answer."

You've missed the point. Sound-bites are not reasoning, but tasty info-burgers without the beef.

People want substance. And, to think that sound-bites will suffice is to imply that Americans have no common sense.

Policy instruments are sold to a public much like products. You must demonstrate the appealing features. What will a policy accomplish and why is there a need to do so.

On the other hand, you may be right. I have never seen a political system where trash sound-bites could so effectively sway public sentiment. Maybe Americans ARE stupid enough to believe them? You tell me.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 1:06:57 PM

"The right wing ideology is accepted as defacto wisdom today,"

Bollocks. The right-wing ideology you speak of was a spark of righteous indignation after 9/11 wrapped in a bible tucked under a Presidents arm for public consumption.

It has had its day and is since gone. People know a plutocracy when they see one, even if they don't know that it is called a "plutocracy". An innate sense of unfairness tells them so.

Don't underestimate the common sense of the common man or woman. Talk to them in terms they understand and they will follow. Employ sound-bite cajolery and a candidate will be assimilated with the political hot air blowing through the media channels.

Posted by: Lafayette | Jan 4, 2007 1:17:24 PM

Wimin had to march unto Washington in order to be allowed to vote.

We may have to march again to keep from becoming a third world country.

Posted by: callahan | Jan 4, 2007 1:32:07 PM

It has had its day and is since gone. People know a plutocracy when they see one, even if they don't know that it is called a "plutocracy". An innate sense of unfairness tells them so.

People know something is not working, but not why.

Try explaining to people that this is the outcome of systematic and deliberate policy changes over years. Try explaining that patents and monopolies are a transfer of wealth. Try explaining that unions did not cause Ford/GM to go bust, management did.

Or simpler -Try explaining that single payer healthcare is better than the current travesty that goes by the name of health insurance, and see if you can hold out against the scare words "long lines for treatment and government beuraucrats deciding your course of treatment."

There has been a relentless attack on the idea of public good and public service by the right wing. The current distorted system that benefits a few is called the "free market" and any attempt to make it fair is termed gubmint "regulation", which is of course evil.

Yes, people know things are wrong - do they know why? The answer to why things are not working is not simple.

Posted by: billy | Jan 4, 2007 4:05:28 PM

The current Dem majority in the House is bigger than the previous GOP majority in the House. Only 1/3 of all Senate seats were up for election, so there were limited pickups by the Dems. But look at the poll numbers (see post above). The Dems promised to enact the agenda that people want. Addressing health care, raising min wage, addressing corruption. The GOP was so dysfunctional they could not even pass a budget let alone address the concerns of American voters.

Posted by: bakho | Jan 4, 2007 4:41:55 PM

"The right wing ideology is accepted as defacto wisdom today,"

Well there is no doubt that the Economic Right has very successfully sold a narrative on tax cuts and Social Security over the last 24 years. People simply "know" things that are not true at all. And I can tell you from experience reversing that narrative is a long hard slog.

Their narrative has been somewhat less successful on minimum wage front, and I suspect that very few people actually making minimum wage have bought into the "Jimmy the Stockboy" narrative. 'We would love to give you a raise but we would have to lay off Jimmy'. It doesn't take a lot of math skills to figure out that 30 people getting a $2.15 hr raise ($64.50 cummulatively)kind of offsets Jimmy losing his $5.15 job.

Which kind of makes you wonder why opponents of minimum wage rarely bother to quantify it. How many jobs? Where? and What is the net pay increase? Maybe because the answers would blow their rationale out of the water?

Posted by: Bruce Webb | Jan 4, 2007 5:15:19 PM