host

The POV that minimum wage laws impact negatively, "the very people you're trying to protect", is a weak one, IMO, and the current stats that I provide below, illustrate that the impact of such laws is not so "cut and dried.

Also, all ten of the states displayed with the higher minimum wages (In both groups, I eliminated smallest pop. states, i.e., Vermont, Wyoming, and remote states like Alaska and Hawaii. The D.C. has an "artificial" economu and no state gov.,) exhibited a majority vote for Bush in 2004, and I'll make an argument that majorities in more affluent states are opposed to Bush tax cuts that benefit them more than the less affluent, "Bush majority" states.

If low wages and no overtime laws were of great benefit in attracting jobs, one would be tempted to surmise that South Carolina and Mississippi would experience lower unemployment. IMO, geography and demographics play a larger role in influencing job creation and economic improvement than minimum wage laws do. Are those in the $5.15 per hour states who work at the marginal jobs that would not be available at a higher minimum wage, better off working for those wages and driving unemployment below 4.5 percent in some low wage states, or would there be a greater chance that they would migrate to a more advantageous area in pursuit of a higher minimum wage mandated by another state's law. In other words, is working at a minimm wage job in North Carolina for $5.15, a better opportunity for a young worker, than having no job available and thus a catalyst to move to Delaware or Oregon?

IMO, this is a complex issue that the stats reveal no easy answers about. New studies show that $5.15 wage earners burden the medical and social welfare systems of many locales to the point where several states are considering Maryland's solution to the burden of Wal-Mart as an employer in their local communities:<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fairshare09jun09,1,7106910.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines">Make all employers pay their fair share</a>
U.S., Japanese, and European automakers do not make enough profit on "entry level", economy cars, to attract their interest in that segment. They make those vehicles as "loss leaders", and depend on the sale of larger, higher end vehicles for offsetting profits. I disagree about quality and state of technology issues regarding GM and Ford products, and apparently, so does the market.
To keep this post on topic, I'm including a picture worth a thousand words:
The "numbers" and the current government tax, spending, foreign, and military policies clash to the point that informed individuals can easily argue that the fate of the dollar's value lies in the hands of foreign debt holders and buyers, that cutting taxes and increasing military and medicare prescription costs contribute to the dollar's demise, and ironically, the ability to maintain military spending at even current levels, along with the farce of the constant Bush roadshow that pushes the dismantling of SSI, under the disguise of an advocacy for private SSI accounts, that distract from that dismantling agenda, and the immediate influences on the rising deficit, Iraq war, military spending, ineffective pork barrel spending under the guise of "Homeland Security", and most ominously, a U.S. trade deficit headed for $900 billion per year as soon as in 2007. IMO, there is no guarantee that economic slowdown will trigger deflation.