bitchy asides...

[pms]

At 01:10 PM 1/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>From today's WSJ:
>
><quote>
>When Rep. William Jefferson (D., La.) asked what sort of actions he had in
>mind, Mr. Greenspan startled some committee members by urging them not only
>to reject Mr. Clinton's proposal to lift the minimum wage by $1 to $6.15 an
>hour, but to lower or repeal the minimum wage. "I think it does more damage
>than good," said Mr. Greenspan, who earns $133,600 a year, "but I recognize
>I'm in a significant minority on that question."
></quote>
>
>$133,600 is about 12 times a minimum wage earner's annual full-time take.
>
>Doug
>
>
Really, within the context of actual existing neo-liberal US, Allie is
probably right. Without a minimum wage, we might still have strong
manufacturing and textile sectors.  The jobs would pay less, but who knows,
it might also raise wages in the service sector. I'm assumeing a lot of
those lost manufacturing jobs were union jobs, so the unions could be
stronger than they are now.  The law of unintended consequences might just
surprise.

Now Doug, I don't think anyone is going to begrudge Father Alan
$133,000/yr. (ceptin' us chickens).  In fact, we should use this well known
god's salary when pointing out the obsenity of some CEO salaries and the
various ways they avoid paying "their fair share" back to society. 

Just a thought-p