Georgia Senators oppose increase in minimum wage

We’re nothing if not consistent here in Georgia, and both of our Senators in Washington, D.C. opposed legislation that would increase the minimum wage. Actually, this was a vote to invoke cloture so regardless of the position of others, these gentlemen just wanted to keep discussing the concept of minimum wage and its increase.

Here’ the full list of opposing Senators, with ours highlighted:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

It’s Georgia and Oklahoma leading the unilateral (at least at the state level) charge against raising the minimum wage, or the continued discussion by the Senate of the bill.

I’m not so crass to point out that Isakson is a millionaire. No. No I’m not.

I think Johnny and Saxby have been listening to too much Boortz, but then I’m not one of the loquacious Libertarians around here, so what do I know?

In any event, I’m curious what other Atlantans think about the minimum wage. Not having received hourly pay for quite some time and certainly not minimum wage, I’m not the best judge here. I’m just an effete progressive who blogs.

22 Comments so far

  1. james (unregistered) on January 30th, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

    guess, seth.

  2. Seth (unregistered) on January 30th, 2007 @ 6:44 pm

    I’m guessing from your pedigree that you’re a market fetishist, but that’s me being catty.

    I think you’d be opposed not just to raising the minimum wage, but the concept in general.

    Again, just a guess.

  3. james (unregistered) on January 30th, 2007 @ 7:17 pm


  4. George Burdell (unregistered) on January 30th, 2007 @ 9:36 pm

    It’s one thing to lament about backwards state laws on this blog, but this type of stuff belongs on one of the many boring political blogs…..

    The general lack of whiny posts stating: “I’m not so crass to point out that Isakson is a millionaire. No. No I’m not.” is what makes this blog great. Oh well.

  5. Seth (unregistered) on January 30th, 2007 @ 11:10 pm

    You know, people bitch when we have political posts from one side of the aisle only (or perceive it that way) so I was trying in some small way to correct that.

    I apologize if the snark wasn’t appreciated.

  6. George Burdell (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 8:32 am

    Touche, and in all seriousness, thanks for the apology…. I suppose being part of the ‘blue island’ makes political discussion inevitable.

  7. runcible (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 9:07 am

    This is the sort of thing that makes people from populated parts of the world believe that southerners are a bunch of backward inbreds.

  8. abby (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 11:44 am

    people from “populated parts of the world” think of us as backwards inbreds?
    because our senators don’t want the federal government to force busineses owners to pay their employees an arbitrary hourly wage, and then to make up for the increase in expenses by raising their prices and hiring fewer people?
    thoughtful insight, run. thanks

  9. WALMART (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 1:41 pm

    Oh no! This is going to bankrupt me!! How dare anyone think that an HONEST DAYS WORK should equal an HONEST DAYS PAY!
    This is America! Get rich or die (trying or not, who cares).

  10. Jim V. (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 3:04 pm


    In 2005 the ratio of the minimum wage for the average CEO was 825 times the minimum wage. Are you as concerned about how high CEO pay rates raise prices and cause companies to hire fewer workers.

    Ultimately, the price of goods and the level of employment is influenced by hundreds of factors of which minimum wage is but one.

    Businesses in this country get access to the largest consumer market in the world and the best capital markets in the world. It amazes me that when we ask for something so small as a livable wage in return, your sympathy immediately goes to CEOs and not to the minimum wage earner struggling to make ends meet.

  11. runcible (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

    See, that’s the great thing about this country: there are no limits to how far you can rise, and nobody gives a crap how far you can fall.

  12. james (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

    hmmmm…didn’t see that one coming :-p

  13. Backward Inbred (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 5:42 pm


    It’s generally not a good argumentative tactic to ignore the crux of someone’s point when attempting to disprove them.

    Abby seemed to simply state she doesn’t think the government should be the one to interfere with an agreement between two parties on work vs. payment. The way prices get set on goods seems to work for consumers. Why shouldn’t it work for employers? It’s not like any company has a monopoly on the job market.

    Also, you’re correct. The price of goods does depend on many, many factors. But that doesn’t mean that a change in any one of those factors won’t cause a significant change in the product. The money for a wage hike has to come from somewhere.

    As far as this being so little, I’m reminded of an old phrase about government budgeting. “A million here. A million there. Pretty soon you’re talking real money.” I hope you can see, I honestly do, how turning a free market economy into some sort of social entitlement system would be a bad idea.


    Perhaps we should just set a standard wage for everyone? I mean, everyone does an honest days work. And there is no reason why one person’s work should be worth more than another’s. I think it would be good for everyone. Honest.

  14. George Burdell (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

    See – here’s all the political bullshit i was talking about!!!!

    Some of my favorite arguments stem from quotes such as “This is why everyone thinks we’re stupid” and “How can you not be concerned with…?””


  15. james (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 6:48 pm

    yay! aren’t we having fun? politics freaking ROCKS!

  16. Jim V. (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

    Mr./Ms. Inbred,

    The free market is a tool which enables us to have better lives; however, it isn’t an end unto itself. The crux of your argument is who is the federal government to insert itself into the free market, in order to make things better for more people? The answer: it’s an elected government, that’s its job.

    The main difference between labor and commodities is that money paid to a laborer returns to the economy and society in terms of other benefits.

    There is a happy medium. Setting a fixed wage for everyone doesn’t work, as the Soviet Union proved. A completely a completely laissez faire government doesn’t work either, unless you wax nostalgic for the Guided Age.


    It’s admirable of you to read the threads that disinterest you, but don’t do so on my account.

  17. Backward Inbred (unregistered) on January 31st, 2007 @ 8:43 pm


    By your logic the federal government should be able to do anything and everything. After all, it’s elected, that’s it’s job. I don’t quite buy into that idea. Nor do I think the utilitarian idea of making things better for more people would be the outcome.

    For your labor/commodities point, they are cyclic depending on each other. Money paid for commodities recreate the labor that supplied the money. You just get the chicken and the egg situation. So I can’t agree with that difference.

    I’m not arguing for a completely laissez faire government, some regulations are worthwhile, just not wage ones. I suppose we just differ on where the happy medium lies.

  18. Jim V. (unregistered) on February 1st, 2007 @ 7:24 am

    Mr./Ms. Inbred,
    I’ll let you have the last word on this, other than to say that Neal Boortz and Clark Howard will debate this issue today at noon on WSB.

  19. abby (unregistered) on February 1st, 2007 @ 11:27 am

    Sorry guys, I shouldn’t have bit. these polemic arguments are tiresome and I do agree with Burdell that this is not the best forum for them.

    although I am happy to congratulate us all for eschewing the use of all caps, exclamation points and ones (of the “NO, YOU’RE WRONG!!!!1” variety). well done!

  20. Seth (unregistered) on February 1st, 2007 @ 11:38 am

    So, in the future, the readers (and bloggers) would rather we discussed NO national politics or LESS national politics, or what?

    I realize my style here (and really my style in general) probably didn’t help but since we get comments about our “bias” here every time someone represents a conservative or libertarian or, really, pick your political affiliation opinion, I thought I’d try to interject some kind of post(s) to offset that perception.

    But now I realize that people read blogs BECAUSE of their opinions and not in spite of them. And, for whatever reason, you (collectively) don’t seem to care much for the posts on politics.

    I myself promise to try and stick closer to city political issues, if I post on politics at all. There are certainly plenty of better political blogs out there.

    I can’t speak for my fellow bloggers, but from my perspective as captain, we’d be better served to increase our quotient of other types of posts and leave national politics to national blogs.

    Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments, as I’m sure you don’t need prompting.

    More than anything, we want to be of the community not set against it.

  21. james (unregistered) on February 1st, 2007 @ 12:29 pm

    eh, seth, what are you gonna do?

    cynthia mckinney isn’t around to poke fun at any more.

    i agree with abby, btw. nice to see people having a discussion about it without resorting to name calling or yelling though.

  22. Annie (unregistered) on February 1st, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

    Seth, I thought this post was great, and about our subject matter, Atlanta, in a roundabout way. Also, I like snarkiness in all forms, so keep that sort of thing coming, in my opinion.

    All that being said, I will not let anyone dictate to me what type of posts I should be writing. I feel that my posts and those of my fellow metbloggers are consistently diverse in subject matter. I intend to keep writing about what I find interesting about Atlanta – that is my job as a metblogger, and people will read or not read based on their interest level. I am guessing that if the Metroblogging powers that be decide I am boring people to death, they will give me my walking papers. Until then, I’m posting what I think is interesting, not what I think others think I should write about. If it’s about Atlanta, it is fair game.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.