On page 195, of The Price of Loyalty: "We are looking at every [stimulus] instrument that's ever been used and some that haven't been... ...O'Neill said. Among the options on the list, he said, are increases in the minimum wage, a "supplement" for people who pay no income taxes, and a reduction in the capital gains tax." (my emphasis)
This was G. W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- supporter of privatizing Social Security --on how to avoid recession, post 9/11.
Doubling the federal minimum wage would toss 350 billion the way of bottom 40 percentile earners -- those now earning below the $500/wk.
Since Michael Harrington wrote "The Other America", in 1968, 25% of our labor force has slipped below the minimum wage of that era ($400/wk adjusted) -- though average income has doubled since. To me this should be taken as an even more significant emergency than the looming 9% unemployment.
Minimum wagers wont get the whole raise in one jump. Will they get it in time to help ward off recession? Raise the incomes of those above 40 percentile by realistic unionization -- which can only mean sector-wide labor contracts, mandated by law -- and enough will get enough to at least help ward off recession.
As Ezra Kline recently pointed out, the card check may only produce unions which employers will ignore, which employers will refuse to bargain with. Under sector-wide: no contract = no legal work (at least it can be written that way). That should imply no scabs: the whole and entire marketing function of unionizing is to force the employer to bargain only with those employed now, not with everyone passing by on the street -- not just to make bargaining with everybody who passes by on the street more inconvenient.
If up to 90% of our workforce is expecting phased in raises (proportionately more the lower the current wages) over the next couple or three years, consumer confidence should be enhanced as much as anything can enhance it.
I finally figured it out! Eureka! The Israeli pounding of Gaza WOULD -- immoral as it may or may not be -- would work as a TOTALLY effective deterrent against artillery rockets if and ONLY if the Palestinians were living totally free, totally happy lives in both Gaza and the West Bank -- free and happy as defined by themselves.
The pounding will never work as long as Israel holds 5 million Palestinians in oppressive, humiliating, impoverishing conquest. Under which condition the cost/benefit equation (this is an economic blog, no?) is a few (hundred?) Palestinians die v. millions attempting any desperate measure to free themselves from their daily hell.
Potentially, Gaza and the West Bank could be happier than Syria -- same economic level plus democracy. What would raining artillery on Israel possibly get them under decent living circumstances but more desperate (on the part of the Israelis this time) counter attacks? No benefit whatsoever.
Gaza objects to Israel's existence? :-) :-) :-) Israel has as many tanks on short notice as the US Army had on active duty at the height of the cold war: 3000 (on 2% of the population base, yet). Israel went 90-0 against the Syrian Air Force in 1982 (the first revelation of the dominating superiority of US weapon systems). Israel is reputed to have 200 nuclear bombs. Israel has the United States Navy.