Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 45161 - 45180 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 09:26am PT
No big loss, Curt. They should just put them on faux news, those viewers are the only ones who care anyway.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:09am PT
There is an extremely broad intellectual consensus that the minimum wage leads to lower employment. There is an equally broad consensus that raising the minimum wage will increase incomes for some people, and reduce them for others. It will increase the incomes of those who maintain their minimum-wage jobs, and lower them for those who lose their minimum-wage jobs.
JE

And there is an extremely broad intellectual consensus that you are wrong, that raising the minimum wage actually creates jobs, aids in the economic recovery and up lifts the general welfare of the people, the first and foremost function of the American Government
Dr. F

Perhaps, my good doctor, you could cite some sort of evidence that raising the minimum wage increases employment. I could cite more evidence than the sum of all of the "Republicans are Wrong" threads that it reduces employment.

Leazarian [sic] . . .why don't you get a job a walmart so you can enlighten supertopo more about the intellectual side of living on minimum wage..? RJ

No need, RJ. I did agricultural labor for four years, and worked in retail at minimum wage for several more. Admittedly, much of the ag work was piece work which, because I became competent quickly, paid more than minimum wage.

I used the proceeds to pay for much of my early climbing equipment, and to help pay for college, which opened up much better employment. The apparent assumption that those working for minimum wage will continue doing so, rather than move on to better-paying employment, is simply one of the fallacies underlying the "living wage" argument. I read another fallacy in Mary Sanchez's column over the weekend. She starts with a true premise, namely that everyone could use more income because economic times are tough, and proposes as a solution a drastic rise in the minimum wage, which should lead to a good rise in all wages.

Of course, she doesn't bother to analyze what happens to prices if that were to take place, nor does she bother to consider what would happen to the employment of the least skilled workers the minimum wage were to increase drastically.

I do have one suggestion for the Walmart-haters, though. Why don't you picket Walmart and demand that they raise their prices. Watching the Walmart shoppers' reactions to that suggestion could provide quite a bit of entertainment.

John
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:14am PT
I have to disagree with dirtbag and David Plouffe:

David Plouffe @davidplouffe

Better RNC debate plan. Held in hermetically sealed Fox studio. Avoid exposing swing voters to Crazy S*#t My Nominee Says.

12:35 PM - 5 Aug 2013


I'm really looking forward to the 2016 Republican primary debates. I'd buy it on pay per view. Can't wait to see who gets kicked off the island first.
jghedge

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:21am PT

"Perhaps, my good doctor, you could cite some sort of evidence..."


Hahahaha - oh the irony
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:21am PT
I read another fallacy in Mary Sanchez's column over the weekend. She starts with a true premise, namely that everyone could use more income because economic times are tough

This is a false premise. Very rich people don't need more money, they can't figure out what to do with the bag fulls they have. People in the top margin actually did very well in the recession, and made tons more money.
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 11:22am PT
O' how I love a challenge..

Thanks JE
the wonders of google, just highlight the words
"the minimum wage actually creates jobs" from JEs post
click on the same words in the google box, hit enter and 1000s of stuidies proving Dr. F is correct, like always
not only am I correct, but it debunks another BS talking point that every right winger spouts ad nausem about the minimum wage


Report: Raising minimum wage will create jobs

Schorpp The Quad-City Times
August 13, 2012 9:43 pm •

http://qctimes.com/business/report-raising-minimum-wage-will-create-jobs/article_bb6d158a-e5b9-11e1-a84a-0019bb2963f4.html

Nicole Thompson of Rock Island is doing her best to support herself and her two boys while working as a cashier at a McDonald’s restaurant in Rock Island.

But it is not easy.

“I have a boy, 4, one 10 and one son, 20, who just got out on his own. And he has to work two jobs because he cannot support his self either,” said Thompson, 34. “It has been a real struggle for my family. But we are making it.

“I like my job and the people I work with. But I work 40 hours per week, and I live check to check. It is really hard and really frustrating. Some days, I don’t even know how we are going to eat.”

She, of course, favors a minimum wage increase. Thompson said that would help her situation, although “it seems like everyone is struggling these days,” she said.

The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., economic think tank, has released findings of its national minimum wage analysis, including how proposed increases in the federal minimum wage law would affect various demographics.

Key findings include that if the proposed increase to $9.80 occurred by July 1, 2014, for example, it would raise the wages of 28 million workers nationally. Also, it would result in a net increase of about 100,000 new jobs nationally, 4,500 in Illinois and 1,000 in Iowa over the the phased-in period.

Doug Hall is author of the report. He is director of EARN, or Economic Analysis and Research Network, a project of EPI. “EARN is a partner with 57 state groups in 43 states,” he said of other nonprofits.

He said misconceptions also surfaced in his findings.

“There are some perceptions of minimum wage that is not always accurate,” Hall said. “There is a misconception that it is mostly teenagers who are working part-time jobs to finance their social lives. But there are more often bread winners in families who make minimum wage. They are married. They have children.”

Hall said nationally, about 88 percent of workers who would benefit from the increase are at least 20 years old. Although workers of all races and ethnicities would benefit from the increase, non-Hispanic, white workers are the largest share (about 56 percent) of those who would be affected nationally.

On March 29, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced the Rebuild America Act, which includes an increase in the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9.80 via three incremental increases of 85 cents after which it would be indexed to inflation.

jghedge

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:23am PT
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315513-rnc-warns-nbc-cnn-to-drop-clinton-projects-or-lose-2016-debates#ixzz2b7WKH6eY

“If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor,” Preibus said in a statement.



Hahahaha, as if Preibus's fondest wish weren't that the debates not occur in the first place.
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 11:27am PT
JE
are you happy that your Republicans may shut down the Government this fall, Obama won't agree to their ransom demands to approve the debt ceiling be raised

or that Obama won't defund Obamacare

They want to Shut the Government Down!
Should we negotiate with Terrorists?
John M

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:27am PT
The apparent assumption that those working for minimum wage will continue doing so, rather than move on to better-paying employment, is simply one of the fallacies underlying the "living wage" argument

JohnE, you continue to use yourself as an example of an everyday average person, yet you are above average in intelligence. I could easily introduce you to 50 people here in the park who have worked near minimum wage for 20+ years. The only reason they make more then minimum wage is longevity at a job and a union. If they left the park they would have to take a minimum wage job because that is all that they can do. In fact I could introduce you to people who found out the hard way that all they could do was a minimum wage job. They left the park thinking that they could do better and found out that without the support of a union, they were stuck making minimum wage with no benefits.

Sure there are lots of people who take a minimum wage job and move up. Obviously the majority. But that doesn't help those who lack the ability to move up. Why do you continue to ignore those people?
jghedge

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:00pm PT

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/05/the-hidden-motivation-behind-gop-threats-to-boycott-nbc-cnn/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

Exactly as I posted earlier - Priebus is using the boycott threat to try to limit the actual number of debates, on the (correct) premise that the more clown car shows, the more harm to their viable primary roster.

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Exactly as I posted earlier...

Yes, just two hours after I did. Heh.

Curt
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:50pm PT
JohnM, I gave a personal example because I was challenged to work at a minimum wage job and report how it felt. Been there, done that.

I do not support a hike in the minimum wage because I have my greatest concern for those who will lose their jobs if the minimum wage rises. David Neumark, from UC Irvine, and William Wascher from the Federal Reserve, published a metastudy of over 100 research papers on the issue in 2008. Their book, still considered the most authoritative source, concluded that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in unemployment for the least skilled workers, primarily teenagers. This is a full-length, technical textbook, but a good review of it is set forth here:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2210&
context=ilrreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dneumark%2Band
%2Bwascher%2Bminimum%2Bwage%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26ved%3D0CE
oQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu
%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2210%2526context%253
Dilrreview%26ei%3D8gkAUoWzAqTAiwKlvoBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNE6b97ox3OL7L7CGO0n
VYyp916dCg#search=%22neumark%20wascher%20minimum%0wage%22


After Neumark and Wascher published their study, the econometric world got a chance to test the consensus view that higher minimum wages lead to higher teenage unemployment. As the federal minimum wage hikes kicked in, the difference between teenage unemployment and the overall unemployment rate increased almost precisely as predicted.


All that said, I admit that raising the minimum wage is not unambiguously bad. As you point out, raising the minimum wage would increase the income of those with minimum wage jobs. My problem is that we don't know who will and who won't hang on to their minimum wage jobs, but experience suggests that those who will lose their jobs are those who need the experience most so they can advance up the economic ladder.

Incidentally, the EPI study cited by Dr. F., is an outlier, made by and for a group with an existing left-of-center political agenda. It has about the same credibility within the econometric community as climate change deniers do within the scientific and statistical community. In fact, it shares some of the same issues that I see in climate change denial. EPI wants a higher minimum wage, so they try to discredit studies that show the negative correlation between minimum wage rates and teen employment. Climate change deniers largely don't want to undertake the changes needed to reduce carbon emissions, so they try to discredit the effect of carbon emissions on climate change.

Both of these groups would make better contributions to the debate if they
were straightforward with their assertions. As a contrast, I think you present a direct and understandable argument for raising the minimum wage. I understand you to say that even if a higher minimum wage were to cause increased teenage unemployment, we would be better off because the benefit to those retaining their jobs exceeds the harm to those losing theirs. That is a rational statement, and one where we can have an intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to have that kind of discussion with those who deny the interrelationship between wage rates and employment. It would be like trying to discuss a climbing problem with someone who maintains that gravity causes things to fall up.

One parting shot before I leave the economics office and go off to law land for the rest of the afternoon. I have seen arguments that our minimum wage is at an historically low point. In particular, I've seen a comparison between the 1968 minimum wage and that of today. That's a bit misleading, because the 1968 minimum wage was the historic high point, measured in constant dollars. A more realistic figure would be around $5.00 per hour in current dollars, although I've seen it estimated as low as $4.25. Frankly, I'm glad we raised the minimum wage to where it stands now. I just think that the damage it would do to employment by raising it further now outweighs any good that can come of it.

John
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:53am PT
Credit: philo
If that was what it meant to be a Republican I'd be one.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Aug 7, 2013 - 12:16pm PT
Precisely why it's more accurate to say that the Republican Party left me--instead of the other way around. Republicans haven't always been insane.

Curt
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Precisely why it's more accurate to say that the Republican Party left me--instead of the other way around. Republicans haven't always been insane.

Curt

Curt,

I think one of the few things on which Dr. F. and I agree (other than interest in cacti and a love of climbing) is that the Tea Party and other, similar, groups are the best friends the Democratic party ever had. Michael Medved had an excellent column on the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal on Monday that expressed perfectly my own frustration with my party.

Of course, some of the planks in the 1956 Republican Party Platform imply different things today. In particular, No. 8 militated against using racial and gender discrimination then, but would also militate against the current use of racial and gender discrimination in the name of ending racial and gender discrimination.

Also, the idea of public employee unions and, particularly, public employee strikes, was virtually unheard of in 1956. Also, the labor unions in 1956 hated Taft-Hartley, but I suspect even on this forum, few remember that. Of course, that's why so much of the party platforms, then and now, amount to little more than platitudes. I suspect the 1956 Republican Party's policy on labor relations would make Philo no more happy than the 2013 Party's would.

Still, I wish there were more like you that stayed in the Party, because I rather suspect that Hedge is correct (I was about to say Hedge is right, but he's left). The current wingnuts demanding that Republicans remain "pure" will shortly lead to the Party's extinction as an effective political force unless those of us who find suicide unattractive succeed in stopping them.

John
dirtbag

climber
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
They are STILL WRONG about everything.

They still insist we enact austerity measures in this country, even though studies purporting to show austerity works relied on sloppy, incorrect calculations, and even though such measures are FAILING MISERABLY in Europe.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:54pm PT
So there!
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
In case you wondered why Republicans always invoke Reagan but never Eisenhower as a Great Republican, it's because he was secretly a Soviet agent!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/conservative-historian-has-interesting-ideas.html

The new right-wing book of the moment is American Betrayal, by Diana West, which offers the thesis that American foreign policy under presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower was secretly controlled by the Soviet Union. If this sounds like the sort of tract that would be written by somebody who thinks Joe McCarthy was absolutely right about everything, well, that’s exactly what Diana West does believe. She’s also quite the birther.

**But her book has managed to attract quite a bit of support from respectable and semi-respectable outlets on the right. The Heritage Foundation feted West, Amity Shlaes blurbed it, the American Spectator and Daily Caller issued raves, and Breitbart is actually serializing the book.

West argues not just that there were communist spies in the government or that American foreign policy failed to take a strong enough line, but that the Soviets controlled the American government in the way they controlled, say, East Germany. For instance, West argues that America provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor — an American working for the Soviets “subverted relations between the US and Japan by inserting ‘ultimatum’ language into the cable flow that actually spurred the Japanese attack.”**

Blaming the U.S. for provoking Pearl Harbor is the sort of claim that might offend modern conservatives, except that West further argues that America was controlled by the Soviets all along. Likewise, she tells us, the U.S. could have supported anti-Hitler Nazis and ended the war, but didn’t, because its goal was to help the Soviets occupy Eastern Europe. (“The war had to last long enough for the Soviet Army to roll into the heart of Europe on those fleets of Lend-Lease Dodge and Studebaker trucks Uncle Sam had generously provided.”)

What’s interesting is that West’s paranoia has proven too much for Ron Radosh, who assails West in a lengthy review at Front Page Magazine (“overheated, or simply false and distorted”).

Our readers may not grasp just what it takes to be called a right-wing kook in Front Page Magazine by Ron Radosh. The bar is high. Radosh himself is quite conservative (he’s called President Obama a socialist). FrontPageMag is … well, suffice to say, its official motto is “Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out” — which is surely more evocative, if less credibility-rendering, than "All the news that’s fit to print." It currently features stories with such headlines as “Islamic Group in America: We’ll Impose Sharia on Christians” and “Seven More Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder.”

(My mind was boggled upon first reading the latter headline — seven reasons to impeach Holder? — only to scan it again and try to process the next word, “more.” Sure enough, it’s a follow-up to a previous article listing ten reasons to impeach Holder. FrontPageMag is now up to seventeen independently sufficient causes for the impeachment of the Attorney General.)

Radosh’s review displays an entertaining clash of different gradations of right-wing paranoia. Faithful readers of the conservative news have been conditioned to believe that modern history is shaped by dark liberal plots, all covered up by the mainstream news. Radosh and FrontPageMag are among the sources conditioning them to think this way. (Radosh, for instance, thinks it’s perfectly plausible that Barack Obama’s autobiography was secretly ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.) West is simply applying the same analytic method backward in time.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
That's some laughable sh#t, given, er, the perspective of, uh, reality?

But bluering and Michael Savage should enjoy it!

DMT
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 8, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
That's some laughable sh#t, given, er, the perspective of, uh, reality?

But bluering and Michael Savage should enjoy it!

DMT

Reality? You actually believe that? Eisenhower was a commie? You prolly also think McCarthy was completely wrong, who was later proven correct (Joe) when the Venona Papers were released, among other revelations.


Messages 45161 - 45180 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews