Romney Should Know Better on Minimum Wage

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=600216&ibdbot=1

He should know better, but he doesn't. Because Romney is NOT a conservative, and it's because I know this and accept it that I am not surprised when he comes out for failed liberal policies...

Gov. Mitt Romney's statement about not worrying about the poor has been treated as a gaffe in much of the media, and those in the Republican establishment who have been rushing toward endorsing his coronation as the GOP's nominee for president — with 90% of the delegates still not yet chosen — have been trying to sweep his statement under the rug.

But Romney's statement about not worrying about the poor — because they "have a very ample safety net" — was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man's qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential president of the United States.

Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.

But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.

It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.

We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30% or 40% for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-old black males was just under 10% back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.

How could this be?

The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed 10 years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.

My first full-time job, as a black teenage high-school dropout in 1946, was as a lowly messenger delivering telegrams. But my starting pay was more than 50% above the level specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Cont'd... (use link)

[djAdvocate]

again, i am really surprised he said this. it is the 3rd rail of supply side/free market/Randian anarchocapitalism.

[Deleted]

I don't know why you are surprised... Romney will say just about anything...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 12, 2012 0:41:22 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't know why you are surprised... Romney will say just about anything...

I said it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that Thomas Sowell asserts that Romney should know better? Why should he know better? He's a liberal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nevermind.

[ungenteel]

I'm challenged to think of anything more stupid than the current proclivity of the righties to suggest that keeping the minimum wage at slave labor values is socially proactive with regards to keeping minorities employed ... what self serving dipwads

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 12, 2012 18:31:28 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I'm challenged to think of anything more stupid than the current proclivity of the righties to suggest that keeping the minimum wage at slave labor values is socially proactive with regards to keeping minorities employed ... what self serving dipwads

The minimum wage is inflationary, it causes unemployment, and it makes it very hard for low skilled, entry level employees to enter the workforce and learn the basic habits of showing up, showing up on time, showing up on time with everything you need and ready to work.

If I can pay you what we agree to- fine. If I have to pay you $10/hr, I'm going to say beat it, kid and hire someone worth $10/hr.

It's silly to suggest that everyone is worth at least $X because the fact is, some people are worth more, and others are worth less- some are worth a LOT less.

The min. wage forces employers to keep 5 people at $10/hr (for example) when maybe what ought to happen is 3 people should be at $5, 1 person should be at $10, and 2 people at $12.50/hr.

However, a mandatory $10/hr puts 5 people at $10/hr and that sixth person? Unemployed.

[usaone]

Santorum is also for increasing minimum wage. Also a proponent of Amtrack.

[usaone]

Paul. Who told you that?

Small Biz hire when there is demand.

[ungenteel]

<<The min. wage forces employers to keep 5 people at $10/hr (for example) when maybe what ought to happen is 3 people should be at $5, 1 person should be at $10, and 2 people at $12.50/hr. >>

Anything less than a livable wage is criminal from my perspective ... employers being able to hire two or three part time children to avoid paying heads of households a livable wage is reprehensible ... move to China of that is the economic system you prefer

[Deleted]

It makes sense, until you realize that 5$ an hour is just over 10K a year... very difficult to live on that... so in your senario, while 6 might be employed there are only 3 people who can support themselves, versus the prior senario where 5 people were employed in a position which allowed them to support themselves....

I do have to say though, it really ticks off our longest hired, best employee, when we are working rate jobs and everyone makes the same... I try to give him a dollar extra, but i paid out quite a bit at 31-32 an hour this year for labor, and can't really give too much of a differential. I will have to do some restructuring this year...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 12, 2012 19:22:48 GMT -5 usaone said:

Santorum is also for increasing minimum wage. Also a proponent of Amtrack.

Santorum is not a conservative. He's actually quite a big government guy. His line about running a conservative campaign in 2006 when he got crushed in a 'bad year for Republicans' is baloney. He lost for the same reason a lot of Republicans lost that year: they were not governing as conservatives- and neither was he, and the GOP nominated a RINO that didn't excite anyone for the White House.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 12, 2012 19:28:03 GMT -5 oped said:

It makes sense, until you realize that 5$ an hour is just over 10K a year... very difficult to live on that... so in your senario, while 6 might be employed there are only 3 people who can support themselves, versus the prior senario where 5 people were employed in a position which allowed them to support themselves...

You're not supposed to be able to support yourself with an entry level / low or no skill job.

You're not entitled to support your SO, and two kids in a house of your own with two cars, a tv w/ cable & movie channels, internet, and an iPhone. These things are earned. They are privileges - including the wife and kids.

You're worth what you can command in the market place. Government setting wages and prices has always been a disaster. If you only earn $10K a year, that might mean that you're going to defer marriage and family (or kids out of wedlock). It might mean a spartan lifestyle with a couple of roomates or a few extra years with mom and dad.

Ideally, what we're talking about at $5 an hour is a starting job at 16 or so where you learn the basics so that by the time you're expected to support yourself in a couple of years, you've got some experience and you can actually earn a bit more.

I think we're lost in the idea that the middle class experience is an entitlement. That middle class is a kind of baseline. The truth is that middle class is something to aspire to, it's about as well as most people can ever expect to do-- and many people won't reach middle class status. File under tough shit. Deal with it. If you don't like it- work harder, and work smarter.

If you're unwilling to do what it takes to earn, then you are expected to do your duty to society which is to support yourself the best you can and serve as an example to others of what foolishness, laziness, and sloth look like.

[Deleted]

Romney needs to make that safety net look better so he can go back to not caring about poor people.

But didn't we just have a minimum wage thread? I still don't buy the implication that young black men are unemployed because they aren't worth minimum wage. An inexperienced worker is an inexperienced worker. If the young white kids can get jobs, then it is about something other than their inherent "worth."

[chiver78]

Feb 12, 2012 0:41:22 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't know why you are surprised... Romney will say just about anything...

and he is absolutely NOT a liberal. how can you (Paul - the following post) or anyone else listen to the crap that comes out of his mouth and attribute it to a liberal? that's off line, even for you. nothing he's said in either presidential run on a social issue has even waved a breeze at a liberal philosophy.

he didn't seek reelection in 2006 because he knew he'd pissed off enough voters to lose. mark my words, he's not going to win the MA primary in a few weeks. I'd say good riddance, but I know better. I still see him winning the eventual nomination.......not that it's good, bad or otherwise. the whole (R) field just sucks.

[Virgil Showlion]

Indexing minimum wage to inflation makes sense. You're not going to fix America's ills by shrinking labourers' pay year after year for doing the same work (which is what not indexing to inflation does).

And you're not going to convince people living tolerably well on social welfare that they're really better off with that minimum wage job if the relative benefit of choosing "job" is perpetually shrinking.

The minimum wage reflects the salary that we as a society have said is the very least a man can be paid without being exploited.

[Don Perignon]

"All men are created equal"... ?
The Elite, those who imagine themselves to be Aristocrats, will have to have their peasants... by hook or by crook. They will not be denied their rightful elevated station; alas, their elevated status is meaningless without "lesser folk" to look down upon.
That having been said, the unwillingness to pay fair wages is the most subversive force eroding The American Way. The skinflints and their Overseers babble and rant about "evil liberals" as they pursue the enslavement of their neighbors and brethren... ?!
Who's fooling who?

[Virgil Showlion]

They will not be denied their rightful elevated station; alas, their elevated status is meaningless without "lesser folk" to look down upon.

Whot!?

E gads, man, had you only told me sooner!

James! Fetch me some wand'ring proles, that I might build them into a heap and gaze down upon them with lofty affect.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

You're not entitled to support your SO, and two kids in a house of your own with two cars, a tv w/ cable & movie channels, internet, and an iPhone.

Wow, all that and food with $10K a year. How do they ever do it?

They are privileges - including the wife and kids.

You're not entitled to your own "facts." Type in 2+2=5 a billion times and see what that gets you.

If you only earn $10K a year, that might mean that you're going to defer marriage and family (or kids out of wedlock).

That's a nice fantasy you got there. Well, it actually isn't nice; is economic eugenics really the route to go?

The min. wage forces employers to keep 5 people at $10/hr (for example) when maybe what ought to happen is 3 people should be at $5, 1 person should be at $10, and 2 people at $12.50/hr.

You've proven you can shoehorn an example to "prove" your point. It's laughable to think there would be a $7.50 difference in an hourly rate with a minimum wage job. Sorry, employers aren't generous sugar daddies.

I think we're lost in the idea that the middle class experience is an entitlement.

We're talking about the poor. If you're going to get on your soapox o'sanctimony, at least be relevent.

Santorum is not a conservative.

We know, he's not Atila the Hun, so he must be a looney liberal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 12, 2012 22:24:07 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Romney needs to make that safety net look better so he can go back to not caring about poor people.

But didn't we just have a minimum wage thread? I still don't buy the implication that young black men are unemployed because they aren't worth minimum wage. An inexperienced worker is an inexperienced worker. If the young white kids can get jobs, then it is about something other than their inherent "worth."

Well, I really don't like it when conservatives get caught up in identity politics- so, whatever they want to say is up to them to defend.

I'll simply make the economic argument- you're right that unskilled work is unskilled work. The problem is that when government starts setting wages and prices of any kind, decisions are made. I might have hired an 'unskilled' person at $5, but at $10- I'm not looking from some kid that can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

This is how the minimum wage hurts the very people it supposedly helps.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The min. wage forces employers to keep 5 people at $10/hr (for example) when maybe what ought to happen is 3 people should be at $5, 1 person should be at $10, and 2 people at $12.50/hr.

You've proven you can shoehorn an example to "prove" your point. It's laughable to think there would be a $7.50 difference in an hourly rate with a minimum wage job. Sorry, employers aren't generous sugar daddies.

Nothing I've said is theory. It's fact. Everything opponents of the minimum wage have outlined for you is fact. You either have the courage to accept the truth, or you don't. But this, like many other very basic issues is another one that is as simple as this: conservatives are right, Romney is wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2012 1:12:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 12, 2012 0:41:22 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't know why you are surprised... Romney will say just about anything...

I said it doesn't surprise me.

he was responding to me. i said i was surprised. i am. ftr, i am not surprised he thinks it. it is a reasonable idea. it surprises me that he said it out loud, in a GOP primary. that surprised me.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2012 19:18:03 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 12, 2012 18:31:28 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I'm challenged to think of anything more stupid than the current proclivity of the righties to suggest that keeping the minimum wage at slave labor values is socially proactive with regards to keeping minorities employed ... what self serving dipwads

The minimum wage is inflationary, it causes unemployment, and it makes it very hard for low skilled, entry level employees to enter the workforce and learn the basic habits of showing up, showing up on time, showing up on time with everything you need and ready to work.

anyone who has researched this knows that there is little, if any, evidence that any of the above is true.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2012 19:23:55 GMT -5 usaone said:

Paul. Who told you that?

Small Biz hire when there is demand.

not Paul. he hires when the current CIC is of the same mind as Paul. that is a recipe for failure, imo.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2012 22:08:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 12, 2012 19:22:48 GMT -5 usaone said:

Santorum is also for increasing minimum wage. Also a proponent of Amtrack.

Santorum is not a conservative. He's actually quite a big government guy.

that is not what he says. you calling him a liar?

[Deleted]

Exactly... I hire people when there is demand. Why do so many people not realize this? I've tried and tried to explain it... the people purchasing goods and services... THEY are the job creators....

[Deleted]

Yes, he is a liar. Read Clinton's It takes a village... then real Santorum's It takes a family... and realize they call for just about the same things... (if possible, Santorum may be into more government control of private life than Clinton...)

[djAdvocate]

Feb 13, 2012 0:26:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Indexing minimum wage to inflation makes sense. You're not going to fix America's ills by shrinking labourers' pay year after year for doing the same work (which is what not indexing to inflation does).

And you're not going to convince people living tolerably well on social welfare that they're really better off with that minimum wage job if the relative benefit of choosing "job" is perpetually shrinking.

The minimum wage reflects the salary that we as a society have said is the very least a man can be paid without being exploited.

precisely. and this is a very very old idea. it is an idea that dates back to the Enlightenment.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 13, 2012 12:18:09 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes, he is a liar.

okey doke. my perception of Santorum is that he really doesn't understand what he is saying half the time. i don't think he is actually lying. i just think he hasn't though things through. he actually BELIEVES what he says.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 13, 2012 12:15:29 GMT -5 oped said:

Exactly... I hire people when there is demand. Why do so many people not realize this? I've tried and tried to explain it... the people purchasing goods and services... THEY are the job creators....

bingo. the CONSUMER is the job creator. you want to create jobs? give THEM the tax breaks. the rich will allocate resources as required to meet the demand- and become richer for it. trust me. i know.