Home » Voices » Columns »

Republicans are own worst enemy in November elections

By Brad O'Donnell on October 13, 2010 3:15 am in Columns, Voices / 49 comments

 

Democrats seem to have at least one last hope in the coming elections: Republicans.

If you are anything like the average college student, you have or have recently had a job. Most jobs college students work are for minimum wage.

Imagine if the world worked according to Republican Joe Miller, running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska and the favorite to win the seat. Miller believes the minimum wage is unconstitutional — despite the Supreme Court disagreeing with him back in 1941.

We as students would make significantly less than the already-painful $7.40. Imagine paying for gas while making $1.75 an hour. It almost makes one laugh.

Somebody could potentially respond to this by saying, “OK, but that is just Alaska.”

Here’s another: Rand Paul is a Republican running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky and is leading the polls. He thinks the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far. The offending portion? The so-called “lunch counter” provision, in which it became illegal for businesses to segregate based on race.

It is difficult to even imagine a world in which you walk into a restaurant with your friends, only to be turned away because some of your friends happen to be of non-European descent. Disgusting.

“They’re nuts,” the dissenting reader may say. “But they are also from red states. How about a purple state?”

Imagine the world worked according to Republican Sharron Angle, running for the Senate in Nevada, who is down only a couple points in the polls. In her world, if her anti-government opinions do not win in elections, her like-minded fellows should consider “2nd amendment remedies” to “end tyranny.” That’s right: If the voters think she has screws loose and vote for her opponent, she would “consider” using violence with a firearm to get her way.

Let’s throw in Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware (no relation) just for fun. She believes that condom usage is “anti-human” and an “insult” and reduces people to the “level of a dog.”

Zany and hilarious, right? Imagine if condoms were made illegal. STD rates and unintended pregnancies would skyrocket, both of which are far from hilarious. Friday nights at CMU would go from fun but relativley safe to absolutely horrifying.

Voters are starting to pay attention to what Republicans are advocating and are recoiling in horror. The Republican dream of blocking every idea Barack Obama and the Democrats might have is fading quick.

 

Tags

, , , ,

Related Posts

 
  • Jim Moreno

    I think that Republicans think that if they spend enough money the crazies will be elected and people will be fooled. I hope that isn't the case. It is so refreshing have Brad's viewpoint expressed in CM-life.

  • Timbankful

    I am getting d*mned sick and tired of the media labeling anyone who holds an opinion contrary to the political and social values of the Demon-rat party as nuts, crazy etc ! I hope you “journalists wantabes realize that out of this fascist bubble you now live in that people hold you and your bigoted opinions in utter contempt. An as to your assertion that “Voters …are recoiling in horror.” You my biased and bigoted friend are a deluded liar. But what else can one expect from the students of the school of journalism on this campus.

  • Jamie

    I just want to comment regarding minimum wage. The idea of minimum wage is actually detrimental to students looking for jobs.

    A person's wage is simply the price for their labor charged to the employer. Wages are subject the same economic laws as prices for goods and services. In an unhampered market economy, wages or any other price reflects supply and demand. In the case of wages, the demand for workers by employers and the supply of workers looking for jobs sets the wage rates. Prices, wages, and supply and demand all mutually condition on another and are interconnected. If the government artificially raises the wages rates above what they would have been in an unhampered market economy, you will see the same results as if the government artificially raised the price of Big Macs at McDonald's – fewer people would buy Big Macs. Wages, simply being the price of labor, are subject to the same economic laws. Businesses simply purchase less labor causing more students to be unemployed. So the higher wages set by the government only benefit those who actually find a job in that they make more than they would have without the minimum wage set by the government but is detrimental to the other workers who have no jobs. It is better to have more students employed at lower wages than fewer employed at a higher wage rate.

    We saw the same phenomena on a bigger scale during the Great depression where government “convinced” companies to keep wages high. This resulted in a bizarre situation where those who had jobs kept their standard of living and those without jobs were impoverished.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-ODonnell/1035690772 Brad O'Donnell

    CM-LIFE IS TOO CONSERVATIVE WHY AREN'T THERE ANY PROGRESSIVE oh, I see!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-ODonnell/1035690772 Brad O'Donnell

    “A person's wage is simply the price for their labor charged to the employer.”

    That isn't simple, that is simplistic. When all a person has to sell is their labor, their wage isn't “simply” their labor's worth in a competitive market, it is their only means to live a life appropriate to an American.

    Supply and demand and price floors aside, a human being is not a Big Mac.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-ODonnell/1035690772 Brad O'Donnell

    1. I am only marginally a journalist, as I am an editorial columnist. I am not bound to unbiased codes of ethics.

    2. If you want people to stop calling Tea Party Republicans nuts, maybe Tea Party Republicans should stop being nuts.

  • http://twitter.com/cactusghost Matt Hanger

    What does it matter if more jobs are created when those same people will suddenly need to work two or three more jobs just to make due? We already have large populations in urban areas working two or three jobs at minimum wage just to survive.

    Furthering the wage gap like that certainly will not “trickle down” to reduce the prices of goods and services enough to make them more affordable to these people, especially when the lower end of the market is the only controlled/regulated end. And when corporate efficiency is such a large factor for so many corporations today, it seems naive to assume that such action would lead to substantial job creation within the low-level, non innovative service sector that nearly all minimum wage jobs reside in. At least, not without a reduction in hourly work as well.

  • Jamie

    So you're in favor of fewer jobs at higher wages than more jobs at lower wages? And your reason is because at lower wage rates people would have to work longer to make ends meet. So in other words, you would rather have a situation where *some* people have the opportunity to make ends meet with *less* work while others have *no* opportunity to make ends meet. And why is this so appealing to you?

    Why not promote policies that actually raise wages for the greatest number of people instead of policies that reduce jobs? The only way to raise wages for the greatest number of workers is to increase the capital invested per worker, resulting in greater efficiency in production. No government program or regulation can take the place of this.

  • http://twitter.com/cactusghost Matt Hanger

    I don't think you're taking into account that the majority of minimum wage jobs are in the service sector, where there is essentially a ceiling for how many workers a company can make use of. Just because you decrease wages here doesn't mean new jobs will be created if they aren't necessary. The areas that would see job growth are the areas of skillful labor and innovation, which aren't subject to price controls here. If there was job creation, it would most likely result in lower hours for other workers.

    Beyond that, because we're only playing with the very bottom of the economy, the cost of goods and services won't really be changing as a result of this. Therefore, these people already working will suddenly have less wage to survive on, and at that point may as well be poor. To resolve this, they will need to take on more jobs, so if new jobs are created, many of them will just be taken by the same people. Finally, it's interesting to note that fast food and convenience stores are very popular with the urban poor and teenagers on minimum wage. If the wages of these people were reduced drastically, they would have less to put back into the convenience stores and fast food places that benefit from people of their pay grade. Thus, these outlets may actually be hurt and have to downsize.

  • Michmediaperson

    Brad, a few comments about your column and then the thing that could sink the GOP, from a Limbaugh-Hannity, Tea Party Republican.

    First, Joe Miller. You didn’t give the whole story. Joe Miller wants the state to decide their own minimum wage, not the federal government because it’s unconstitutional. He does have a point that it violates the 10th Amendment. So, Miller wants Lansing to decide minimum wage for Michigan, not the Federal Government. So, what’s wrong with that? It would be constitutional and follow the wishes of the Founding Fathers. So, you’re scaring people without all the facts.

    Next point about Rand Paul and Civil Rights. Let’s review the Democratic Party’s view of Civil Rights. Let’s review civil rights history.
    Thomas Jefferson, father of the Democratic Party, was a slaveowner!!!!! Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Republican Party was anti-slavery!!!!! The Democrats were always for slavery which led to the Civil War. Even, after the Civil War, Democrats had the Jim Crow Law for 100 years!!!! Franklin Delano Roosevelt, darling of the liberal Democrats believed in segragation for the armed forces. He also sent back to Mexico legal Mexican-Americans. He also imprisoned Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II and took their property and items they owned. Al Gore’s father, then Senator Gore, along with many Democrats tried to defeat the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s a shame the Democrats would elect a V-P and a presidential nominee whose father was a segregationist. Jack and Bobby Kennedy in the early 1960′s had the FBI wiretap Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. How disgusting! wiretapping a good man like Dr. King. But, that’s your Democrats! Your party also had the long-standing US Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd, from West Virginia (who recently died) and was a member emeritus of the Ku Klux Klan. Even though he was a KKK alumn and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democrats including Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin had no problem electing him Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Senate Pro Tem. A KKK alum. Bill Clinton spoke at his funeral and couldn’t blame him for being a former KKK member. And, even this week, Illinois Democrats are breaking the voting rights of our military by not getting them their election ballots in time. It’s on the Drudge Report tonight. How sad that the Democrat Party has no respect for the voting rights of our young men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. Democrats are doing this because the most military soldiers in huge numbers vote Republican.
    And, you’re talking about Rand Paul whose comments were taken out of context by a hack network like MSNBC which has about 100 viewers.

    Sharron Angle. What you failed to mention that on October 3, the liberal Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest circulated daily newspaper in the state of Nevada, endorsed her for US Senate over Harry Reid. Your brothers and sisters in the Nevada journalism world who know the liberal Reid the best said vote Angle, vote Tea Party!!! Angle is common people, not an elitist like Reid. She has come out of nowhere and as of today, the Rasmussen Report has her 1 point ahead of Reid. She raised a near-record 14 million dollars in the last quarter. Contributions are coming in from all 50 states who want Reid retired. Now, again, her comments were taken out of context from the liberal media. Go to YouTube and type in, “Harry Reid Gaffes.” You can watch all the kooky, wild goofy things Harry Reid has said over the years, right from his mouth. Or google, it.

    Then, there is Christine O’Donnell. Her opponent has written favorably about Marxist. You forgot to mention it.

    Why should young people nationwide want these four outstanding individuals in the US Senate? They’ll cut spending so the Obama-Reid-Pelosi deficit quits expanding. You young people will be stuck with the bill over the next many decades. You will have to pick up the credit card tab the Liberals, socialists and Marxists from the Democratic Party are spending.

    Brad, if the polls are correct, the Republicans will easily take back the US House of Representatives and may even take back the Senate. We’re going to have a big victory on election day. And, we’re ready to control nearly two-thirds of the governorships including big GOP victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and many others.

    Obamaism, liberalism, socialism, marxism just isn’t popular amongst the Left and Independents like it was two years ago.

    Now, what could sink the Republicans. Here it is:

    Once they get elected, they better get to work to cut taxes, cut spending and balance the federal budget, send the illegals home to their native country (which will cut the drugs coming into this country and open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans), etc. If they don’t do this, we’ll vote them out in 2012 and look for a third party to emerge of Tea Party and conservatives. In Michigan, Rick Snyder better not even think of raising taxes or he’s a one-termer. He needs to cut expenses, state and university employees, cut pay, benefits, retirement programs, combine departments, etc. If the Republicans don’t do all these things, you’ll see us leaving these candidates faster than CMU football fans were leaving Kelly-Shorts during the Ball State debacle.

    Our dream of blocking every idea Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats might have is fading quick? You’re a dreamer. If you think that, then you think CMU will beat Ohio State in this year’s National Championship game. Come election morning, Americans will wake-up to the biggest Republican victory in history. Even, bigger than 1980 when we elected the greatest president since Lincoln, the honorable Ronald Wilson Reagan. And, in 1994, when we elected Newt Gingerich Speaker and threw out the radical Democrats.

    I can’t wait to vote! Dingell, Gary Peters, and a couple other Democrat House seats statewide may go GOP. Bernaro will remain in his Mayor’s chair. Election night is going to be fun.

  • Holly

    Just so you know, Fascism is on the extreme right of the political spectrum while the Democratic party is towards the left of the spectrum. Basically, you calling Democrats Fascists is extremely incorrect.
    Also, not all of the staff members of CM Life are journalism majors. And the majority of the columnists in the past few years have had a conservative viewpoint, so Brad O’Donnell’s article is actually in the minority.

  • student

    Brad O' Donnell you are a joke!

  • http://twitter.com/JEdinborough Joshua Edinborough

    It's very easy to make a baseless claim when your identity is protected. “student,” if that's what your name really is, you have much to learn about disagreement. At the very least, you should try to make a well thought out argument like Jamie did in the space below. Though I think she is wrong, at least it is convincing and reasoned.

    Now, on to my take. I wouldn't imagine you would need to be on a particular side of the political spectrum to be able to observe the lunacy that is taking place within American politics. It's perfectly fine to have the opinions that individuals like Christine O'Donnell, Angle, and Rand Paul have…but these are individuals that are vying for offices that affect public policy. It's quite scary. Consider Rand Paul. He tries to create this nuanced position on Civil Rights by saying “I abhor racism, I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anyone from your restaurant–but, at the same time I do believe in private ownership.” If you dissect his comment here, he says some important things. First, he believes in the concept of “private ownership.” That's good, we can all agree on that…we own the stuff we pay for… OK. Second, he says racism is a bad business decision–not because racism is bad, but because it will limit your customer base. And lastly, even though it is the first thing that he said (I'm addressing this last because it was merely a qualifier to his following statements) that he abhors racism. I have a hard time with that because he follows it up by saying that if you want to be a racist running a business, you should be allowed to be a racist in the manner you run that business (i.e. “whites only” signs and other such paraphernalia). I don't care what political school of thought you're from, but perhaps you should consider editing your comment “Brad O'Donnell you are a joke!” to “Rand Paul you are a joke!” and then come up with some real criticism of the editorial.

  • Jamie

    “…Just because you decrease wages here doesn't mean new jobs will be created if they aren't necessary.”

    What I am arguing for is basic Economic theory. Fortunately, however, we do not have to just theorize about it. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics and compare the rise in minimum wage with teenage unemployment, especially among black teens,

    http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e201310f684012970c-pi

    Also, I am not so sure that current minimum wage jobs would be drastically lower than current levels. It's impossible to know where they would be in an unhampered market but one thing is sure; every good business owner knows that the adage “you get what you pay for” applies equally to the employees he hires as it does to the TV he purchases at Best Buy. There is a certain minimum one has to pay to get good, reliable help.

    So I hold to my original thesis; it is better to employ more workers at lower wages than fewer at higher wages. Those holding jobs may have to work more hours but it is still preferable to unemployment.

  • Joe M.

    Jamie, if I can run a business employing four people at minimum wage, why would I need to hire more people if the minimum wage were abolished? I would simply pocket the difference in the wage drop, rather than hire someone else at a lower price. Companies that outsource aren't hiring more people in countries where labor is cheaper, or at least not an amount commensurate with the number of jobs moved. That's why they move them to where labor is cheaper, so they're not spending the same amount on wages.

  • Timbankful

    I am redefining Fascism. Hitler was a socialist-most of the democrats are socialists-98% of all journalists are supporters of the demon-crat party, therefore they are socialists. Therefore democrats are fascists. Don't like my abuse of definitions? To bad I am a self-proclaimed Journalist! And I determine truth and meaning!

  • Fiste1ja

    “I would simply pocket the difference in the wage drop, rather than hire someone else at a lower price.”

    Then you wouldn't be a good entrepreneur! Less business expenses can be transferred to lower costs of products, resulting in more patronage of customers. More patronage results in expansion of business, resulting in more employees. Expansion of business results in more money for you, the businessman! This is the fallacy: less business costs are just pocketed and not invested. Not necessarily true!

  • Michmediaperson

    By the way, for all of you concerned about wages, it's the ILLEGALS who are driving down wages. Get them out of the country, close the border and you'll see wages rise. Employers know they can hire illegals cheap.

    The Republicans want the border closed and the illegals gone but Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Levin, Stabenow, Dingell, Peters and the Democrat Party clan say NO!

    Quit worrying about Joe Miller and send the illegals home!

  • Senatorjoe

    This is a theoretical pipe dream and the problem with economic theory. You know what economic measure is higher than it's ever been? Productivity! If I can get by with three workers being paid ten bucks, why would I hire more people? I suppose that I could hire workers even cheaper and lower my prices, but I think if everyone did that, there wouldn't be a high enough wage base to allow workers to buy the cheaper goods!

    Since the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on, I'm not sure how a lower wage would be any better for the people who buy everything in this country.

  • What are you talking about

    How is it theoretical?

    Your statement that “If I can get by with three workers being paid ten bucks, why would I hire more people?” shows you really have no concept of business. You would hire more people in order to accommodate additional business.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “….austrianeconomists….”

    That says it all, right there: “free market” crackpots on the unscientific lunatic fringe of economics.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “You would hire more people in order to accommodate additional business.”

    That presumes there's additional demand to profitably accommodate, which is frequently not the case. It seems that your “concept of business” is incomplete.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “Even, bigger than 1980 when we elected the greatest president since Lincoln, the honorable Ronald Wilson Reagan.”
    The guy who granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants? The guy who more than doubled the national debt to nearly $3 trillion? The guy who consulted an astrologer in making important decisions? The only divorced president of this country? The guy who was either a criminal or thoroughly incompetent in regards to the Iran-Contra affair? The guy who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? The guy who claimed that Confederate President Jefferson Davis was “a hero of mine”?
    Doesn't seem to match up too well to your alleged ideology, does he?

    “And, in 1994, when we elected Newt Gingerich Speaker and threw out the radical Democrats.”
    Which was followed by 2 years of worthlessness and resounding defeat in the elections of 1996.

    “these four outstanding individuals”
    They stand out only in their hypocrisy and incompetence. There is not a one among them who is fit for office.

    In case you haven't noticed, the “Tea Party” is the bigoted idiot wing of the Republican party. They have no hope of standing on their own. If they become toxic to the goals of News Corporation, they'll be marginalized and rendered irrelevant.

    You've also failed to notice that Obama is, in actual practice, a conservative.

    Also, perhaps you've heard of Strom Thurmond. He holds the record for the longest filibuster by a single senator; it was in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He switched from Democrat to Republican after it passed, as eventually did many other bigots who continue to oppose civil rights.

  • chipskeptic

    Ah, and one of the local Socialists appears. Having been in local politics for years as both a Democrat and a Green Party candidate and as a fervent believer in “Social Justice” (income redistribution), Mr Moreno is a certifiable lefty in Isabella politics. If he really believes that anything in this column was remotely a truthful characterization, then he should NEVER be elected to ANYTHING….

    Brad's viewpoint is ludicrous.

    Minimum wage should NOT exist. The government should NOT be MANDATING wages in any way. That is an economic decision between employee and employer. Minimum wage simply restricts employment. The real idiot argument is that a person can't raise a family on minimum wage. Well, hell no. You aren't supposed to. If you have a family you should have enough education and experience to be far above minimum wage. If you do not then YOU have done something wrong, not your employer, not society, YOU.

    If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em…..

  • Jamie

    “If I can get by with three workers being paid ten bucks, why would I hire more people?”

    What I am saying is that as minimum wages go up, especially large increases as in the last three years, employers lay off workers. It especially effects the poorest individuals who have the least education and few job skills. See again the stats,

    http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e201310f684012970c-pi

    Black teen unemployment has skyrocketed. These are the workers that effectually get priced out of job market by the Feds. There is your beloved policy at work.

  • What are you talking about

    No, it's not. Joe was the one wondering why a business would hire more people.

    Here's a cookie and some crayons, the kids play room is down the hall.

  • Jamie

    You mean the “lunatic fringe” like Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize winner, right? Or perhaps you mean Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises who predicted the Great Depression two years prior while American economist Irving Fisher stated two weeks before the crash that the United States had entered a permanent state of prosperity? You mean those Austrian economists, correct?

    You didn't answer the point of the post. You resorted to name calling and emotionalism. Ironic from someone who is pointing the finger at others as being unscientific.

    If you believe you can convince me from reason and evidence, like a *good* scientist does, that wages are not subject to the same economic laws or principals as any other price for goods and services, then by all means, give it a shot.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    Yes. Just because they were right that socialism (of the USSR style, not the “Obama is a socialist” nonsense) sucks in the real world, it doesn't mean that a complete absence of regulation doesn't also suck. Perfect competition does not exist, and can not exist, on a scale of any relevance. Anyone who looks at the events of recent years and thinks “too much regulation is the root problem” is an idiot.

    Also, your attack on minimum wage increases is thoroughly dishonest. The graph you cite ( http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e201310f684012970c-pi ) happens to overlap with the economic implosion. You should notice that the largest percentage increase in minimum wage on that graph shows no significant impact on teen unemployment whatsoever. When the financial meltdown hits (which was in large part caused by lax regulation), THEN unemployment starts rising.

  • Jamie

    In reply to your comment that, “anyone who looks at the events of recent years and thinks 'too much regulation is the root problem' is an idiot”, I would simply say that you may do well to read Hayek on the business cycle. He received a Nobel Prize for his work on this after all. Or you can follow the crowd and just ignore him.

    The definition of perfect competition is arbitrary. Austrians care more about the context or environment of production over the exact number of producers. Competition exists where free entry exists, regardless of the number of producers.

    Regarding your comment on the graph, you fail to take into account that in a free market, absent of minimum wages or union laws, wages will *fall* in a recession/depression. So the largest percentage increase in *real* wages occurs later than you indicate and coincides with the greatest unemployment.

    Anyway, I'm pretty much done and bored so I'll give you the last word…

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “Regarding your comment on the graph, you fail to take into account that in a free market, absent of minimum wages or union laws, wages will *fall* in a recession/depression. So the largest percentage increase in *real* wages occurs later than you indicate and coincides with the greatest unemployment.”
    The existence of minimum wage laws means it's not a free market. Attacking my commentary on your usage of that graph with a line of reasoning based on a free market that obviously doesn't exist is moronic.

    If you can't avoid screwing up on something so simple, what makes you think your other ideas aren't seriously flawed? Since you've so graciously offered me the last word, I'll use it to answer my rhetorical question: Incompetence.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    He was wondering why a business would hire more people when there's no need for additional people: “If I can get by with three workers being paid ten bucks, why would I hire more people?”

    Answer: It wouldn't, unless there's actually room for growth in the business.

    Do try to keep up.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    Have you ever read Jonathan Swift's “A Modest Proposal”? It seems to be right up your alley, if you're willing to overlook that it's satire.

  • Jamie

    I can't let your post go without comment. I thought you may have a little more class getting the last word but I can see I over estimated you.

    “…a line of reasoning based on a free market that obviously doesn't exist is moronic.”

    Wow, are you this dull? I clearly said that “in a free market…wages will fall in a recession”. And I made it clear that we do not have a free market by writing “absent of minimum wages or union laws”. Hello! Anyone there???

    I'll spell it out more clearly since my post obviously went right over your head. What I am arguing is that the greatest increase in wages cannot be calculated by merely looking at the greatest percentage of increase, as you did. Rather, the greatest increase should be understood to take place during the greatest disparity between the coerced minimum wage and what it would have been in an unhampered market. Since wages gradually fall in a free market during recessions (where no minimum wage or union laws exist – got it this time?), it stands to reason that the greatest increase in wages would be later in the graph, not earlier. This coincides with the highest unemployment.

    It is a well established fact that recessions impact higher factors of production more than the retail and service industry. Therefore, it is ridiculous to hold the current recession responsible for nearly 30% unemployment among teens and 50% unemployment among black teens. The graph is evidence that employers are not hiring those that they perceive to have the least amount of education and/or skills.

  • What are you talking about

    You must like sticking your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalallalala”, don't you?

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “I thought you may have a little more class getting the last word but I can see I over estimated you. “
    As if this were classy: “Anyway, I'm pretty much done and bored so I'll give you the last word…”

    “
    Wow, are you this dull? I clearly said that “in a free market…wages will fall in a recession”. And I made it clear that we do not have a free market by writing “absent of minimum wages or union laws”. Hello! Anyone there???
    “
    I had thought that you were trying to refute my assertion that you were being dishonest in citing that graph in your attack on minimum wage increases: “compare the rise in minimum wage with teenage unemployment, especially among black teens”

    If that wasn't meant to be a refutation, why are you striking out in a completely different direction? Are you conceding that you were indeed dishonest in your usage of that graph?

    “The graph is evidence that employers are not hiring those that they perceive to have the least amount of education and/or skills.”
    Which has absolutely nothing to do with your attack on minimum wage increases.

    The Austrian School is rife with lunacy:
    “In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. … Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.”
    Source: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

    Everybody? What about the children nobody wants?

    “The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”
    Source: ibid.

    That's superior humanism?

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    (Note to moderator: I'm not actually accusing him of being “a rapist, a murderer and a thief.”)

    Following your same style of idiot-logic, substituting Saddam Hussein in place of Hitler (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Republican_Guard in place of the Nazi party) one could reach the conclusion that you're a rapist, a murderer and a thief. Sounds dumb, doesn't it? So do you.

    That you're nuts isn't an unreasonable conclusion to draw from many of your posts.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “Which was followed by 2 years of worthlessness and resounding defeat in the elections of 1996.”
    Fact checking myself, my recollection of 1996 was inaccurate (but not the 2 years of worthlessness.) The Republicans managed to hold their majorities, though they lost ground in the House. Clinton did stomp all over Dole, however.

    Bear in mind that the Republicans had 4 years of control of the Senate, House and Presidency this decade (roughly 2003-2006.) The Democrats have yet to reach 2 years, and they inherited the mess created primarily by the Republicans.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “First, Joe Miller. You didn't give the whole story.”
    Which, among other things, now appears to include a tax scam: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/what_readers_say_about_joe_miller_hiding_his_past

  • Jamie

    “As if this were classy: 'Anyway, I'm pretty much done and bored so I'll give you the last word…'”

    You set the tone of the debate.

    “I had thought that you were trying to refute my assertion that you were being dishonest in citing that graph…”

    I was answering your statement that, “You should notice that the largest percentage increase in minimum wage on that graph shows no significant impact on teen unemployment whatsoever.” Now go back and read my statement.

    “The Austrian School is rife with lunacy:”

    First, why are you bringing up Rothbard?? I could care less what Rothbard said about these things. This is clearly a Red herring. Rothbard was an anarchist, which does not represent the mainstream of Austrian economists, historic Austrian economics, nor my views. The Mises Institute, from which you quote, is made up primarily, it seems, of anarchists. This deviates from Mises despite the name of the organization. Rothbard is forced by his position to defend crazy ideas because no government would exist in his ideal world to curb such things. Mises, on the other hand, was an old liberal who saw great benefit in government. In case you do not believe me…

    “With human nature as it is, the state is a necessary and indispensable institution. The state is, if properly administered, the foundation of society, of human cooperation and civilization. It is the most beneficial and most useful instrument in the endeavors of man to promote human happiness and welfare.” (“Omnipotent Government: The rise of total state and total war” p. 47)

    Austrian economic theory is a particular school of thought but it historically never advocated the things that you quote from Rothbard. A minority who call themselves Austrian economists are anarchists but others, like Hayek, saw value in some regulation. Others are libertarians others just consider themselves old liberals. Most are natural rights proponents and others are not (Mises being one of them). It is not a monolithic movement. So you are guilty of the straw man fallacy and are careless in your accusations.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “I was answering your statement that, “You should notice that the largest percentage increase in minimum wage on that graph shows no significant impact on teen unemployment whatsoever.” Now go back and read my statement.”
    You were dishonest in your usage of that graph in attacks on minimum wage increases. Your response did nothing to counter that. Pardon me for mistaking it as an idiotic defense rather than recognizing it as a “red herring” at the time.

    “First, why are you bringing up Rothbard??”
    He was an Austrian economist, who studied under Ludwig von Mises.

    “The Mises Institute, from which you quote, is made up primarily, it seems, of anarchists.”
    The Mises Institute was chaired by Ludwig's widow until her death. Hayek was also involved with it as well. Like it or not, it's chock full of Austrian economists.

  • Jamie

    “You were dishonest in your usage of that graph in attacks on minimum wage increases. Your response did nothing to counter that. Pardon me for mistaking it as an idiotic defense rather than recognizing it as a “red herring” at the time.”

    It wasn't dishonest at all. My responses are valid. You haven't responded to them nor apparently comprehended them. Your labeling them as dishonest and idiotic doesn't make them so. You are guilty of the “Appeal to Ridicule” fallacy (your favorite fallacy, actually!).

    “Like it or not, it's chock full of Austrian economists.”

    Of course it is. I wouldn't say Rothbard isn't an Austrian economist, despite his anarchism. An Austrian economist is someone who accepts certain principles of economic thought. I don't define Austrian economics in terms of what Rothbard said. It goes back much further than Rothbard beginning with Menger.

    What really is your point in bringing this up? It seems to go like this;

    Rothbard is an Austrian economist

    Rothbard said some luny things

    Therefore, Austrian economics is luny

    Austrian economics is luny

    Jamie accepts Austrian economics

    Therefore, Jamie's views are luny and to be rejected

    Both are great examples of “Guilt by Association” fallacy. Perhaps a basic logic class or textbook would be of help!

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “It wasn't dishonest at all.”
    Yes, it was.

    “My responses are valid.”
    None of them were relevant.

    “What I am saying is that as minimum wages go up, especially large increases as in the last three years, employers lay off workers. It especially effects the poorest individuals who have the least education and few job skills. See again the stats,

    http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e201310f684012970c-pi“

    That graph does not support your assertion. It wasn't minimum wage increases that drove teen unemployment up, it was the recession. Compare the graph you chose with the data here (seasonally adjusted): http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
    Or here (not seasonally adjusted): http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en

    “It is a well established fact that recessions impact higher factors of production more than the retail and service industry.”
    When those jobs are lost, those now unemployed become much more available to other employers.

    “The graph is evidence that employers are not hiring those that they perceive to have the least amount of education and/or skills.”
    Employers would generally avoid those workers, given the choice. The recession gave employers greater choice. This has nothing to do with raises in minimum wage.

    “Since wages gradually fall in a free market during recessions (where no minimum wage or union laws exist – got it this time?), it stands to reason that the greatest increase in wages would be later in the graph, not earlier. This coincides with the highest unemployment.”
    The “free market” is an idea, not a reality. You're making an assertion with no basis in fact. Even if your assertion and conclusion were both factual, it doesn't help your cause. There's no significant sustained increase in teen unemployment with the first increase, until well into the recession. Overall unemployment doubled, at its peak, during the recession. Teens represent less than 5% of the labor force, they're not the ones who drove the doubling of the overall unemployment rate. The unemployment of more desirable workers gave teens additional competition, which drove up teen unemployment. Around the time of the third (and, by your dubious assertion and conclusion, effectively the largest) increase, the upward trend of teen unemployment is not significantly altered. It's the recession, not the minimum wage increases, that drove teen unemployment up.

    If the graph you supplied reflected conditions where there was neither a recession nor any other confounding factor, then it would legitimately suggest that the first increase was irrelevant and that the second two increases were detrimental. However, it does NOT reflect such conditions.

    Your usage of the graph was dishonest. (And I suspect it was also used dishonestly in its original context, as well.) It doesn't include any information, nor did you, that another more significant factor was involved.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “Regarding your comment on the graph, you fail to take into account that in a free market, absent of minimum wages or union laws, wages will *fall* in a recession/depression. So the largest percentage increase in *real* wages occurs later than you indicate and coincides with the greatest unemployment.”
    +
    “I'll spell it out more clearly since my post obviously went right over your head. What I am arguing is that the greatest increase in wages cannot be calculated by merely looking at the greatest percentage of increase, as you did. Rather, the greatest increase should be understood to take place during the greatest disparity between the coerced minimum wage and what it would have been in an unhampered market. Since wages gradually fall in a free market during recessions (where no minimum wage or union laws exist – got it this time?), it stands to reason that the greatest increase in wages would be later in the graph, not earlier. This coincides with the highest unemployment.”

    Actually, my original assessment was on the mark: “The existence of minimum wage laws means it's not a free market. Attacking my commentary on your usage of that graph with a line of reasoning based on a free market that obviously doesn't exist is moronic.”

    You were taking what allegedly happens in the purely imaginary free market and applying it to the real world, where completely contradictory conditions (minimum wage laws) exist. That's moronic.

    To illustrate:

    “Since wages gradually fall in a free market during recessions” -> Operating in imagination. -> 'Since in fantasy land you have to stay in water to keep alive'

    “(where no minimum wage or union laws exist – got it this time?),” -> Reinforcing that it's not operating in reality. -> '(where you have gills instead of lungs)'

    “it stands to reason that the greatest increase in wages would be later in the graph, not earlier.” -> Applying the imaginary to reality. -> 'it stands to reason that you ought to go jump in a lake or some other body of water to keep from dying here in the real world.'

    Here in reality, the first increase was the greatest percentage increase and you don't need to jump in a lake to stay alive.

  • Jamie

    “You were taking what allegedly happens in the purely imaginary free market and applying it to the real world, where completely contradictory conditions (minimum wage laws) exist. That's moronic.”

    If you are correct, then nobody would be able make an argument for interventionism because no one would be able to demonstrate that interventionism is superior to the free market. So you undermine your own position.

  • Jamie

    “The unemployment of more desirable workers gave teens additional competition, which drove up teen unemployment.”

    And this is the exactly the point!!! And this is the main flaw in your theory (yes, you are theorizing as much as me). The additional workers competing with teens would necessarily being DOWN wages if they were not forced UP by the government. It isn't some “purely imaginary free market” like the land of Cockaigne. It is deduced from well established, basic economics laws such as supply and demand. This is why some jobs pay more and some pay less than others. If you have a large number of workers who are qualified to do a job, the competition between the workers for open positions results in laborers being willing to work for less. Jobs that are more specialized result in fewer qualified workers which drives wages up.

  • Jamie

    If I cannot compare what would be in free market capitalism to the state of affairs in existence today then neither can a person argue for interventionism over and against free market capitalism because there would be no means to compare the two and argue for the advantages of interventionism.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    Your flight of fantasy involved you claiming that the recorded facts in the real world are actually different because of your free market speculation. That's what's moronic.

    Still, it doesn't matter. The first increase was the greatest percentage increase, regardless. It's basic math:
    (100%*$.7/$5.15) > (100%*$.7/$5.85) > (100%*$.7/$6.55)

    Arguing otherwise is an exercise in mathematical ignorance.
    (Note that inflation is irrelevant, as it would appear in both the numerator and denominator, thereby canceling out.)

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    The more desirable workers are still going to be preferred by employers; scrapping minimum wage laws doesn't change that. There wasn't a minimum wage law for the majority of the Great Depression, yet unemployment was higher then than now.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    “If I cannot compare what would be in free market capitalism to the state of affairs in existence today”

    That wasn't what you were doing, which was: deflecting from your dishonest use of that graph – by claiming that recorded facts in reality are different – as a consequence of conditions you freely acknowledge did not exist – in a mathematically impossible fashion.

    And now you're trying to deflect from that.