Romney - still focusing on blaming those moochers and minorities

[Rukentuts]

Here's what economists think:

According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[81]

A 1992 survey by published in the same journal revealed 79% of economists in agreement that a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.[82]

A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 economists surveyed by the American Economic Association, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.[83]

A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association. Whaples found that 37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.[84]

Another survey in 2007 conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center found that 73% of labor economists surveyed in the United States believed 150% of the then-current minimum wage would result in employment losses and 68% believed a mandated minimum wage would cause an increase in hiring of workers with greater skills. 31% felt that no hiring changes would result.[85]

[Shoridayo]

No, it is exactly how it goes. You really have to get away from your single business thinking. It's a huge market out there, and whereas it is absolutely true that every business is out to maximize their profits. The path to profit is determined by the market. The market is controlled by customer behavior.
Customer behavior is 180% opposite to the business goal. Customer wants to spend as less as possible.
Business knows that.
Why you think Walmart became the worlds largest retailer? Not from high prices. From undercutting the competition..

No, they're the world's largest retailer because they simply don't pay for their contracts they have with companies to sell their goods. Then when that company goes under, they buy that company out becoming the sole provider of that specific product and saying it's "wal-mart's brand" etc.
You should go watch the documentary on it.

[Rukentuts]

True that. If you're in it for profit alone, then Wal-Mart is an incredible role-model.

Not even profit, just efficiency and lack of overhead when it comes to getting their product where it needs to be.

[Purlina]

Unemployment is a much bigger contributor to poverty than minimum wage.

The real argument against minimum wage is outsourcing. But if we lower the minimum wage to match India and China who is going to make up the difference?

The taxpayer!

So the end result is pretty similar either way...

[veldrinal]

Lol, no, they aren't. When you increase minimum wage, the price of goods also increases. Whether that be food, electronics, medicine, whatever. Companies will obviously be wanting to get more money because "you can pay more". However, people on salary(paid by the year) don't get raises when minimum wage increases, so they simply have to pay more for goods without getting an increase in salary. So they have less money to actually contribute to the economy. It's a simple domino effect.

A perfect example of this being Australian game prices. Why do our games cost 80-100 while in the usa they cost 60-80? We have no extra tax on them. Our dollar is worth more. But our minimum wage is higher so they gaming companies can get away with it and still make tons of sales.

[Bakis]

From an outsiders perspective, Romney seems to want to blame everything entirely on mooching.
Failing economy? Damn moochers!
Weak job market? Damn moochers!
Lost the election? Damn moochers not voting for me!
Dead cancer-riddled puppy and crying at the lion king? Damn moochers making me feel emotions!

Add to that, roughly 23% of all US children living in poverty, 1 out of every 45 child in the US live on the street or in shelters.
Clearly all is well in one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
The above facts along with pro-life stance just mindboggles me, that there are millions of americans who want the peace of mind to ban abortion but happily accept the outcome will be poverty and homlessness for a large part of those children. Social safety nets = government involvement = bad.

Wellcome Dark Age mentality.

[Rukentuts]

The real argument against minimum wage is outsourcing. But if we lower the minimum wage to match India and China who is going to make up the difference?

The end result is pretty similar either way...

Read the post from where I quoted economists' opinions on the matter.

[Shoridayo]

A perfect example of this being Australian game prices. Why do our games cost 80-100 while in the usa they cost 60-80? We have no extra tax on them. Our dollar is worth more. But our minimum wage is higher so they gaming companies can get away with it and still make tons of sales.

Yup, but logic is hard.

[Rukentuts]

The real argument against minimum wage is outsourcing. But if we lower the minimum wage to match India and China who is going to make up the difference?

The taxpayer!

So the end result is pretty similar either way...

Actually, businesses pay unemployment premiums in the USA, not individuals.

[Seranthor]

News source

I've been pretty interested in following the post election rationalizations that have been occurring, but I didn't expect one straight from the horse's mouth. While it seems early to start looking at the 2014 election, the Republican Party had better decide soon if it's going to try to win with this tact or if they're going to change it up.

Romney may be blaming them, and that might be pathetic... but it seems pretty pathetic for you, me or anyone else to be worried about what the loser is crying about, yes? no? maybe?

[Shoridayo]

Not even profit, just efficiency and lack of overhead when it comes to getting their product where it needs to be.

True. I was just saying profit because that's what they're really in it for. As are all companies, obviously.


e: How did we get on the subject of the economy? Wasn't this about Romney being a sore loser? lol.

[Vyxn]

cant you see what is happening? cant you understand you cant keep taking more and more from the rich to give to the pool. eventually you drain the rich dry and we will all be poor
let me explain
you have Paul who makes 20k a year who works part time, and you have Peter who makes 100k a year working two jobs.

The liberal tells Paul that's not fair to you so if you vote for me i will take 10k from peter and give to you.

You vote for him and put him in office now Paul has 30k and Peter makes 90k.

Next year the liberal tells Paul look peter makes 90k and you make 30k that's not fair I will take 10k more from Peter if you vote for me again.

so Peter votes for the liberal again and now Paul make 40k and Peter makes 80k.

Same thing next year same promise from the liberal now Paul makes 50k and Peter makes 70k.

Again same thing next year now both peter and Paul make the same thing 60k.

The liberal says now this is fair everybody makes the same thing and we are all happy,

But Peter looks at Paul and says this isn't fair for me. I go out and work 80 hours a week and i get the same each year as Paul who only works 20 hour a week.

Peter says I'm not working 2 jobs anymore so I'm just going to get me a part time job just like Paul at 20k a year and be given 40k.

What is the liberal going to do he has to find 80k a year from some one else to be able to pay both Peter and Paul ?

He cant because everyone makes the same now. So he says sorry guys Ive got to cut back with what Ive promised to give to you each year

both Peter and Paul says no you are not and they both start a riot

You cant create wealth by dividing it

[Spectral]

Romney may be blaming them, and that might be pathetic... but it seems pretty pathetic for you, me or anyone else to be worried about what the loser is crying about, yes? no? maybe?

No, not really. That just seems like a cop out. I mean, using this line of thinking, I'd have to conclude that it's pretty pathetic for you to be worried about what I'm worried about as it pertains to what the loser is crying about, and so on. That's nonsense.

More to the point, I think it's interesting to see how Republicans are reacting to the loss, and what better place to start could there be than with Romney himself?

[xxf2dxx]

Add to that, roughly 23% of all US children living in poverty, 1 out of every 45 child in the US live on the street or in shelters.
Clearly all is well in one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
The above facts along with pro-life stance just mindboggles me, that there are millions of americans who want the peace of mind to ban abortion but happily accept the outcome will be poverty and homlessness for a large part of those children. Social safety nets = government involvement = bad.

Wellcome Dark Age mentality.

2012 and we're still telling people what they can and can't do to their bodies. The iconic "Land of the Free" is getting close to laughable at this point.

[Purlina]

Actually, businesses pay unemployment premiums in the USA, not individuals.

I was actually talking about welfare, since it's possible to make minimum wage and get government assistance at the same time.

[Rukentuts]

e: How did we get on the subject of the economy? Wasn't this about Romney being a sore loser? lol.

I dunno, I just logged in and read the last (most recent) page and responded from there.

---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 09:12 AM ----------

I was actually talking about welfare, since it's possible to make minimum wage and get government assistance at the same time.

And raising the minimum wage by $2 / hour will still have them fall below the poverty line anyway, and increase prices for all of us as well.

[smelltheglove]

id prefer some overhauling of the system. right now no matter what threshold is set companies lower hours to duck under them. employment isnt an asset if it a false number, if people cant actually live on the employment available without govt assistance. id rather have more people working full time and being able to get by and have a higher resulting unemployment. at least then we would have more realistic numbers to work with, and the true situation would be better able to be addressed. id also like to see rewards for hiring full time and in country, and penalties/removed breaks for outsourcing

[Wildtree]

No, they're the world's largest retailer because they simply don't pay for their contracts they have with companies to sell their goods. Then when that company goes under, they buy that company out becoming the sole provider of that specific product and saying it's "wal-mart's brand" etc.
You should go watch the documentary on it.

Well that's another ballgame and helps them to undercut others even more.
But the tendency is the same
They also underpay their employees and have horrendous job conditions.
But I am a strong believer in tackling that part of the issue to fix the poverty.
I am not saying it can be eliminated. But it can be lowered significantly.
I also know that Americans look down on Unions, and the way Unions work here in the US, I actually even understand that. But I also believe that the country would be in much better shape in regards of job relations, if Unions would have the same power like they do in Europe.
The big differences are, that anything Unions work out becomes part of the work laws, and there are no differences on wages for union workers and non Union workers. One wage, for that very job field, binding until the next round of contract negotiations.
it's for the unions we have a minimum of 6 weeks paid vacation. it's for the unions we have up to 13.5 month pay. it's for them we have as low as 35hr/week work.
it's for them that employers pay for the first 6 weeks in full, if you get sick, it's for them that healthcare is influenced with uninterrupted sick pay for up to 2 years by the health insurance, in case you are longer sick than the 6 weeks. That's just a few examples... Oh one more.. Hire and fire system doesn't work either.
Employees are very well protected from getting fired just like that.

[Shoridayo]

No, not really. That just seems like a cop out. I mean, using this line of thinking, I'd have to conclude that it's pretty pathetic for you to be worried about what I'm worried about as it pertains to what the loser is crying about, and so on. That's nonsense.

More to the point, I think it's interesting to see how Republicans are reacting to the loss, and what better place to start could there be than with Romney himself?

I would agree with this.

But is it not entertaining enough that so many states somehow think they're going to secede from the US?

[Rukentuts]

I just find it ironic that Romney kept trying to distance himself from the 47% video, just to reaffirm it all in the end.