6 studies that show everything Republicans believe is wrong

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... g-20140423

Not a big fan of rolling stone. There quite biased in my experience.

Rolling Stone did not write the articles, The studies are valid. Rolling Stone is just the messenger. They cover stories about music, and culture too. All music, not just rock n roll. Nothing biased about that.

Republicans only believe 6 things?

Something smells like a Yahoo article name-scam here where they try to inflate web traffic with BS and pretend controversy. To click it would be to edify their behavior.

If this link is really that damning to all people who consider themselves conservative you could probably just post the studies, unless it's a bunch of music trivia that Republicans supposedly wouldn't know.

I know those six things the Republicans believe in is wrong, you know it's wrong, but millions of people around the country march in lock step with the Republicans. Or at least, they allow themselves to believe that the left are evil because of wedge issues like gay marriage or abortion, and end up voting against their own interests.

I will point out that #1 is clearly wrong ...

1. The Minimum Wage Doesn't Kill Jobs - of course it does. That is why we have outsourcing to China and India, so we can pay people wages lower than the minimum wage. If people in the U.S. actually made lower wages than people in India and China, then those jobs would not be killed.

Garment Workers in Cambodia make $3 per day / $80 per month
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth ... 38311.html

I get all my economics from Rolling Stone, my history from Car Craft, and my astrophysics from Women's Wear Daily. Ya gotta live it up a little.

This.

No one can live on $80 a month here on their own except if you're ok with being homeless, and try keeping a job under those conditions.
Moreover, outsourcing occurred because of the lowering of tariffs on imported goods, something once known as 'patriotism', which the corporate right branded 'protectionism' in the 80s and railed against, so much so that in order to get them to balance the budget, get rid of the deficits they created, and create a surplus to start paying down the massive debts they ran up, Clinton conceeded to signing so-called 'free-trade agreements which lowered the imprt tariffs to next to nothing, and other legislation which actually gave (still gives, I'm pretty sure) tax incentives to American companies for outsourcing.

Also, there's never be a causal relationship shown between raising or in this case having the minimum wage, job loses & unemployment in general, or outsourcing in particular.
Cite a study published in a reputable, neutral, peer reviewed journal of economics, which proves such a relationship exists.
Go ahead, we'll wait.... ....forever...

Thanks for playing.

In Mexico ... "workers at the Aluminum Company of America's Ciudad Acuna plant earn between $21.44 and $24.60 per week". (~$80-100/month)
source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop

If workers can work for $80-100 per month in Mexico, which is connected to the U.S, then why can't such poverty happen in the United States ?




It would appear to also be obvious that if workers were legally allowed to make "sweatshop wages", then "sweatshop jobs" could be brought back into the United States.

There is a huge illegal population that comes from Mexico, and the U.S. subsidizes poor workers with the "EIC" earned income credit, and welfare programs. So, someone making $80/month may really be making $2000/month with government welfare/free housing/free ACA health care/free school for children.

I am sure some economist has figured this out.

So, in other words, you're advocating that the government subsidize businesses paying people what would essentially be, in this country, literal slave wages with the money of taxpayers?
Basically, that the taxpayers should pay for their employees lives almost entirely (even food stamps are over $80/month. You can't barely eat on that, let alone stave off malnutrition), so that the companies can make money on nearly free labor at the expense of the taxpaying public!?
Are you crazy, ignorant, or just stupid?
Seriously, pick one, because such a bizzare suggestion could only possibly come from one of those.

Also, that figure is the most ridiculous hyperbole.
2k/month? Ha!
EIC only applies if you make enough steadily enough to actually have withholding taken out of.
Pretty sure $80/month doesn't rise to that level, and it would just mean that those people would have part of that taken out and then get it back.
You don't get any more than you pay in, the EIC just lets people with extremely low incomes to get mor of their earned money back, that's all.
TANF lasts for 2 years, MAX for your LIFETIME, that's what 'welfare' is today, and doesn't give nearly that much.
Most people on it are off it in under 6 months.
I have a friend who was, she probably makes more than you do now, pays taxes and is quite successful, all thanks to TANF making sure that she didn't end up homeless & destitute when she fell on hard times shortly after having her first child a few years back.
Free housing? That's a joke.
Subsidized housing, maybe, after about 5-10 years on a waiting list at this point, if you're lucky enough to get on one, most programs haven't accepted new applilcants for years.
AMA? Not in the sweatshop (red) states, where $960/year is likely over the limit for medicaid & their governers decided they'd rather their citizens quite literally die from lack of adequate medicine & medical care than receive it free from the Federal Government.

Get a clue, learn some facts, and stop talking about things which you clearly have less than zero knowledge of, meaning you're actually more wrong than you are right about what you think you know.
...Perhaps if you turned off FauxNoose & stared at the wall for a few months you'd be better informed?

I am not advocating anything. I am telling you how the present economics function now.



This is a chief complaint towards Walmarts that employees have to be subsidized with welfare.

Quoted: "They receive $2.66 billion in government help each year (including $1 billion in healthcare assistance). That works out to about $5,815 per worker. And about $420,000 per store".

source, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... 66850.html



You are unable to have a discussion without insults?

1. Indeed, the people paying taxes are subsidizing the ridiculously low wages paid to their workers by cash-rich extremely profitable comanies like Walmart, essentially subsidizing their obscenely high profit margins, which is a great reason to raise the minimum wage to a living wage which would contribute to and not end up taking from the government.

2. No one is paying anyone anywhere near $80/month, even with the current low wages. Because, again, it's pretty much impossible to even survive on that little in this country, given the cost of food and living in general. The cost of living is lower elsewhere where wages are like that, but those are still pretty low wages that are barely allowing these people to get by even with a much lower cost of living.

3. What insult? I asked a question based on your hyperbolic, clearly illogical & completely untennable suggestion which you actually made and which suggested only three logical possibilities to me for you having made that statement without asserting or implying in any way that you didn't mean it or that it was a joke of some sort:
a. That you're clinically insane, or crazy, in colloquial terms
b. That you're actually (and likely willfully) ignorant enough of factual reality to believe that's a sane, logical suggestion
c. Or that you lack the intelligence to understand how insane, illogical, and ignorant your suggestion was, or stupid, in colloquial terms.

Now, you may perceive these conditions to be insulting, but my intent was merely to ascertain the reason you'd make a statement so obviously at odds with observable reality as lead me to conclude only three possible logical reasons you'd make such a statement without a tongue firmly & visibly in your cheek or a immediate retraction/renounciation.

So, would you care to share which of the three is to blame for you making such ridiculous suggestions & assertions?

and look at how many people fall into the trap of factionalism. while you bicker about irrelevant things bills like the NDAA get passed

It is possible you are confused. However, I don't know what you are confused about.

I originally asserted that raising the minimum wage causes jobs to be outsourced.

This things appear to be self-evident ...

- The number one reason companies tell the U.S. government that they are outsourcing is to lower labor costs.
- Jobs go to China and India to lower labor costs.
- As labor costs rise, then the jobs becomes more vulnerable to outsourcing.
- raising the minimum wage raises labor costs
- we can imagine raising the minimum wage substantially, say $100/hr would dramatically increase outsourcing, so there is a self-evident correlation

I cannot believe as you suggest that economists cannot figure this out.

I would image the first day in Economics 101 class, a student asks, "Professor, what happens to the outsourcing of jobs if the minimum wage is 1 billion dollars per hour?". And apparently according to your logic, the professor, should say, "We don't know. There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage affects outsourcing".

I believe everything I have stated in this thread is likely taught in a MBA class for business professionals. So they can go into companies and access labor costs, and determine if outsourcing makes sense. My mom works for a school distinct that just outsourced their mechanics. The mechanics who fix the buses were making $12-$20 / hr, and an "efficiency expert" determined that those labor costs could be lowered by outsourcing. This goes on all the time.

There is a cement company in my area that uses all illegal immigrants, and they have the lowest prices. It is likely that they pay these illegal immigrants less than minimum wage. I would speculate that in the U.S. this is a widespread phenomena. So, working less than minimum wage gets them money, and the jobs.