Governor 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 percent 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, what is more important, as a potential president of the United States.
Advertisement
Mitt 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 percent 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 percent 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 ten 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 high-school dropout in 1946, was as a lowly messenger delivering telegrams. But my starting pay was more than 50 percent above the level specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum-wage law had lagged so far behind inflation — and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum-wage level over the years.
It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.
This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.
Boy Mr. Sowell you suddenly have become a religious bigot like so many others from the right and the left. Too bad. That's the only thing you really have against Romney - his choice of religion. You have no more way of knowing what he actually thinks than anyone else except himself. As Scripture says "no one knows a man's spirit, except that man himself. Romney is a business man 1st and foremost - something you and all your fellows on "fellowships"; think tanks, etc. wouldn't understand in a million years. Your not business oriented so you have no clue how to go about solving an economic problem in real time. You only can theorize it - not actually resolve it. "O" the professor POTUS and Newt, the historian lobbyist haven't got a clue either. That's why we are in the trouble we are in. Romney understands how to get business issues solved. As a long time business person myself, I totally understand his way of thinking. He's not a dreamer as you think tank, professors, historians, journalist are; he's a doer who knows how to get things done and does them - not simply talks about them. Speculate all you like but you have lost my admiration since I believe you are either simply a bigot or worse yet an elitist you never has had the responsibility of running a business or reestablishing a failed one. Don't criticize what you don't understand; and don't pretend that you do understand because you don't.
YOU: Don't criticize what you don't understand; and don't pretend that you do understand because you don't.
ME: Ah, irony! Samme, while I would never be accused of being a big fan of Thomas Sowell's writings (or at least his short works), the more people like you spout off, the more of a genius he looks like.
Calling a man a bigot with as little evidence as you have shown here (i.e., zero), is ridiculous. Given that, by your standard, perhaps I should now accuse you of bigotry against blacks. But that also would be ridiculous.
Sowell is an economist, and economists have never thought much of the minimum wage law. That by itself is enough to show that he has sufficient grounds for attacking those who support the minimum wage laws without being a bigot.
Dr. Sowell is a respected economist. His opinions are based upon reason and logic.
It seems yours are based upon fanaticism and ignorance....similar to that of the inquisitors of the medieval era and the primitive mobs that supported them...speaking of religion.
Dr. Sowell has presented a substantial list of reasons as to why Mitt is not an acceptable candidate. Not a single one of those reasons has anything to do with religion.
Yet you claim to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the real reason is because Dr. Sowell is a bigot against Mormons.
Speaking of quoting scripture, the text that you quote applies to you 100 times more than it applies to Dr. Sowell.
As I've stated elsewhere, the only thing worse than Mitt, are his supporters.
I can tell you are not serious about any of things you are saying because your verbose and repetitious post is full of generalities but no specifics, i.e., no substance. Seems Romney shills can be divided into two distinct styles: yours and Old Fan’s. How much did you get paid? Now will you please get your Mitt out of the race and back to managing business?!
I am surprised that Dr. Sowell, who I much admire, has decided to take on Mitt Romney as an awful guy this time as in 2008, he had a totally different view and supported him. I just wish he would tell us how Romney has changed since 2008. Also, this nonsense over the minimum wage is not necessary as their could be an exclusion for teens, black or white, but adult people trying to raise a family it is a pitance and an inflationary adjustment is not going to break business as government, many large businesses,, do it already. Dr. Sowel needs to work in a food bank a couple of days a week and see that many people who aren't on food stamps and other help are really suffering. Begruding them minimum wage is sad. If you want to grip about wages, repeal Davis Bacon where the wage is so high that few projects get funded. Example: Laborer - $45 per hour. Two men could get a job at a living wage if they would suspend, reduce, adjust the rates. If there were no minimum wage, many businesses would pay nothing or hire illegals, like they do now for far too low a wage for very hard work. If paying a person for hard labor is too much for conservatives, maybe I just gave up being a conservative.
If you create a separate pay structure for teens and adults, then you disadvantage adults in jobs that they and teens compete for. If you think it's bad to deny adults their $.25 an hour wage increase, then think about the 100% wage decrease that happens if they don't get the job.
Note: I'm not saying that increasing the minimum wage produces a huge negative effect. Just that there there IS a negative effect. A ten percent increase in the minimum wage is generally found to be associated with a 1 or 2% decrease in the employment-to-population ratio of teens (generally more for black males, and less for black females).
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that, lacking a minimum wage law, employers would pay nothing (by which I assume you mean "very little") or hire illegals, as you claim. First of all, having a minimum wage law, if anything, INCREASES the motive to hire illegals, as they will work under the table for less and can't afford to go to the authorities. Second, there are many employers who pay wages well above the minimum wage on their own. If they can be trusted to negotiate a fair wage with their employers, why can't those who pay less?
One thing you can count on when it comes to Romney supporters, is that they have no knowledge of how the economy works.
Janeway here actually believes it is the responsibility of companies to pay people based on what they need, rather than what they produce.
It doesn't matter how old you are, if you are demanding more for your labor, than your labor is worth, you won't be hired.
The reason the minimum wage is a bigger problem for young people, is because on the whole, their labor is worth less.
If Janeway actually believes that it is the job of govt to dictate what a person is paid, then she was never a conservative in the first place.
No, I do not believe the government should set wage scales but the problem is the Davis Bacon Wage Scale based on union scale not the minimum wage. Government is to protect the rights of the citizens and many employers would pay next to nothing if they could get away with it. Yes, teens should be an exception but paying minimum wage is not paying someone "according to their need" but if an adult is not worth minimum wage, they should just fire them. Employers do not have to hire anyone. As for your comments on conservatism, I am sure I have read more Buckley and Rand as both valued the worth of the individual and it was the "looters" who took advantage of both industrialists and qualified workers. It is not conservative to demean skilled workers because people have to feed their families are forced to work for less than their ability due to lack of supply of jobs. There are motels in my tourist town who pay illegals less than $5 per hour for hard maid work rather than hire an American for minimum wage so the idea that employers have any regard for employees isn't always the case. One of these days Atlas will shrug and hopefully you will not need a plumber or electrican because they we all be gone.
Or pragmatism. The problem with being a "conservative" these days is that conservatives (at least the most vocal ones) seem to have given up on pragmatism. I would suggest that if any of the candidates come out for repealing the minimum wage, you know that candidate has given up on being elected.
On pragmatism and (many) conservatives, I'll agree with you. Firebrands are much more likely to do comments here and elsewherre, so they are more likely to sound off.
But as for this issue, the pragmatic thing to do would be to just leave it alone, not strengthen it. Try to avoid voting for an increase, but under no circumstances should yo recommend instituting regular increases.
Perhaps, but that still leaves ample room in the center for even a liberal like Obama to occupy and exploit. More than 75% of the electorate from across the political spectrum is in favor of the minimum wage--not pegging it to inflation makes it look like you are trying to get rid of it. Sure, Ronald Reagan held it steady, but it was nearly $2 higher in real terms than it is now when he was sworn in and remained higher through most of his presidency.
Regardless, I can agree to disagree on tactics. My point is that the "very conservative" crowd has whipped themselves up into such a frenzy that they are threatening what should be a sure victory against Obama.
I mean Rick Santorum? Really??? I like Rick Santorum. He seems to be a genuinely good man and you always know where he stands. But that is exactly the problem. So does everyone else. I can't think of a less electable Republican that has come along in the last 30 years.
The minimum wage laws are a despicable tactic the leftist elites use to control the population. The net effect removes the lower steps on the economic staircase and thus artificially creates dependency while inflating the pay scale of union labor. Dr. Sowell is a living example of the sort of iniative and upward mobility the leviathan seeks to diminish.
Come on. This issue is not a showstopper. While Dr. Sowell's insights are always thoughtful and welcome, this really isn't any reason to turn away from Romney. As long as he's correct on the big issues (dismantling Obamacare and stemming the tide of illegal aliens) we're all set. We can spend the next 4 years drafting Chris Cristie or Marco Rubio.
I would vote for my cat over the Current Resident, but that's not the point. Romney has a history of liberalism including his elitist sophistry on the minimum wage, never mind that government run health care will be expertly utilized by the leftist media pukes in the general election. We need the most Constitutionally headstrong candidate we can get and compared to Santorum or Gingrich, Romney is weak. This primary is far from over, just like 1976.
I disagree that Romney is weak compared to Gingrich. It was Gingrich who called Paul Ryan's plan to make Medicare sustainable "right-wing social engineering." That is something a liberal would say. It was Gingrich who criticized Romney for his record at Bain. Conservatives don't criticize people for being financially successful. Liberals do that.
Romney isn't perfect, but he is FAR better than Gingrich.
If Romney gets the nomination, the electorate will have a choice between two candidates who refuse to discuss their signature legislation, population control disguised as free health care. That is a fatal flaw given the task ahead.
