Earlier this week, I explained why Mitt Romney is a Republican version of Barack Obama. His transgressions include being open to a value-added tax, a less-than-stellar record on healthcare, weakness on Social Security reform, an anemic list of proposed budget savings, and support for reprehensible ethanol subsidies.
Now we can add something else to the list. He wants to cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and hurt low-skilled workers.
Here are a couple of passages from a report in the Oregonian.
Mitt Romney…continues to be a supporter of indexing the minimum wage for inflation. Oregon and Washington were among the first states to index their own minimum wages to inflation — nine states now do so — and it’s a favorite of liberals… Romney campaigned in favor of indexing the minimum wage when he ran for governor in 2002. However, ABC News noted in 2007 that he wasn’t sure he supported indexing the federalminimum wage (which is lower than the minimum wage in several states). In this new video, you could quibble that he doesn’t explicitly say he’s talking about the federal minimum — but that sure seems to be the tenor of his comments.
In other words, Romney is willing to condemn lower-skilled workers to unemployment, in hopes that he will gain some sort of short-term political advantage. In this regard, he will be just like Bush.
For a good explanation of why the government should not try to dictate wages, here’s a video narrated by one of my former interns.
It’s also worth noting that the minimum wage imposes disproportionate damage on the African-American community, as Walter Williams has explained.
[…] But I was not arguing for establishment Republicans such as Bush or Romney. […]
[…] But I was not arguing for establishment Republicans such as Bush or Romney. […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] I’m not making a partisan point. Mitt Romney and George W. Bush had the same […]
[…] and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] this is one of those issues where it might not make a difference which party wins in November. Romney already has said he favors not only an increase in the minimum wage, but also indexing, which means automatic […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] the way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
[…] way, it’s not just Trump and Clinton supporting this destructive policy. Mitt Romney also was on the wrong side back in […]
Michael,
In the absence of a minimum wage, market incentives will insure that poor quality workers will indeed be laid off. As the video explains, if the marginal revenue for which an employee is responsible fails to exceed their wage rate, the interest of the firm is to approach the employee with an ultimatum (granted, in the absence of regulation): take a pay cut to a wage more appropriate regarding the product of their labor, or be laid off.
[…] I’m not making a partisan point. Mitt Romney and George W. Bush had the same […]
[…] this is one of those issues where it might not make a difference which party wins in November. Romney already has said he favors not only an increase in the minimum wage, but also indexing, which means automatic […]
[…] this is one of those issues where it might not make a difference which party wins in November. Romney already has said he favors not only an increase in the minimum wage, but also indexing, which means automatic […]
[…] this is one of those issues where it might not make a difference which party wins in November. Romney already has said he favors not only an increase in the minimum wage, but also indexing, which means automatic […]
[…] Indexing the minimum wage with inflation (FYI, this is a liberal position) […]
I agree with Romney, it sounds bad, but having low skilled, and sometimes lazy employees hurts business. it is better for the business and sometimes the economy ( on large scale) that those people get laid off, they need to find something else ( something they like hopefully) work hard and be a good skilled worker.
[…] value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, and the minimum wage leave a lot to be […]
[…] value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, and the minimum wage leave a lot to be […]
[…] value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, and the minimum wage leave a lot to be […]
[…] disregard the affluent and the poor rhetorically, but to produce a mediocre tax plan and to back indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which ironically hurts the […]
[…] disregard the affluent and the poor rhetorically, but to produce a mediocre tax plan and to back indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which ironically hurts the […]
[…] night’s GOP debate did nothing to change my sour opinion of Mitt […]
[…] night’s GOP debate did nothing to change my sour opinion of Mitt […]
[…] night’s GOP debate did nothing to change my sour opinion of Mitt […]
[…] you can imagine from my previous posts, I think the Romney dig was a good […]
Romney will probably be the Republican nominee. Should I vote for him, or for Obama? (Not voting is avoidance of the question.)
If I vote for Obama and he wins, we may get horrible policy, socialism, and financial collapse, blamed on Obama’s policies. We would get negative well-being, but the Democratic party will be appropriately blamed for ruinous policy. We may then recover after that.
If I vote for Romney, we will get less horrible policy, but will still get socialist programs, greater state power, and all associated with conservative policies. Romney will be blamed by the mainstream press for not being socialist enough. Critics will say, if conservative policies are so great, then why did Romney “soften” them with all of the usual socialist policy? Romney’s administration will lend support to the idea that we need socialist control to keep capitalism in chains.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is rational, but only if it leads to a higher good. Having Romney as the lesser evil, but an evil associated with freedom and capitalism, may in fact muddy public thought and lead to a worse longer term outcome.
If I am pessimistic, and believe that the public doesn’t learn much from any history, then I should always vote for the lesser of two evils, because there is no long term lesson to be learned, and a somewhat better present is better than complicated strategy and an unknown future.
That was an excellent video. I wish we could make every single law maker at every government level watch it. “Why not make minimum wage $100, or even $500?” When prices are distorted away from the market, bad things happen.
No matter how many laws they pass, lawmakers can not repel the law of supply and demand.
Nothing liberals do is racist. If you think it is, then you are racist.