PDA

View Full Version : Is The GOP Doomed by Demographics



cabernetluver
01-09-2009, 12:48 PM
An interesting article from the National Journal

National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20090107_6607.php)


Demography And Destiny
Population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.
Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009
by Ronald Brownstein


To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.

Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.

Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.

That's because Obama's best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.

That's a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent. Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.

It's reasonable to assume that whenever Obama ran, he would have boosted black turnout. From 2004 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans increased by nearly one-fifth. If you increase the share of the vote cast by blacks in 1992 by that amount -- and offset their gains with equal reductions among college and noncollege whites -- the result tightens, but McCain still edges out Obama, 49.2 percent to 49.1 percent. The distance between these "fantasy baseball" results and Obama's 7-point real-world victory underscores the political impact of demographic change. The problem for Republicans is that the population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.

Today non-Hispanic whites make up two-thirds of the U.S. population. But in 2008 they still cast 74 percent of the ballots in the presidential contest. African-Americans represent about the same share of the vote (13 percent) as they do of the population (12 percent). So do "other" minorities (3 percent and 2 percent).

Asians, meanwhile, are modestly underrepresented in the electorate (2 percent of voters; 4 percent of population). And Hispanics are severely underrepresented (just 9 percent of voters compared with 15 percent of population).

The Census Bureau projects that the white share of the overall population will decline to 60 percent by 2020 and 51 percent by 2040. The black population share will remain largely unchanged; Asian and "other minority" shares of the population will grow steadily (to nearly 11 percent combined by 2040); and the Hispanic presence will explode. By 2020, Hispanics are projected to constitute nearly one-fifth of the population; by 2040, more than one-fourth.

William Frey, a prominent Brookings Institution demographer, says that even as those numbers rise, the gap will steadily narrow between Hispanic representation in the population and in the electorate. "The biggest source of Hispanic population growth is not immigration, but from the children of recent immigrants. And, by definition, they are voting citizens once they turn 18," he says. Whites may still outvote their population numbers, Frey predicts, but as Hispanic participation increases, the white overrepresentation will diminish. That change promises an increasingly nonwhite electorate.

These trends point toward trouble for the GOP if it cannot attract more minorities, especially Hispanics, and reverse the recent Democratic inroads among well-educated whites.

The best way to illustrate that prospect is to pitch the thought experiment forward 12 years. Imagine that the major demographic groups voted as they did in 2008, but cast a share of the vote equal to their expected share of the population in 2020. (For argument's sake, let's divide whites among college and noncollege voters in the same proportions as today.) In that scenario, Obama beats McCain by nearly 14 points -- almost twice as much as in 2008. Demography will indeed be destiny if Republicans can't broaden their reach.

Copyright ©2009 by National Journal Group Inc. The Watergate 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 • fax 202-833-8069 NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication

blenderboy5
01-09-2009, 07:35 PM
It's hard to use the 2008 election to forcast future elections. I don't have the actual stat, but few in power parties win an election if the economy is bad. See 1992 for the most recent example.

I'd say no to the overall question. Hispanic people are stereotypically religious, which is a plus for the right. In addition, Republicans are doing a lot more to promote amnesty to garner the hispanic vote. John McCain did a lot of advertising in spanish to attract these voters.

So it depends on how that works out I guess. There's 15 things that'll hurt the GOP in 2012... the color of skin is maybe number 13

cabernetluver
01-09-2009, 08:07 PM
It is not a prediction as much as an observation. If the standard of religious was used as a basis for voting, Hispanic people would have been voting GOP all along. I deal a lot in demographics, my expertise is not race or religion, it is age. I was just bringing this up, because we deal with projections based on demographics. Demographics are not determinative, but they are indicative.

gcoll
01-10-2009, 05:12 AM
If I understand the article correctly. It basically just projects the possible population change in demographic and asks "if the voting percentages stay the same...what will happen?" but that's a dumb question.

As the population levels change, so do the demographics. New demographics arise. New events happen. The voting percentages will not stay the same.

Like that article mentioned. A lot of the population growth of hispanics, is the children of immigrants. By the time you get to the 3rd or 4th generation, it's an entirely different group of people.

I think any article that tries to project to 2020, or 2040 is wasting it's time. The only thing you can do is wait and see.

The GOP is doomed if the mood of everyone changes from "I want to live in a free country, and I feel personal responsibility and autonomy are important things" to "I think the government should give me more". When the second happens, is when conservatism dies. Until then, it will always be alive somewhere, in some shape or form.

cabernetluver
01-10-2009, 04:07 PM
If I understand the article correctly. It basically just projects the possible population change in demographic and asks "if the voting percentages stay the same...what will happen?" but that's a dumb question.
As the population levels change, so do the demographics. New demographics arise. New events happen. The voting percentages will not stay the same.

Like that article mentioned. A lot of the population growth of hispanics, is the children of immigrants. By the time you get to the 3rd or 4th generation, it's an entirely different group of people.

I think any article that tries to project to 2020, or 2040 is wasting it's time. The only thing you can do is wait and see.

The GOP is doomed if the mood of everyone changes from "I want to live in a free country, and I feel personal responsibility and autonomy are important things" to "I think the government should give me more". When the second happens, is when conservatism dies. Until then, it will always be alive somewhere, in some shape or form.

Actually you are right and wrong. You did get the message, but you came to the wrong conclusion vis a vie it is dumb. All planning is subject to change, but planning is necessary. If you don't use present knowledge to plan (with the proviso that plans can and will change) then what are you going to do in its place? Not Plan! In business there is an old saying that says failing to plan is planning to fail. If the GOP takes your idea to heart, it will fail.

QuietWyatt
01-10-2009, 06:53 PM
It's hard to use the 2008 election to forcast future elections. I don't have the actual stat, but few in power parties win an election if the economy is bad. See 1992 for the most recent example.

I'd say no to the overall question. Hispanic people are stereotypically religious, which is a plus for the right. In addition, Republicans are doing a lot more to promote amnesty to garner the hispanic vote. John McCain did a lot of advertising in spanish to attract these voters.

So it depends on how that works out I guess. There's 15 things that'll hurt the GOP in 2012... the color of skin is maybe number 13

Add that attitude to your 15 problems the GOP has.

SmthBluCitrus
01-10-2009, 07:27 PM
Here's an interesting little nugget from FDL Book Review (http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/10/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-andrew-gelman-red-state-blue-state/) about voting demographics (a bit) laid out in the new book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State."

Kind of plays into the conversation about voting patterns; at least as far as geography and class are concerned.


FDL Book Salon Welcomes Andrew Gelman:
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State
by Matt Yglesias

Discussions of American politics in the media are dominated by conventional wisdom and lazy stereotypes rather than serious inquiry into the data. The cure to this disease is Andrew Gelman's Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State an inquiry into "why Americans vote the way they do" that's brief and about as readable as a rigorous, data-driven book can be. Gelman crunches the numbers and uses words and graphs to explode much of what people think they know about American political behavior.

In fact, for all the talk in recent years about working class conservatives and latte liberals, Gelman shows convincingly that rich people remain loyal Republicans while those further down the economic ladder support the Democrats. What is true is that wealthier states such as Connecticut back the Democrats while poor states such as Mississippi prefer the GOP, with middle income states such as Ohio forming the swing constituency. Still, though Mississippi as a whole is poor and Republican, the base of Republican support in the state is wealthy Mississippians not poor ones. The famous red/blue maps are misleading in this regard, prompting people to use a fallacy of composition and assume that Republican voters have the characteristics (low income) of Republican states.

Nor, Gelman shows, is it true that downscale voters are ruled by their religious or moral sentiments rather than economic self-interest. On the contrary, religiosity and opinions about hot-bottom cultural issues have little impact on the voting behavior of poor Americans. It's among the wealthy where you see cultural issues making a big difference and religiosity highly correlated with voting behavior.

In particular, in rich states voting patterns show little correlation with income. The poor of Connecticut, in other words, vote pretty similarly to the rich of Connecticut. This isn't the case in poor states, where poor people are dramatically more likely than rich people to vote Democratic. The difference is that the rich people in the rich states are much more culturally liberal than the rich people in the poor states. The result is the famous "culture war" waged not between yuppies and the working class, but between the wealthy residents of wealthy states and the wealthy residents of poor states.

Much media confusion about American politics then stems from what's essentially a coincidence—political journalists are heavily concentrated in places like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and California that exhibit the voting behaviors of rich states. It is true in those places that voting behavior features little income polarization and that wealthy people are generally well-disposed toward the Democrats. Political commentary from David Brooks on the right to Tom Frank on the left is often dominated by the assumption that you can extrapolate from political patterns in places like Maryland out to the country as a whole.

It's an understandable mistake, but also a serious one. And everyone interested in political activism owes it to themselves to understand the truth and everyone interested in the media owes it to the world to correct the record. Reading Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State is a great first step down that path. I read the book before the election and loved it, and so I'm excited to both introduce it to some new people and also hear with Professor Gelman has to say about the election we had a couple of months ago.

FDL-BR (http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/10/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-andrew-gelman-red-state-blue-state/)

gcoll
01-11-2009, 03:59 AM
Actually you are right and wrong. You did get the message, but you came to the wrong conclusion vis a vie it is dumb. All planning is subject to change, but planning is necessary. If you don't use present knowledge to plan (with the proviso that plans can and will change) then what are you going to do in its place? Not Plan! In business there is an old saying that says failing to plan is planning to fail. If the GOP takes your idea to heart, it will fail.

I came to the right conclusion. My point had nothing to do with what the GOP should do.


Add that attitude to your 15 problems the GOP has.
That hispanic people tend to be religious? They do.

I base that on a small sample size. But I've lived in Arizona a majority of my life. And I've had plenty of Mexican friends. Usually when I go over to their house...there's a portrait, or a statue of the virgin mary somewhere.

blenderboy5
01-11-2009, 11:47 PM
Add that attitude to your 15 problems the GOP has.

If you're gonna ***** about something I say, can you elaborate?

Is your issue that I say Hispanic people are religious? Because they are often very strong Catholics.

Or are you trying to imply that everyone makes unfair stereotypes against Latinons?

ari1013
01-12-2009, 01:03 PM
Completely disregarding the changing demographics of the nation is a recipe for disaster.

That's the real argument here. forget about the projections and focus on the policy. If Republicans want to win, they have to shape their policies towards the demands of the people. Simply winning 60% of the White vote isn't enough any more.

Uncle Funster
01-12-2009, 09:21 PM
Completely disregarding the changing demographics of the nation is a recipe for disaster.

That's the real argument here. forget about the projections and focus on the policy. If Republicans want to win, they have to shape their policies towards the demands of the people. Simply winning 60% of the White vote isn't enough any more.

Bingo. Demographics change organically and the party that best reads and adjusts to that change wins.

WES445
01-13-2009, 03:43 AM
Completely disregarding the changing demographics of the nation is a recipe for disaster.

That's the real argument here. forget about the projections and focus on the policy. If Republicans want to win, they have to shape their policies towards the demands of the people. Simply winning 60% of the White vote isn't enough any more.

Agree. This is why I shake my head when the republican have a knee jerk moment. Going after the auto-maker's union members (chance to kill the union) or the Obama the magic negro cd (they don't vote for us anyway so don't worry).

blenderboy5
01-13-2009, 11:09 AM
Nothing wrong with going after the union members. The leaders of the Big 3 made ****** decisions, but they were also ****ed by people not buying cars, the price of gas (and don't give me this "they should have been making more fuel efficient cars years ago" ****, because the American people wouldn't buy those cars when gas was cheap, and yes, the fact that their employyes are often ridiculously paid and overcompensated.

ari1013
01-13-2009, 12:32 PM
Nothing wrong with going after the union members. The leaders of the Big 3 made ****** decisions, but they were also ****ed by people not buying cars, the price of gas (and don't give me this "they should have been making more fuel efficient cars years ago" ****, because the American people wouldn't buy those cars when gas was cheap, and yes, the fact that their employyes are often ridiculously paid and overcompensated.
The first thing that comes to my mind is the Pontiac Aztek.

cabernetluver
01-13-2009, 12:49 PM
The first thing that comes to my mind is the Pontiac Aztek.

Those darn union members were obviously to blame for the Pontiac Aztek :mad:

Cubsrule
01-13-2009, 02:45 PM
Agree. This is why I shake my head when the republican have a knee jerk moment. Going after the auto-maker's union members (chance to kill the union) or the Obama the magic negro cd (they don't vote for us anyway so don't worry).

The big problem with the big three was they were willing to give the union just about whatever it wanted when times were good, but the union obviously won't return the favor when times are bad. Blame the union for taking advantage of the situation, blame the big three for not being smart about it.

WES445
01-13-2009, 05:41 PM
The big problem with the big three was they were willing to give the union just about whatever it wanted when times were good, but the union obviously won't return the favor when times are bad. Blame the union for taking advantage of the situation, blame the big three for not being smart about it.

You miss my point. Republican are consider dead by union workers, working poor (outside southern white) as well as some middle class families. They have to rebuild their trust with the every day workers.[INDENT]Why don't we start with the top management team first before we mess with the peons money. Let's cut the wages of the top guys who drove their companies into the ground. Don't you think americans are noticing how the big boys are getting all the help while the little guys are losing their home.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 12:22 AM
You miss my point. Republican are consider dead by union workers, working poor (outside southern white) as well as some middle class families.

My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs. I am not sure that Republicans are dead to Union members being as Mccain somehow garnished 30% of union members vote even though unions made all of their political donations and endorsements to Obama.


They have to rebuild their trust with the every day workers.[INDENT]Why don't we start with the top management team first before we mess with the peons money. Let's cut the wages of the top guys who drove their companies into the ground. Don't you think americans are noticing how the big boys are getting all the help while the little guys are losing their home.

I think everyone agrees that the Ceo of just about every major company that flops should not be paid for bad decisions and the flop of the company. That vision is shared by people by both sides of the aisle. As far as the peons I imagine your talking about union workers. As far as the auto union goes the last reports I saw was them making 65 bucks an hour. I have a hard time defending someone making twice as much as me who might have dropped out of college and possibly even high school. I don't know what the qualifications are so don't quote me on it, but that's pretty rediculous.

DenButsu
01-14-2009, 12:57 AM
My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs.

Here's the problem with that argument:


Here's something to ponder over Labor Day weekend: Chief executives last year averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, more than 364 times the pay of the average US worker, according to a new study by two advocacy groups, one of them from Boston.

And the top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers pocketed an average $657.5 million, or 22,255 times the pay of the average worker, claims the study, titled "Executive Excess 2007," which cited estimates by Forbes magazine.boston.com (http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2007/08/two_studies_det.html)

I'm not planning on handing any CEOs a tissue for crocodile tears over their labor woes anytime soon.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 01:18 AM
Here's the problem with that argument:

boston.com (http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2007/08/two_studies_det.html)

I'm not planning on handing any CEOs a tissue for crocodile tears over their labor woes anytime soon.

You won't get any argument from me on CEO's, I believe in a pay for play type deal. A CEO's salary and perks should be based on production and sales. Should the company go under or file for bankruptcy, the CEO should be the first one hit hard. I am not defending CEO's so I have a hard time seeing how that link comes into play, but ok.

DenButsu
01-14-2009, 01:55 AM
You won't get any argument from me on CEO's, I believe in a pay for play type deal. A CEO's salary and perks should be based on production and sales. Should the company go under or file for bankruptcy, the CEO should be the first one hit hard. I am not defending CEO's so I have a hard time seeing how that link comes into play, but ok.

Well it comes into play when companies were (until recently) generally making record profits and their CEOs were making record salaries at increased CEO-worker pay gaps - and then they'd still rail against, say, a law to increase the minimum wage to an actual livable wage. It goes beyond hypocrisy to just... disgusting. More simply put: When they said that they "couldn't afford" to hire more workers if they paid them better wages, they were lying.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 02:40 AM
Well it comes into play when companies were (until recently) generally making record profits and their CEOs were making record salaries at increased CEO-worker pay gaps - and then they'd still rail against, say, a law to increase the minimum wage to an actual livable wage.

Well if the CEO was responsible for the profits then you can't deny them that salary cause technically they earned it, the sad thing is the companies did nothing but give them big buyouts when the company was going under, that's something that needs to be changed. As far as CEO worker pay gaps, it really depends on who you're talking about. I know the big automakers were more than willing to meet union demands when times for the company we're good.

As far as minimum wage that's really a debateable issue as of right now it's $6.55 and will move to $7.25 in 2009. Most companies, at least where I live other than convenient stores, all start at about 8-10 dollars an hour and the last time I read about it roughly 13 million americans make no more than minimum wage. So you're talking about roughly 10% of the work force. But a lot of these people likely make tips and one of my economic teachers whose, daughter made minimum wage, was against a raise because a lot of her income was from her tips and a likely increase an minimum wage meant in increase of taxes on her tips.


It goes beyond hypocrisy to just... disgusting. More simply put: When they said that they "couldn't afford" to hire more workers if they paid them better wages, they were lying.

I would like to know some of the companies because other than maybe Wal-mart I really can't think of any. Who particularly comes to mind?

DenButsu
01-14-2009, 04:42 AM
Who particularly comes to mind?

Every company whose CEO didn't take a pay cut in order to be able to pay their workers. There's a lot of them.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 05:05 AM
Every company whose CEO didn't take a pay cut in order to be able to pay their workers. There's a lot of them.

Technically it doesn't do too much good when you're talking millions of dollars in raises. I forget which one of the three automakers I heard but they were making huge cutbacks like the CEO taking a dollar salary and moving from mechanical pencils to #2 pencils which in turn is saving them millions of dollars, but it's miniscule when you're talking billions of dollars in debt. Taking a dollar salary might be a nice gesture but they still have huge bonuses that they can live on from the company and it won't make him or her hurt financially.

ari1013
01-14-2009, 11:49 AM
My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs. I am not sure that Republicans are dead to Union members being as Mccain somehow garnished 30% of union members vote even though unions made all of their political donations and endorsements to Obama.



I think everyone agrees that the Ceo of just about every major company that flops should not be paid for bad decisions and the flop of the company. That vision is shared by people by both sides of the aisle. As far as the peons I imagine your talking about union workers. As far as the auto union goes the last reports I saw was them making 65 bucks an hour. I have a hard time defending someone making twice as much as me who might have dropped out of college and possibly even high school. I don't know what the qualifications are so don't quote me on it, but that's pretty rediculous.
Union wages are not $65/hour.

The companies made piss poor decisions with regard to health care and thus their labor costs are that high -- because that includes the cost of providing 100% health care to retirees.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 04:42 PM
Union wages are not $65/hour.

The companies made piss poor decisions with regard to health care and thus their labor costs are that high -- because that includes the cost of providing 100% health care to retirees.

So roughly it's at about 70 dollars an hour after factoring in all retiree benefits and current benefits. Like I said, blame the big three for giving the union what they wanted, blame the union for taking advantage of the situation.

cabernetluver
01-14-2009, 06:29 PM
NO NO NO

UAW workers do not make anywhere near $70 per hour. It is a myth. It is not that much per hour in wages. That figure is derived by taking all commitments to retirees and current workers. It is not even close to what a current worker is making per hour including all obligations to that current union worker. It is a fraudulent statement to say that is what they are getting paid.

According to CNNMoney.com (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/autos/auto_bailout_labor_issues/)


Reality check: Hourly wages for comparable work at General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Toyota are nearly identical. According to various reports, each company pays experienced auto workers about $30 an hour.

The $70 per hour number is a number that has been presented primarily by anti union bloggers and right -wingnuts. I have never seen that number presented by any source that could reasonable be considered unbiased.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 07:18 PM
NO NO NO

UAW workers do not make anywhere near $70 per hour. It is a myth. It is not that much per hour in wages. That figure is derived by taking all commitments to retirees and current workers. It is not even close to what a current worker is making per hour including all obligations to that current union worker. It is a fraudulent statement to say that is what they are getting paid.

According to CNNMoney.com (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/autos/auto_bailout_labor_issues/)



The $70 per hour number is a number that has been presented primarily by anti union bloggers and right -wingnuts. I have never seen that number presented by any source that could reasonable be considered unbiased.

It does cost the company about 70 dollars an hour per union member, as I said.


So roughly it's at about 70 dollars an hour after factoring in all retiree benefits and current benefits.

cabernetluver
01-14-2009, 07:43 PM
But that is not the same as saying they are making $70 per hour, and when you bring up that figure out of context, you are giving a false impression. In fact, if I used your statement as to what they get paid, and you assumed they got zero dollars per hour in their paychecks, and got no benefits, you would say they are getting $40 per hour. Gee, a zero dollar paycheck and getting $40 per hour. It is on its face a false statement to say they are getting paid $70 per hour, when what you are really saying is the labor costs including all legacy costs are $70 per hour.

Now the funny thing about that logic, is, if they had fewer workers because of increased productivity, that number would be even higher. On the other hand if there were more workers, because of more demand or lower productivity the number would be lower.

The UAW did not put out the Hummer, or the Aztec, or the Pacer, or any of the failed ideas. Since in fact the current pay as documented in the CNNMoney.com article is right on par with the Toyota plant, it is not the UAW pay that is the problem at all. It is simply bad management.

However, this is not a thread about the automakers or the members of the unions, but instead is about the demographic trends looking bad for the GOP.

It seems to me that the attack on the autoworkers is indicative of the problems of the GOP. If you want someone to be your friend, do you attack them, or, do you try to at least couch things in the most inviting way for these people.

The funny thing is that this is the exact group that was McCain’s best group in the article. There is nothing like attacking your best direction to build from to make your day. I will grant that this is a shrinking group, that being as described non college white voters, a growth group, but the GOP did not do well among the other groups.

Who exactly do you think is going to join your party by attacking the culturally conservative union members and doing it with facts that they know, better than anyone, are actually false statements.

Here is a thought exercise, imagine you are an autoworker, you certainly know how much you make per hour. Now you read about GOP’ers attacking you and saying you are making more the double what you are really making (remember, you have a pay stub, so you know how much you are getting, plus you hear from your union about the value of your benefits) and are looking around saying to yourself, do I vote for those people who are lying about me or do I vote for those who are trying to help me keep my job?

Same thing if you are a Hispanic and all you hear is anti Hispanic rhetoric. Who do you vote for? People who say disparaging things about you or people who you perceive are trying to help you help yourself?

This is an insane way to run a party. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the right has some good ideas. I don’t in any way think the left is always correct. I am more than willing to take good ideas wherever I can find them, however, I would be less willing to listen if I felt I was being attacked.

Cubsrule
01-14-2009, 08:12 PM
But that is not the same as saying they are making $70 per hour, and when you bring up that figure out of context, you are giving a false impression. In fact, if I used your statement as to what they get paid, and you assumed they got zero dollars per hour in their paychecks, and got no benefits, you would say they are getting $40 per hour. Gee, a zero dollar paycheck and getting $40 per hour. It is on its face a false statement to say they are getting paid $70 per hour, when what you are really saying is the labor costs including all legacy costs are $70 per hour.

I realize someone could get confused thus why I said after benefits to current and retired union workers, or as you call them legacy costs.


Now the funny thing about that logic, is, if they had fewer workers because of increased productivity, that number would be even higher. On the other hand if there were more workers, because of more demand or lower productivity the number would be lower.

Thus they would be forced to function like any other company, instead of being forced to pay workers that are of no use.


The UAW did not put out the Hummer, or the Aztec, or the Pacer, or any of the failed ideas. Since in fact the current pay as documented in the CNNMoney.com article is right on par with the Toyota plant, it is not the UAW pay that is the problem at all. It is simply bad management.

Bad management is part of it, as is the union, considering GM was losing roughly 1,200 dollars per car because of all the money it had to pay out for UAW's members.


However, this is not a thread about the automakers or the members of the unions, but instead is about the demographic trends looking bad for the GOP.

Then tell your fellow democrats to quit bringing it up.


It seems to me that the attack on the autoworkers is indicative of the problems of the GOP. If you want someone to be your friend, do you attack them, or, do you try to at least couch things in the most inviting way for these people.

Of course you would like to negotiate and make it inviting, but the UAW will likely be very reluctant to give up anything to make the situation work. I think union members are good loving people, but the people who run them are no better than greedy CEO's in my opinion.


The funny thing is that this is the exact group that was McCain’s best group in the article. There is nothing like attacking your best direction to build from to make your day. I will grant that this is a shrinking group, that being as described non college white voters, a growth group, but the GOP did not do well among the other groups.

Of course he didn't, I am still in shock that Obama didn't win by more after McCain's crappy campaign management. Still, 2012 is 4 years away, more than enough time for Republicans to reach out.


Who exactly do you think is going to join your party by attacking the culturally conservative union members and doing it with facts that they know, better than anyone, are actually false statements.

I worked for a union while being a conservative, Teamsters Local 691 here in Vegas. I have no problem with union members themselves, moreover the corrupt people who run it.


Here is a thought exercise, imagine you are an autoworker, you certainly know how much you make per hour. Now you read about GOP’ers attacking you and saying you are making more the double what you are really making (remember, you have a pay stub, so you know how much you are getting, plus you hear from your union about the value of your benefits) and are looking around saying to yourself, do I vote for those people who are lying about me or do I vote for those who are trying to help me keep my job?

I really haven't heard any prominent Republicans talking about them making 70 dollars an hour as a wage, then again I haven't heard anything about it for awhile so who said it?


Same thing if you are a Hispanic and all you hear is anti Hispanic rhetoric. Who do you vote for? People who say disparaging things about you or people who you perceive are trying to help you help yourself?

I don't think Republicans have anything against hispanics, so that's really false logic.


This is an insane way to run a party. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the right has some good ideas. I don’t in any way think the left is always correct. I am more than willing to take good ideas wherever I can find them, however, I would be less willing to listen if I felt I was being attacked.

Some may take it as an attack. But most of what I read into the situation was reality. Guys like Romney said them declaring bankruptcy to reorganize might be the best solution instead of throwing taxpayer money at the problem in hopes of it getting better.

DenButsu
01-14-2009, 09:24 PM
I realize someone could get confused

People (ahem) "get confused" because the $70 dollar an hour lie is designed to obfuscate the truth that the workers actually make less, and confuse the people who hear it. It's deliberately misleading.

cabernetluver
01-14-2009, 11:29 PM
People (ahem) "get confused" because the $70 dollar an hour lie is designed to obfuscate the truth that the workers actually make less, and confuse the people who hear it. It's deliberately misleading.

Ya think?

I get irritated by the deliberate obfuscation of the auto workers salary. It is nothing more nor less than a hidden desire by the right wing to destroy unions. It seems they don't even have the courage to take them on in an open manner.

Bringing this back to the thread, no wonder they are losing party identification at a faster rate than the Democratic Party. The demographics are going to kill them if they don't get their house in order.

The Republican Party was the first successful third party. I wonder if they are going to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another third party.

Cubsrule
01-15-2009, 01:25 AM
Ya think?

I get irritated by the deliberate obfuscation of the auto workers salary. It is nothing more nor less than a hidden desire by the right wing to destroy unions. It seems they don't even have the courage to take them on in an open manner.

Bringing this back to the thread, no wonder they are losing party identification at a faster rate than the Democratic Party. The demographics are going to kill them if they don't get their house in order.

The Republican Party was the first successful third party. I wonder if they are going to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another third party.

The whole point is that it is costing the big three 72 dollars an hour per worker to pay for everything that they agreed to give the union. And as for the second part, Republicans likely are not going anywhere, so keep dreaming :rolleyes:

DenButsu
01-15-2009, 01:40 AM
The whole point is that it is costing the big three 72 dollars an hour per worker to pay for everything that they agreed to give the union. And as for the second part, Republicans likely are not going anywhere, so keep dreaming :rolleyes:

No, it is not costing them 72 dollars per hour. Many of those dollars are paid to those workers after they've stopped working at the company. While they are actually working at the company, the amount they make per hour is NOT 72 DOLLARS. That is not their pay. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that it is. It's smoke and mirrors.

And no, of course the Republican Party is not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean they're not at a crossroads right now with various possible futures, some of which may be much brighter than others. And in what essentially is a two party system, in order to win elections either party needs over 50% of the vote. And if the Republicans don't make moves to broaden their appeal beyond so-called "real America", they are going to be in for a long series of drubbings on election days. I don't think this is even really disputable very much. What is much more an open question is what is the best way to broaden that base? Do they need to undergo a philosophical shift that will make them more inclusive? Do they need to simply return to conservative fiscal policies and social policies? Do they need to do outreach to specific communities? Do they need to abandon or modify any long held traditional Republican platform tenets?

My take on it is that something has to give. Something within the Republican agenda will need to undergo the same sort of transformation that Clinton took the Democrats through on welfare reform and more sound economic policies. What is that "something"? It could be one or any number of things, but I think it probably is going to need to happen on the more social issue side of things. In a minority white society, the sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge racism of the Magic Negro song strikes me as probably not being the answer, for example. :shrug:

Cubsrule
01-15-2009, 02:02 AM
No, it is not costing them 72 dollars per hour. Many of those dollars are paid to those workers after they've stopped working at the company. While they are actually working at the company, the amount they make per hour is NOT 72 DOLLARS. That is not their pay. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that it is. It's smoke and mirrors.

And no, of course the Republican Party is not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean they're not at a crossroads right now with various possible futures, some of which may be much brighter than others. And in what essentially is a two party system, in order to win elections either party needs over 50% of the vote. And if the Republicans don't make moves to broaden their appeal beyond so-called "real America", they are going to be in for a long series of drubbings on election days. I don't think this is even really disputable very much. What is much more an open question is what is the best way to broaden that base? Do they need to undergo a philosophical shift that will make them more inclusive? Do they need to simply return to conservative fiscal policies and social policies? Do they need to do outreach to specific communities? Do they need to abandon or modify any long held traditional Republican platform tenets?

My take on it is that something has to give. Something within the Republican agenda will need to undergo the same sort of transformation that Clinton took the Democrats through on welfare reform and more sound economic policies. What is that "something"? It could be one or any number of things, but I think it probably is going to need to happen on the more social issue side of things. In a minority white society, the sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge racism of the Magic Negro song strikes me as probably not being the answer, for example. :shrug:

http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com/2008/12/do-auto-workers-really-make-more-than.html


And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive – after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.
The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.


Thus it is costing them over 70 dollars a worker.

DenButsu
01-15-2009, 02:15 AM
Okay, let me give you this real simple. Say you get hired for a job and they tell you that they'll be paying you $70/hour. So, you do your first two weeks of work (80 hours) and get your first paycheck. But wait a minute, you think, this paycheck is for $3200, not the $5600 I was expecting. So you check back with your boss and he tells you, "Oh, you see, $30 of that $70, we're not actually going to pay that to you, that's part of your retirement benefits."

Are you really making quote unquote "$70 an hour"? Hell no! Money you "make per hour" is money you can actually put in the bank, use to pay for rent and gas and groceries and bills. I can't even believe I'm wasting time trying to explain this. It's absurd. It's absolutely insane.

Cubsrule
01-15-2009, 02:25 AM
Okay, let me give you this real simple. Say you get hired for a job and they tell you that they'll be paying you $70/hour. So, you do your first two weeks of work (80 hours) and get your first paycheck. But wait a minute, you think, this paycheck is for $3200, not the $5600 I was expecting. So you check back with your boss and he tells you, "Oh, you see, $30 of that $70, we're not actually going to pay that to you, that's part of your retirement benefits."

Are you really making quote unquote "$70 an hour"? Hell no! Money you "make per hour" is money you can actually put in the bank, use to pay for rent and gas and groceries and bills. I can't even believe I'm wasting time trying to explain this. It's absurd. It's absolutely insane.

Ok that's just a lot of ranting but whatever. So let me make it even simpler, my point is that it is costing the big three over 70 dollars an hour per worker, is that going all to wages, of course not, read what I quoted. My biggest grief is taxpayers should not be on the hook for this, but obviously that didn't happen even though I think in a couple years we'll be right back here again.

DenButsu
01-15-2009, 03:26 AM
Ok that's just a lot of ranting but whatever.

Well, I guess one man's "ranting" is another man's "actually making some semblance of sense".


So let me make it even simpler, my point is that it is costing the big three over 70 dollars an hour per worker

Simpler yet: NO, IT'S NOT!

:laugh2: :bang:

Cubsrule
01-15-2009, 03:40 AM
Well, I guess one man's "ranting" is another man's "actually making some semblance of sense".



Simpler yet: NO, IT'S NOT!

:laugh2: :bang:

Considering I got that number from the New York Times I would like you to elaborate? My point is they are not making that much money, instead they make about 29 an hour for a wage, but after all costs are accrued, that's what the number comes too.

DenButsu
01-15-2009, 03:50 AM
Considering I got that number from the New York Times I would like you to elaborate? My point is they are not making that much money, instead they make about 29 an hour for a wage, but after all costs are accrued, that's what the number comes too.

You got the number from the New York Times, who reported on how the auto companies fudged the numbers to arrive at that figure. I'm done with this one.

If you think saying it's true makes it true, be my guest. But if I get my paycheck, and I've been paid $29 for each hour of work I've done, I'm thinking I'm gonna be saying I make $29 an hour, not $70. But maybe that's just me. Call me crazy. I know it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, what I'm saying.

Cubsrule
01-15-2009, 03:55 AM
You got the number from the New York Times, who reported on how the auto companies fudged the numbers to arrive at that figure. I'm done with this one.

If you think saying it's true makes it true, be my guest. But if I get my paycheck, and I've been paid $29 for each hour of work I've done, I'm thinking I'm gonna be saying I make $29 an hour, not $70. But maybe that's just me. Call me crazy. I know it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, what I'm saying.

From Wikipedia


Dan Ikenson of the Cato Institute argued that "total compensation is the cost of labor to the companies, and for GM it is about $73 per hour and for Toyota about $48. The average cost differential between the Big Three and all the foreign nameplate companies is about $30 per hour. That's huge." His computation includes all labor-related costs (e.g.., wages, healthcare, and pension--for both current workers and retirees.)

Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times indicated that GM and Chrysler pay $10-20 more per hour than transplants; this was vigorously disputed by David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research.

A NY Times article states that G.M. workers "are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

I realize that every member is not making that much money, thats just the number it costs when everything is included. Either way we can just drop it and get back to the topic.

DenButsu
01-15-2009, 08:46 AM
wiki quote ftl - sorry :p

But yeah, let's drop it.

But I'm right. :laugh2:

WES445
01-15-2009, 09:07 AM
Here is a thought exercise, imagine you are an autoworker, you certainly know how much you make per hour. Now you read about GOP’ers attacking you and saying you are making more the double what you are really making (remember, you have a pay stub, so you know how much you are getting, plus you hear from your union about the value of your benefits) and are looking around saying to yourself, do I vote for those people who are lying about me or do I vote for those who are trying to help me keep my job?

Same thing if you are a Hispanic and all you hear is anti Hispanic rhetoric. Who do you vote for? People who say disparaging things about you or people who you perceive are trying to help you help yourself?

This is an insane way to run a party. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the right has some good ideas. I don’t in any way think the left is always correct. I am more than willing to take good ideas wherever I can find them, however, I would be less willing to listen if I felt I was being attacked.Thanks. You saw where I was going with my weak post. Even with my limited education, I know you don't alienate people when you are down. The republicans must connect with a more diverse voter base. Can they change their mindset, so they are able to do it? Do they feel they need to change or wait for people to stop "drinking Obama's Kool-Aid" to regain power? If it is the latter, then they didn't learn a dam thing from their downfall. Lets see if Obama's party benefited from their fall a decade ago, when we drunk Newt's Kool-Aid.

cabernetluver
01-15-2009, 06:17 PM
Having been a parent of a now 30 year old, I am recognizing some of the behavior from the Republican side on this topic. Just like the child who refuses to deal with issues directly, but instead has a tantrum, the talkers on the GOP side are not facing the issues that the demographics point out. You can scream and yell and hold your breath (all metaphors) but they will not change the trajectory.

For instance, this thread was about demographics. The first comment was about the 2008 election, and then denial of the information. Ok, we are on a good start; at least it has something to do with demographics, although the response was to deny the fact. It was not addressing why the vote has historically been bad for the GOP in the Hispanic group, but rather the idea that they should be voting for Republicans. Whether they should or should not vote one way or another is not the issue, the issue is that they are not.

That was followed by a rationalization that the study is wrong. No empirical data to back it up, just more denial. By the way, a self identification of Hispanic is not limited to any number of generations.

About now we start veering from the question of demographics to autos. I am not quite sure how a simple throwaway line changed the discussion, but it is interesting to note that the next page is filled with auto union questions. Now just for drill, someone want to tell me exactly what that has to do with demographics and the GOP?

It is during this discussion that I see the holding ones breath till they turn blue form of discussion. Deliberate taking quotes out of context, deliberate misleading statements, everything on earth, but actually facing the demographic fact that the Republicans have some very serious issues looking forward unless they face them, solve them, and move forward. Smug statements about the right way to do things does not change that issue. Not facing that issue does not change that issue.

Strangely enough, this technique of not dealing with the issues seems to be the m. o. of the talking heads like Rushbo, Hannity the Manatee, Coulterface, etc. If these trends go unchanged, the GOP will fail just like the Whigs who they replaced. Maybe the Libertarians will take their place. I don’t know. I do know that just as my son never got his way by having a tantrum, the GOP will not get its way until it faces this demographic trend.

Now the good news is they can. The good news is that the Democrats did exactly the same thing in 1968. The Democrats are still here, but, they almost failed. The Democrats became a primarily northeastern party. They all but lost almost the entire self identified Caucasian vote outside of the northeast. Time marched on and now they come about even in the self identified Caucasian vote everywhere except the southeast, and dominate in the growing other groups. They did this by facing their problems. Look at Senator Jim Webb. Not exactly a flaming liberal.

I will be intrigued to see what the real leadership of the GOP does in the upcoming elections. Do they hold fast to those right wing ideals that have put the Republican Party in such bad shape, the one whose roots were in the Nixon 1968 campaign with its Southern Strategy, or, does the leadership start actually trying to win these growing demographic groups. To date, all I have seen from the GOP is an attempt to try and peel some of the votes away from the Democrats, not actually win. Look to Virginia and see that things can change.

Republicans, the choice is yours, change, or become extinct. Face your problems, or have your tantrums.

I would suggest you might want to look at BMD, right here, as a model that will allow you to be who you are, but present an actual alternative.

Now I for one, like having discussions with those I disagree with, when they act like adults. When on the other hand, they have tantrums, deliberately mislead, quote out of context, I have no need to discuss anything with them.

SmthBluCitrus
01-16-2009, 01:21 PM
Ezra at TAP has a guest blogger in for him today (I think Ezra's on jury duty).

Anyhoo -- the guest, Tom Schaller (U of Maryland), just linked into a fascinating article he co-authored concerning voting and voters, LBJ's Great Society, the South, and a new Democratic coalition.

Really interesting stuff.


LBJ's Revenge: The 2008 Election and the Rise of the Great Society Coalition

Philip A. Klinkner, Hamilton College
Thomas Schaller, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Abstract

Four decades ago, at the height of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Congress passed and the president signed landmark legislation to ensure voting rights, liberalize and expand immigration, and make higher education more accessible. In 2008, a coalition of minorities and upscale whites formed a coalition to elect Barack Obama to the White House. Although many of the Great Society goals remain elusive, the new Democratic majority assembled by Obama represents the emergence of a Great Society electoral coalition.

PDF (http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269&context=forum)

There are a number of other interesting articles in the current issue of The Forum. (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol6/iss4/#article) Could be beneficial to take a gander.

ari1013
01-16-2009, 01:50 PM
Looks interesting -- I agree with the word revenge because it was backlash against the Great Society that propelled Nixon and Reagan onto the center stage.

Hopefully Obama learns from Johnson and Carter's mistakes.

DenButsu
01-16-2009, 08:06 PM
Could be beneficial to take a gander.

Now there's a word I haven't heard in a long time... :cool:

I'm off to work soon, but I'll definitely check this one later - like Ari said, it really does look like an interesting take on things.

dallascowboys46
01-17-2009, 11:44 PM
As for that stupid arguement that was on between whether or not auto workers get the full wage they are 'said' to be given, they don't, immediately, but that doesn't mean the big 3 doesn't pay their full wage. I know this should go to another thread, the agruement made against it was so ridiculous.

If a worker makes 70 dallars an hour, they might get 45 of it or so up front. However, the company still pays for the full 70 at THAT point. 20 of it or so might go into a pension plan, which is a bond at most times, that will mature over the years until that person retires. Companies put money into these bonds for the future benefit of the worker, as negotiated by unions.

Now being in Canada, i am unsure to how the US tax system works, particulary for each state, but a certian portion is taxed by the government, whether be state or federal,and instead of paying for it yourself, governments just take a percentage of your cheque. So the companies are paying it for you. Same goes for any insurances (employment insurance or whatever.) Again, i'm not sure how the system works in the US.

But the company does pay for the full, bloated wage stated at that present time.

ari1013
01-18-2009, 02:41 PM
As for that stupid arguement that was on between whether or not auto workers get the full wage they are 'said' to be given, they don't, immediately, but that doesn't mean the big 3 doesn't pay their full wage. I know this should go to another thread, the agruement made against it was so ridiculous.

If a worker makes 70 dallars an hour, they might get 45 of it or so up front. However, the company still pays for the full 70 at THAT point. 20 of it or so might go into a pension plan, which is a bond at most times, that will mature over the years until that person retires. Companies put money into these bonds for the future benefit of the worker, as negotiated by unions.

Now being in Canada, i am unsure to how the US tax system works, particulary for each state, but a certian portion is taxed by the government, whether be state or federal,and instead of paying for it yourself, governments just take a percentage of your cheque. So the companies are paying it for you. Same goes for any insurances (employment insurance or whatever.) Again, i'm not sure how the system works in the US.

But the company does pay for the full, bloated wage stated at that present time.
This is exactly what that flawed argument does to people.

The wages for the union workers are in the upper $20s. With ALL of their benefits, they cost the company just under $50 an hour.

The other $25 is what we call "Legacy" costs. That's the cost of the labor bill that covers costs of health care and pensions for retirees (who btw paid into those programs back when they were working).

Let's suppose that GM shuts down for a month. None of the workers will be working, BUT they'll still be facing labor costs of $25 per worker hour. See how that doesn't make any sense?

dbroncos78087
01-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Hope this hasnt been posted, but...:

Is GOP Still a National Party?


As President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address to a nation filled with anticipation and hope, the vital signs of the loyal opposition appear worse than worrisome.

The new majority of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation Nixon cobbled together in 1972, that became the Reagan coalition of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation in 1984, is a faded memory. Demographically, philosophically and culturally, the party base has been shrinking since Bush I won his 40-state triumph over Michael Dukakis. Indeed, the Republican base is rapidly becoming a redoubt, a Fort Apache in Indian country.

In the National Journal, Ron Brownstein renders a grim prognosis of the party's chances of recapturing the White House. Consider:

In the five successive presidential elections, beginning with Clinton's victory in 1992 and ending with Obama's in 2008, 18 states and the District of Columbia, with 248 electoral votes among them, voted for the Democratic ticket all five times. John McCain did not come within 10 points of Obama in any of the 18, and he lost D.C. 92-8.

Source: Creators.com (http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/is-gop-still-a-national-party.html)

ari1013
01-21-2009, 03:16 PM
You can play that game the other way and say the Dems will never win in Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and the Appalachian belt.

It's silly to make a geographical case.

Demographics on the other hand are more compelling.

DenButsu
01-21-2009, 11:51 PM
But it's not as if geography and demographics are completely independent of each other. I mean I agree inasmuch as demographics will provide a more detailed picture. But on the other hand, the reason why Democrats won't win in places like Utah and Appalachia is that those areas are heavy in particular demographics.