Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[bripat9643]

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Capitalism created all the jobs in the first place. I hasn't been "deregulated" or "free market" since 1914.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Wrong oh......in fact I liked the deregulation of the telecommunications industry after they got rid of GOVERNMENT approved monopolies.....now I dont pay charges for long distance calls and I have much more choice of carriers.....yeah I'd say I like it........

And again I dont mind SOME regulation...but very little.....lets say BASIC......

But you have no idea what you're talking about.....give me a good regulation I'd disagree with?

 

[Meathead]

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Wrong oh......in fact I liked the deregulation of the telecommunications industry after they got rid of GOVERNMENT approved monopolies.....now I dont pay charges for long distance calls and I have much more choice of carriers.....yeah I'd say I like it........

And again I dont mind SOME regulation...but very little.....lets say BASIC......

But you have no idea what you're talking about.....give me a good regulation I'd disagree with?

There is an oddly complete distinction between the consumer and the worker. I know of no worker who has complained of the low price of a product from China which they invariably purchase, not wanting to have spent usually a lot more by buying something that would cost double to be built essentially by their own hand.

 

[kaz]

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

If I make a claim which is qualitative, disputed or hard to verify, then I think this is a perfectly reasonable request. However, for basic facts, not. The most liberal economist does not dispute that layoffs and unemployment go up for every minimum wage increase. "independent" isn't required.

 

[kaz]

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Technically true, but completely misleading. Two examples:

1) Since capitalism allows less efficient companies to fail, the specific employees of those companies lose their job. However, jobs are created across the economy because more efficient companies replace them and they expand creating jobs and drive up value for their customers which also benefits them and create jobs.

2) Capitalism allows outdated technologies to fail. Do you know that of the original 10 companies in the Dow, 8 of them were railroads? Sure, there are a lot fewer railroad jobs today, at least as a percent of the economy. But that again means that more profitable companies replace them and that adds value to their customers. Try over nighting a package on a train.

This is an unfortunate phenomena for freedom. The problem is that if the economy destroys one job and creates two, you can name the person who lost their job and you can't name the two who got jobs. Democratic politicians use this scare tactic greatly to their advantage.

 

[kaz]

you cant arbitrarily force a wage on someone.....or you have unintended consequences....like....outsourcing....illegal immigrants.....The reason McDonalds workers get paid shit, is the job isnt worth that much, it's for teenagers and entry level......yet democrats think people should be breadwinners with that job......it's called a McJob for a reason....

Again tell me why we dont raise the min wage to $100/hour?

Bam, exactly.

Another issue is that it's a repeating, zero sum game. You have to pay people with more skills, experience, education, etc proportionately more or they won't work as hard, invest in education, that sort of thing. So, let's pretend that the minimum wage worked. We raise it to $9 an hour and workers only worth $7.25 actually keep their jobs and get the raise.

Well, now you have to raise the wages of everyone worth $7.25 to $9 proportionately. Now you have to raise the wages of the people above them and so on until everyone is proportionately making what they were before, just more because instead of the base being $7.25 it's now $9.

Cool, everyone's happy, right? Well, no, the company can't absorb that, they raise their prices. And since it's all companies, it's all products and services. What if they don't have minimum wage workers? They still have to raise salaries to keep them as their competitors did.

So what happens now? Well, all the prices went up, so the $9 an hour employee can't buy more than they could when they were at $7.25 an hour. So, what do we need to do? What about increasing the minimum wage so they can? Think about it. If your politicians thought about it and if they had souls, they would have known this. It's basic economics.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious as to why you had no response to my reply to you in regards to welfare "helping" people, Derideo? You asked for something but then when it was provided...you ignored it. Not the best of debate practice. Just saying...

 

[Oldstyle]

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

Actually...small increases in the minimum wage have only minimal effect on employment as businesses simply absorb the added costs. Large increases...such as the ones that progressives constantly seek...do indeed cause job losses. Raising the minimum wage by several dollars an hour would effect those in the work force who can least afford to take the hit...teens and minorities.

Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Wyatt earp]

you cant arbitrarily force a wage on someone.....or you have unintended consequences....like....outsourcing....illegal immigrants.....The reason McDonalds workers get paid shit, is the job isnt worth that much, it's for teenagers and entry level......yet democrats think people should be breadwinners with that job......it's called a McJob for a reason....

Again tell me why we dont raise the min wage to $100/hour?

Bam, exactly.

Another issue is that it's a repeating, zero sum game. You have to pay people with more skills, experience, education, etc proportionately more or they won't work as hard, invest in education, that sort of thing. So, let's pretend that the minimum wage worked. We raise it to $9 an hour and workers only worth $7.25 actually keep their jobs and get the raise.

Well, now you have to raise the wages of everyone worth $7.25 to $9 proportionately. Now you have to raise the wages of the people above them and so on until everyone is proportionately making what they were before, just more because instead of the base being $7.25 it's now $9.

Cool, everyone's happy, right? Well, no, the company can't absorb that, they raise their prices. And since it's all companies, it's all products and services. What if they don't have minimum wage workers? They still have to raise salaries to keep them as their competitors did.

So what happens now? Well, all the prices went up, so the $9 an hour employee can't buy more than they could when they were at $7.25 an hour. So, what do we need to do? What about increasing the minimum wage so they can? Think about it. If your politicians thought about it and if they had souls, they would have known this. It's basic economics.

true statement and for the life of me I can never understand why liberals can not figure out this simple fact?.

 

[kaz]

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

Actually...small increases in the minimum wage have only minimal effect on employment as businesses simply absorb the added costs. Large increases...such as the ones that progressives constantly seek...do indeed cause job losses. Raising the minimum wage by several dollars an hour would effect those in the work force who can least afford to take the hit...teens and minorities.

Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Small increases have a small effect, large increases have a large effect. I'm not sure logically how that's contradicting me.

Companies do not BTW just "absorb the cost." Companies with minimum wage workers are companies that work on tight budgets. For a small increase, we can tighten/reduce hours, raise expectations and upgrade poorer workers. For a larger increase, we have to go to layoffs by redesigning procedures, automating, etc.

You ignored another big part of my point, that we can't just raise minimum wage workers wages. The ones who make a little more for whatever reason also have to get increases or you lose them. For a small increase, you can manage that ripple effect more by giving larger wage increases to all your lower wage workers and smaller ones to higher who aren't as irked because it was a small increase. For a larger increase, it's harder to mask that.

If the three businesses that I have owned, two had minimum wage workers, I sold both of those to focus on my main business. My lowest wage worker now is a part timer who makes $9.50 an hour. If minimum wage went up by $.50 then I may not need to give him much. But if it went up to $9, he's going to need a larger increase if I want to keep him. And then the hourly who make a little more are going to want more too.

Throw a tiny pebble in a pond. Then throw a larger one. The larger one will appear as if it had a larger portional splash because it's easier to observe. However, the pond didn't just absorb the smaller one just because you couldn't see the effects as clearly. They were there.

In business, we require risk adjusted return on our investments. Nothing ... is absorbed. No matter how much you want to believe that.

One other thing to think about is suppose we decide we want to keep our hourly workers and "absorb" the cost. Well, overall unemployment may not go up, but those workers over time will still lose their jobs. Suppose you buy a $25 toaster and you're completely happy. Government passes a law requiring that toasters cannot be sold for less than $40. So the cheapest toaster is now $40. Next time you need a toaster, are you going to buy a toaster worth $25 and pay $40? Or are you going to buy a toaster for $40 that's worth $40? The reason the person worth $7.25 had a job for $7.25 was that was what it was worth. People worth $9 didn't want the job and the company didn't want to pay $9. If the company has to pay $9, they will get a $9 employee, not keep the $7.25 one.

 

[Oldstyle]

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

Actually...small increases in the minimum wage have only minimal effect on employment as businesses simply absorb the added costs. Large increases...such as the ones that progressives constantly seek...do indeed cause job losses. Raising the minimum wage by several dollars an hour would effect those in the work force who can least afford to take the hit...teens and minorities.

Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Small increases have a small effect, large increases have a large effect. I'm not sure logically how that's contradicting me.

Companies do not BTW just "absorb the cost." Companies with minimum wage workers are companies that work on tight budgets. For a small increase, we can tighten/reduce hours, raise expectations and upgrade poorer workers. For a larger increase, we have to go to layoffs by redesigning procedures, automating, etc.

You ignored another big part of my point, that we can't just raise minimum wage workers wages. The ones who make a little more for whatever reason also have to get increases or you lose them. For a small increase, you can manage that ripple effect more by giving larger wage increases to all your lower wage workers and smaller ones to higher who aren't as irked because it was a small increase. For a larger increase, it's harder to mask that.

If the three businesses that I have owned, two had minimum wage workers, I sold both of those to focus on my main business. My lowest wage worker now is a part timer who makes $9.50 an hour. If minimum wage went up by $.50 then I may not need to give him much. But if it went up to $9, he's going to need a larger increase if I want to keep him. And then the hourly who make a little more are going to want more too.

Throw a tiny pebble in a pond. Then throw a larger one. The larger one will appear as if it had a larger portional splash because it's easier to observe. However, the pond didn't just absorb the smaller one just because you couldn't see the effects as clearly. They were there.

In business, we require risk adjusted return on our investments. Nothing ... is absorbed. No matter how much you want to believe that.

One other thing to think about is suppose we decide we want to keep our hourly workers and "absorb" the cost. Well, overall unemployment may not go up, but those workers over time will still lose their jobs. Suppose you buy a $25 toaster and you're completely happy. Government passes a law requiring that toasters cannot be sold for less than $40. So the cheapest toaster is now $40. Next time you need a toaster, are you going to buy a toaster worth $25 and pay $40? Or are you going to buy a toaster for $40 that's worth $40? The reason the person worth $7.25 had a job for $7.25 was that was what it was worth. People worth $9 didn't want the job and the company didn't want to pay $9. If the company has to pay $9, they will get a $9 employee, not keep the $7.25 one.

You get no argument from me on the effects of raising the minimum wage, Kaz. I'm simply heading off the usual liberal charge that some raises don't cause large increases in unemployment rates. That is indeed the case but only if the raises are small enough that they are able to be absorbed. A large raise, such as the one that Barack Obama advocated would have a profound affect on employment...causing job losses for tens of thousands of the people who already have the hardest time getting jobs in the first place.

 

[kaz]

Actually...small increases in the minimum wage have only minimal effect on employment as businesses simply absorb the added costs. Large increases...such as the ones that progressives constantly seek...do indeed cause job losses. Raising the minimum wage by several dollars an hour would effect those in the work force who can least afford to take the hit...teens and minorities.

Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Small increases have a small effect, large increases have a large effect. I'm not sure logically how that's contradicting me.

Companies do not BTW just "absorb the cost." Companies with minimum wage workers are companies that work on tight budgets. For a small increase, we can tighten/reduce hours, raise expectations and upgrade poorer workers. For a larger increase, we have to go to layoffs by redesigning procedures, automating, etc.

You ignored another big part of my point, that we can't just raise minimum wage workers wages. The ones who make a little more for whatever reason also have to get increases or you lose them. For a small increase, you can manage that ripple effect more by giving larger wage increases to all your lower wage workers and smaller ones to higher who aren't as irked because it was a small increase. For a larger increase, it's harder to mask that.

If the three businesses that I have owned, two had minimum wage workers, I sold both of those to focus on my main business. My lowest wage worker now is a part timer who makes $9.50 an hour. If minimum wage went up by $.50 then I may not need to give him much. But if it went up to $9, he's going to need a larger increase if I want to keep him. And then the hourly who make a little more are going to want more too.

Throw a tiny pebble in a pond. Then throw a larger one. The larger one will appear as if it had a larger portional splash because it's easier to observe. However, the pond didn't just absorb the smaller one just because you couldn't see the effects as clearly. They were there.

In business, we require risk adjusted return on our investments. Nothing ... is absorbed. No matter how much you want to believe that.

One other thing to think about is suppose we decide we want to keep our hourly workers and "absorb" the cost. Well, overall unemployment may not go up, but those workers over time will still lose their jobs. Suppose you buy a $25 toaster and you're completely happy. Government passes a law requiring that toasters cannot be sold for less than $40. So the cheapest toaster is now $40. Next time you need a toaster, are you going to buy a toaster worth $25 and pay $40? Or are you going to buy a toaster for $40 that's worth $40? The reason the person worth $7.25 had a job for $7.25 was that was what it was worth. People worth $9 didn't want the job and the company didn't want to pay $9. If the company has to pay $9, they will get a $9 employee, not keep the $7.25 one.

You get no argument from me on the effects of raising the minimum wage, Kaz. I'm simply heading off the usual liberal charge that some raises don't cause large increases in unemployment rates. That is indeed the case but only if the raises are small enough that they are able to be absorbed. A large raise, such as the one that Barack Obama advocated would have a profound affect on employment...causing job losses for tens of thousands of the people who already have the hardest time getting jobs in the first place.

OK, I see what you're saying old style. I thought by "absorbed" you meant there was "no" affect of a small increase. We're agreeing a small increase has a small effect, but it may not result in a lot of actual layoffs, it can be absorbed in other ways. As I pointed out like cutting hours instead of heads and increasing demands on workers and replacing employees rather than having net reductions. That is true.

BTW, I am well aware you're not a liberal, so I was surprised to make the point I thought you were making. But you weren't making that point!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm curious as to why you had no response to my reply to you in regards to welfare "helping" people, Derideo? You asked for something but then when it was provided...you ignored it. Not the best of debate practice. Just saying...

If a post of yours has been missed it would be helpful if you provide a link to it or send a PM.

 

[Truthmatters]

No where.

they hold historically failed ideas

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

I am sure you have an example to prove that that doesn't include the increase in regulations when Dodd-Frank was implemented.

I lied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Where does free market capitalism without regulation exist?

That does tend to present a problem for him, doesn't it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

If I make a claim which is qualitative, disputed or hard to verify, then I think this is a perfectly reasonable request. However, for basic facts, not. The most liberal economist does not dispute that layoffs and unemployment go up for every minimum wage increase. "independent" isn't required.

Your erroneous allegation has been repudiated by credible sources including a nobel prize winning "liberal economist".

$9 minimum wage: Jump start or job killer?- MSN Money

But New York's governor has already proposed a minimum-wage raise in his state, and some business leaders there approve.

"Raising the minimum wage will put more money in the pockets of workers who most need to spend those dollars," Darius Ross, managing partner of D Alexander Ross Real Estate Capital Partners and a member of Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, wrote in an op-ed piece on StarGazette.com.

"It will boost consumer spending at local businesses across the state. And nothing drives business owners like me to hire additional workers more than increased consumer demand."

Ross also cited data from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, which says a proposed minimum wage increase would benefit 21 million U.S. workers and increase wages $22 billion by 2015.

Paul Krugman: Raising The Minimum Wage Is 'Good Policy'

Increasing the minimum wage is "actually good policy," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in a blog post on Saturday.

President Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour during his State of the Union address last week. While many on the right say that raising the minimum wage could make it more difficult for employers to hire people and therefore cause higher unemployment, Krugman argued in his post that this simply is not the case.

"There just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment," Krugman wrote, citing a report by John Schmitt from the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

The federal minimum wage hasn't increased since 2009. According to a 2012 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would actually be $21.72 an hour if it kept pace with increases in worker productivity.

The same CEPR study found that if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in 1968, it would now be $10.52 per hour.

Even if the U.S. raised the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, the nation would still have a lower minimum wage than many countries around the world.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually...small increases in the minimum wage have only minimal effect on employment as businesses simply absorb the added costs. Large increases...such as the ones that progressives constantly seek...do indeed cause job losses. Raising the minimum wage by several dollars an hour would effect those in the work force who can least afford to take the hit...teens and minorities.

Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Small increases have a small effect, large increases have a large effect. I'm not sure logically how that's contradicting me.

Companies do not BTW just "absorb the cost." Companies with minimum wage workers are companies that work on tight budgets. For a small increase, we can tighten/reduce hours, raise expectations and upgrade poorer workers. For a larger increase, we have to go to layoffs by redesigning procedures, automating, etc.

You ignored another big part of my point, that we can't just raise minimum wage workers wages. The ones who make a little more for whatever reason also have to get increases or you lose them. For a small increase, you can manage that ripple effect more by giving larger wage increases to all your lower wage workers and smaller ones to higher who aren't as irked because it was a small increase. For a larger increase, it's harder to mask that.

If the three businesses that I have owned, two had minimum wage workers, I sold both of those to focus on my main business. My lowest wage worker now is a part timer who makes $9.50 an hour. If minimum wage went up by $.50 then I may not need to give him much. But if it went up to $9, he's going to need a larger increase if I want to keep him. And then the hourly who make a little more are going to want more too.

Throw a tiny pebble in a pond. Then throw a larger one. The larger one will appear as if it had a larger portional splash because it's easier to observe. However, the pond didn't just absorb the smaller one just because you couldn't see the effects as clearly. They were there.

In business, we require risk adjusted return on our investments. Nothing ... is absorbed. No matter how much you want to believe that.

One other thing to think about is suppose we decide we want to keep our hourly workers and "absorb" the cost. Well, overall unemployment may not go up, but those workers over time will still lose their jobs. Suppose you buy a $25 toaster and you're completely happy. Government passes a law requiring that toasters cannot be sold for less than $40. So the cheapest toaster is now $40. Next time you need a toaster, are you going to buy a toaster worth $25 and pay $40? Or are you going to buy a toaster for $40 that's worth $40? The reason the person worth $7.25 had a job for $7.25 was that was what it was worth. People worth $9 didn't want the job and the company didn't want to pay $9. If the company has to pay $9, they will get a $9 employee, not keep the $7.25 one.

You get no argument from me on the effects of raising the minimum wage, Kaz. I'm simply heading off the usual liberal charge that some raises don't cause large increases in unemployment rates. That is indeed the case but only if the raises are small enough that they are able to be absorbed. A large raise, such as the one that Barack Obama advocated would have a profound affect on employment...causing job losses for tens of thousands of the people who already have the hardest time getting jobs in the first place.

Not even remotely the case at all.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/289166-do-conservatives-ever-wonder-why-liberalism-is-prevalent-in-higher-education-post7128140.html#post7128140