Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Senator Bernie Sanders" channel.

  1. Ruixiang Wang A flaw in that statement about minimum wage going up and jobs going up is that there are several variables that are involved in overall job growth. A minimum wage increase of a dollar or so won't effect overall job growth due to other variables being involved. My home state has a min. wage higher than the federal. We also have low taxes and just gave a company a 1.8 million dollar tax break to build a factory here. This business will pay at least $26/hr and is creating a lot of jobs. Now what created the jobs, the higher min. wage or the tax breaks? People who tie the min. wage to overall job growth are confused and simply don't know how statistics work.
    1
  2. Terry Kuek And that is a different issue all together. But even with that the top 10% is only around $112,000/yr. Even Bernie Sanders said that the problem is the ultra ultra rich, the top 0.01% or around there. But even at that, a company like Walmart is as large as it is due to stocks. And they pay competitive wages compared to other retail stores, and in some cases more. And offer cheaper goods so it works out great for the market.
    1
  3. Ruixiang Wang Research has shown that there is job lost. It is with target groups though such as teens and other low wage workers. Hours are cut as well. So while you are forcing how much people can earn per hour, you are not per week. Min. wage increases have been small, thus all job lost gets lost in the statistical noise. You don't see the teenage job lost because it is a small variable in a complex economy. But when you do an analysis you see that jobs are lost in target groups.
    1
  4. Socially Akward So he is trying to compare us to countries that are smaller than most of our states?
    1
  5. You start a business and you pay higher wages, see how far you go.
    1
  6. Catherine S. Todd Good for your business.  Walmart also pays above the min. wage and hires a lot of people.  At the same time Walmart is a one stop shop retail store that is open 24 hours.  How much does that worker working from 2 AM to 7 AM in a snowstorm makes for a company?  Some small businesses close down during inclement weather because they simply can't afford to be open then. It isn't up to a business to worry about your personal finances.  You are paid based on your work.  I make the min. wage but that job is a part time job.  My full time makes a lot more.  My girlfriend makes the min. wage and she is able to pay off her loan because I am the main earner of the home.  How much you get paid means nothing.  It is how you manage your money. The long term solution is to establish capitalism again.  The short term solution of raising prices is like every other short term solution, they are temporary fixes (if at all) that creates problems again.  You raise the min. wage and then certain people won't get hired because they don't have the skill set to justify that new wage.  Or prices go up because the cost of more expensive labor has to come from somewhere.  Where unskilled workers can't get a job then they have no chance to move up in the workforce that they won't enter to begin with.  That is why the min. wage is considered to be removing the lower rungs of the economic ladder.  Short term "solutions" are causing this mess. Walmart isn't receiving welfare, the workers are. They should be responsible for their own finances and us, as society, need to stop accepting polices that raise prices and kill jobs. 
    1
  7. Your Dada They are not entitled to the success of the business.  If they are not getting paid enough then they can work someplace else. Asking a business to take in less profits means less investments for them and less growth.  It is the same for an individual.  Would you be willing to get paid less if the business you worked for was struggling?  I doubt it.  You won't be able to grow yourself and it was you who put in the work to make yourself earn the amount you do.  You know who do take pay cuts?  Business owners.  Forcing a business to take in less profits is terrible for the economy.  It was the Waltons and their investments that made Walmart big, not the easily replaceable low skilled worker.
    1
  8. Your Dada The Waltons are not being subsidized.  The thing is that the Waltons invested in their company to grow it and as a result they made a profit.  That is how life goes and it is great.  Everyone striving for their individual goal leads to success.  Walmart is successful in that they offer a plethora of cheap products at a one stop 24 hour shop.  The drawback is that they can't afford to pay workers more.  Walmart would love to have an employee like me in that I have a lot of work experience and a strong skill set, but I would demand a wage they simply couldn't afford.  Same goes for that they can't hire doctors, engineers, or other highly skilled workers to do remedial tasks, they can't afford to pay a higher wage.  The people they hire are paid the wage they are because they either have low skills and work experience, work flexible hours, or simply just want a job for busy work (as in my uncle who has a PhD and a retired economic professor who works for little at H&R block).  In all they can't sell their labor for more and don't get paid that much.  It is the balance of businesses have to pay well or they lose good workers.  But if they pay too much then they lose money and go out of business.  A worker wants a lot of money but if they ask for too much then they won't get hired.  Let us assume you make $30/hr.  If you go to your employer and demand $50/hr you wouldn't get it since you don't have any leverage to get that. A business owner takes in profits to invest in their business and grow.  If you look at one thing that businesses invested in it would be technology.  The job of the low skilled worker has gotten easier.  Look at cash registers alone.  If you look at unit labor cost of the restaurant industry, which is the hourly compensation over productivity, you see it is rising meaning the price of labor is outpacing productivity.  Also, look at how people in poverty own TVs now, cars, the price of the pocket calculator went from around $300 to almost free.  That is how people are getting rewarded, competition means business invest to bring better products at an affordable price.  If you lower profits that takes away investments and growth and progress.  Say bye-bye to more energy efficient cars and dishwashers.  Another flaw in what you said is that you assume that money is finite.  It isn't.  The productivity of the highly skilled has increased due to their investment in technology and growth making them worth more and thus they are paid more.  The unskilled worker's productivity has stagnated thus they are not paid more.  That isn't all bad because like I said that investment creates jobs and better products at an affordable price. Those walmart workers are expendable and low skilled, they are not entitled to anything.  With what you are saying I feel you should take less pay since your employer didn't have to hire you, that is unless you possess a high skill and can sell yourself for a lot.  I am not a walmart apologist, I just want a strong economy.  
    1
  9. Catherine Todd I worked in small business for years.  I have many friends and family members who worked in small business.  My two siblings have their MBAs, my uncle is a retired economics professor.  There is a lot of business experience in my life from my friends and family.  I choose to take the science and math route to work in getting into pharmacy school (to where I will have the skill set to sell my labor for $50/hr).  Point being is that I do know how economics and business work. Walmart cannot afford higher wages, it isn't about them being rich (where does it show that they are rich?) but that their business model doesn't allow them to pay more.  If they do they will go bankrupt or not expand due to less money to invest.  Also, who cares how much the Waltons make?  They are the ones running the business, putting in all the financial risks, working 24/7 in dealing with new laws, potential lawsuits, new taxes, etc.  The worker comes in, clocks in, works and then leaves.  Yes they do work for the company but one they are expendable in that they are a low skill worker, and two Walmart didn't have to give them a job.  If you ran a business you would be putting in all the work so you should see the reward.  Competition would force you to pay higher wages. Walmart a few years back supported a min. wage increase.  When it was $5.15/hr they paid their workers nearly double that.  A min. wage increase to $7.25/hr wasn't going to hurt them but instead hurt their competitors that can't afford a higher wage.  That is why Costco supports a $11/hr min. wage, they start out paying $11.50/hr (due to their business model) so it will hurt their competitors.  If you really do run a business and pay your workers well then great.  I see your support of higher wages as your way of eliminating competition.  It means that this new law will benefit you at the expense of others.  Here is something I have to ask?  How come you don't hire more?  Why are you complaining about Walmart's wages when companies that pay more (you by what you are claiming) when other businesses are not hiring more?  Why don't you hire more.  It will make your workers happier if they have to do less work.  It is a very simple question that really no one has ever answered.  So many attacks on these low paying companies but none on ones that don't hire more.  Like Reich said in this video, GM use to have the most employees.  Where have all the manufacturing jobs gone that pay well?  In retail, due to the business model the business can't afford to pay more.  So tell me, why do you hire more? Walmart would like to pay more so they can attract better workers, all companies do, but they can't if their business model doesn't allow it.  I don't support slavery and these people are not slaves.  They have the choice of working there, Walmart had the choice of hiring them.  It isn't up to a business to take care of your personal finances.  When I complete pharmacy school down the road and I get paid $50/hr then I proceed to live outside my means then that is my fault, not my company's.  Same as in Walmart.  They pay their workers the market rate at what they can afford.  It is up to the worker to manage their money.
    1
  10. Your Dada A better question is why are there no longer higher paying jobs?  And why have the purchasing power of the dollar weaken?  Reich pointed out that the largerst employer used to be GM.  Where have those jobs (manufacturing jobs) gone?  Manufacturing jobs pay a lot, retail don't because their business model doesn't allow them to based purely on the market.  Walmart simply can't afford higher wages.  For them to be able too they would need to only be open on peak hours (7 AM to 11 PM) for example.  That would mean night shift employees would be gone.  So now people go from having a job to nothing.  Prices would have to be raised to have the money come from somewhere so now the purchasing power of the low income earner is worse.  And Walmart would carry less products.  This is now becoming a similar model to Costco.  The only difference would be the lack of membership and bulk items.  The pure and simple fact is that Walmart simply can't afford to pay more.  Doing so would hurt profits and thus hurt growth and expansion.  Your comparison to slaves is asinine.  Slaves were force to work and were sold to the plantation owners.  They were essentially property.  The Walmart worker has the ability to get a different job or move up, that is until certain policies kill higher paying jobs or hurt the purchasing power of low income households.  I still have yet to have anyone answer the simple question on why do companies that pay more, as in Costco, hire more?  I don't think we should have people on welfare, but artificially setting prices makes it worse.
    1
  11. Catherine Todd More misinformation.  First you say that people are willing to spend the extra 46 cents when in reality they aren't.  People who shop at Walmart are living on a budget and that extra 46 cents means a lot.  I know I would personally shop less at a place if their prices went up.  It also leads to the slippery slope in that "what is an extra 46 cents?", to "oh, it is just 20 more cents" and then son 30 cents, 50 cents, 10 cents, and more inflation leading to hurting the purchasing power of the lower income individuals.  The Waltons are rich because they made wise investments.  You don't get rich by giving money away. Plus, forcing them to pay more means tapping into their profits leading to less growth and less jobs.  People feel like money is finite when it isn't.  Capital has to be created and in order to do that you need wise investments.  Forcing bad investments is a practice we have been doing for years and it is hurting higher paying jobs. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop retail store.  That business model doesn't allow for high pay just like a restaurant doesn't allow for high pay.  The simple fact is that Walmart can't pay more.  If they did they would be paying above market rate and they would not be the rich but bankrupt.  I still have yet to have my question answered.  Why is there a constant attack on Walmart for not paying enough but never an attack on companies for not hiring?  Manufacturing jobs are leaving, jobs that pay well.  That is a problem.  Instead of creating new policies that will kill more jobs we need  look into bringing higher paying jobs back. It is funny how you claim what Walmart is doing is immoral and illegal.  You have to remember they can always chose to fire people and close down some walmarts.  Attack them and they will get rid of jobs much like the manufacturing companies did.  It isn't a support of Walmart but the facts of the market and how it works.
    1
  12. Your Dada Franchise owners of McDonalds make around 4-6 cents for every dollar they get.  Your thinking that the hamburger cost more than 99 cents isn't true, it does cost around that much. McDonalds can't raise the price anymore because demand will drop.  Same as in retail if Walmart raised the price of bread or milk than demand will drop.  Drop in demand means a drop in customers and a drop in profits.  Just like an increase in price of labor means jobs will be lost. In retail and restaurant the pay is low because that is the market rate.  If the pay were higher then there will be less jobs and lower prices. Look at pharmacist.  They get paid a lot, but there are far less pharmacists than walmart workers and the cost of drugs is high.  Never mind the skill set.  My dad currently makes $26/hr working maintenance at a factory that is basically filled with lead.  It is a dangerous job and he has a lot of skills and he gets paid a lot.  The company has a hard time retaining workers due to the job conditions and thus pay a low where in retail the job has minimal risk and skills and thus they get paid little, never mind the low profits they bring in. Things like cops, firemen, paved roads, etc. are ran by the states and cover everyone.  Everyone benefit from it.  A business can always  choose to leave or close down some of their stores.   Closing stores mean less jobs and thus less growth economically and socially. Somalia is a poor example.  That country is a mess with no control anywhere  
    1
  13. Catherine Todd So someone you agree with you accept as wise, but someone you disagree with you feel isn't.  That is a problem you should look into.  I became as intelligent as I am because I was willing to listen to people I didn't agree with. 
    1
  14. Your Dada You are making a strawman argument thinking that I support no government.  I support state rights. The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control the government.  Everything else were to be left up to the state and local government. When states and local governments run policies then you have two things.  You have a government that represents the people better to where it isn't really government but instead a community working together.  You also have 50 states competing together to be the best.  That is a part of capitalism where everyone will benefit.  I don't support Somalia because it has on protection from anything. Your feeling of feedlots is digging at the bottom of the barrel.  Animals for millennia have been producing methane, those feedlots means nothing. Public assist is a problem of our society not allowing higher paying jobs to be produced, or ruining the purchasing power of the dollar, or allowing the federal government to run public assistance instead of states where the money will be managed better. You complain about billion the Waltons make (can you show evidence of that).  Who cares?  That is my response.  If they made that much money that means they create all those and sold that many goods to do that.  Money isn't finite.  It isn't that the Waltons are taking in all the money that exists and giving none away, they are actually creating capital.  My dad makes $26/hr because he creates that much capital.  Just like after I finish pharmacy school I would be making around $60/hr because I produce that much capital.  The walmart worker makes around 9/hr because they produce that much capital.  People should also be more concerned with what they make instead of what others make.  I really question who is the greedy one when people complain about what others making and not worry about themselves. I couldn't care less what they Waltons make.  They offer low prices and from competition other stores offer affordable prices (I don't shop at Walmart much, I try to go elsewhere).  That benefits me as a buyer. 
    1
  15. Your Dada The same can be said about liberals, as you get older you get less liberal.  Most people just want to be independent and don't want the government messing with them.  Most people are also mature and smart enough to figure their own life out. 
    1
  16. Your Dada Depends on the issue.  Economic wise I would say more are becoming conservative.  When people start looking for jobs, paying taxes and raising families they realize the cost of high taxes and regulations and oppose them.  Also, people tend to just want to mind their own business which is why many oppose Obamacare.  They don't want the government interfering with their healthcare or other aspects of life.  
    1
  17. Your Dada Then who controls the government?  That is why I support state rights. The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control the governments.  States are suppose to control regulations.  Allowing state and local governments to run those programs develops a community working together where government exists in name only.  At the federal level it leads to corruption. I support regulations, I just want control of the government.  We had that through the constitution and state rights, well we use to.  Us stepping away from that is what is ruining us.
    1
  18. The president and federal government can't do anything because of the 1st and 10th amendment.  At 4 minutes, so Bernie supports the federal government spying on people that he considers to be a hate group?  He wants to go against the 4th amendment?   Bernie is not a socialist, he is a communist.  The reason for the growing number of hate groups is because liberals continue to separate us into groups.  I love how Bernie quoted the DoI in the end, damn he is a scary politician.
    1
  19. Costco and walmart are completely different companies.  One is a warehouse the other is retail, learn the difference.
    1
  20. Mads Max Bernie was absent from roll call during voting around 3% in his career, that is higher than the median of around 1.6%. He has been be absent more than most congress members.
    1
  21. Mads Max I do hear what Bernie says. He has a lot of talking points but no ideas. He is economically illiterate and is a pure politician. And according to his voting record he is absent more times compared to other senators.
    1
  22. Mads Max " no more corporate run politics" Wouldn't be a problem if we had limited federal government. Who is going to stop the rest of congress and members of the federal government from taking bribes when they have the power? " end the plutocracy and give democracy back to the people." You do that with state rights. Bernie wants to abolish state rights and work towards a centralized government.
    1
  23. +TheGreatCat123 With state governments you can control them easier. Ever noticed how state policies are passed easier? Also you have the ability to move to another state if you don't like how one is being ran. People do that as it.
    1
  24. +TheGreatCat123 They can try, but the people will see it effect them more directly. And people can also move. We have a congress with a very low approval rating, but a high retention rating. People know what they want, you can get it with smaller more local government. You get it at the state level. I can already tell you my opinion on the video, you solve it by removing the ability of the federal government to give favors. If the federal government had limited power then it doesn't have the power to give out favors to those who purchase it. Bernie is just going to compound our problems. A similar question was asked of this to Herman Cain a few years back, after Bernie gives the federal government control of healthcare and college and teenage employment and jobs etc., thus giving them more power, what is going to stop the future president after Bernie is gone from abusing that power?
    1
  25. +TheGreatCat123 There is corruption but you hardly hear it at the state level, and when it does happen they get caught. You can look up state corruption and how they actually get convicted. For example Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell or Patrick Cannon, Mayor of Charlotte, NC. Politicians will take bribes, you are more likely to catch them and hold them accountable at the local level. We need a government, but we also need control over it. You get that with smaller more local government and the constitution. EU governments are small. Those countries are smaller than most of our states. I have no problem looking at those countries for example and then states implementing what they do. I have a problem with implementing what those countries do at the federal level. What happens in the EU actually supports state rights. Denmark, Finland, Norway etc. are all smaller than most of our states. Iceland is smaller than my city I live in. "Can you imagine how messy can it be that every state is different? " It will actually be ran better because states will be competing with each other. Plus every state deals with different issues. Having a one size fits all policy simply won't work. When the federal government gets involved things get messy. Education has always been ran by the states. The department of ed was created in 1980 and has become a mess ever since. I agree that education is important, but allowing a centralize government that overseas 300 million people to control education is dangerous. They can control what is taught and what isn't which is indoctrination. With states if one state uses education as indoctrination they won't go far because neighboring states won't and will do better economically. Overall state rights is about checks and balances. Never put all your eggs in one basket.
    1
  26. +moneymaker2dx If a state does not follow the constitution then the people need to bring it up to the courts. Also at the state level people can move and remain a US citizen. More times then not the state goes in favor of the people. Our growing income inequality if because of the federal government, not the free market.
    1
  27. Youth unemployment wouldn't be so high if the min. wage wasn't so high.  There is a strong correlation between high youth unemployment and higher min. wage. So what is your solution Sanders?  To me a good starting point is eliminate the min. wage.
    1
  28. I do listen to scientists considering I am one myself.  Reading Physics Today in my lab it stated that effects of climate change are in doubt.  Seems like Bernie needs to read a little more.
    1
  29. Jon Alanoor He is economically illiterate. While he presents legit problems at times, he also presents problems that are not that bad if they are problems at all, and his policies are only going to compound our problems.
    1
  30. cinnireseisri So when you don't have a legitimate rebuttal you just name call. Bernie does similar tactics by the way in debates. Enjoy watching him get burned in debates.
    1
  31. cinnireseisri No I am not getting paid.
    1
  32. Angolin Economics are not BS, the people involved are, but economics are not BS. The people who are BS usually over complicate economics out of their pure ego and they are the ones that typically support Keynesian economics. A great way to explain economics is that us as humans are basically drones. We are intelligent but unaware. That ties in how the economy works. The economy follows a simple, small set of rules in that are all connected in a complex way. Us as humans are intelligent in that we go for what benefits us. We will go for the higher wage, better job, and better deal. We are unaware in how much everything is connected and how complex the economy is. So we may support something like the min. wage going up in that we see our friends, or even ourselves get a raise. But we don't see the negative effects of higher prices and less jobs. Problem is that politicians take advantage of that. You can look at our economic problems and trace them back to the federal government perturbing one area of the market and thus messing it up. Due to lack of awareness politicians will use that to create more government even though they are the ones that started the problem. I don't have much time but if you want I can give you examples later.
    1
  33. cinnireseisri What are you saying? That removing the min. wage will increase working hours? That is true. What is also true is that if you removed the min. wage then workers pay actually go up as well because then economy improves in several ways. That is one of those areas where people are unaware of what is going on. They feel a government mandate of a price floor will mean people earn more money, but in reality it leads to less hours and increase in prices.
    1
  34. cinnireseisri When did you defeat me (if this was ever a challenge)? I don't recall that.
    1
  35. At 6 minutes he played pure politics on healthcare and tapped dance around the question.  Why didn't Vermont get single payer?  He instead went on to say that we need it in our country.  Well, we couldn't get it in one of the smallest states in the union.  He never answer the question, he never gave a solution.  He will get toasted in debates.
    1
  36. Instead of striking how about they better themselves by finding a way to become worth more.
    1
  37. XellosTheDragon I know several friends that did. I have several students that do now.
    1
  38. Dylan Hart Now try to swing that past Bernie and his supporters and see what you get.
    1
  39. Dylan Hart Sorry
    1
  40. Here is the simple truth, Sanders is a career politician who has never worked a day in his life or studied economics.  Listening to him on economic issues is like listening to a 4 year old on how to drive a car.
    1
  41. Kathie Bishop So Sanders is more qualified than someone who actually worked in the private sector?  Sanders is all talk, but anyone who actually looks into the economy and the market knows how off he is.  
    1
  42. Kathie Bishop Noam Chomsky studies linguistic, he is not knowledgeable at all when it comes to economics.  Most economists disagree with Sanders, or that he is deceptive.  Take the min. wage for example, there isn't on good reason to even have it.  Most economist agree that we shouldn't raise it, but Sanders want to push a "living wage" whatever that means. 
    1
  43. Kathie Bishop Honorary PhDs just means either you spoke at a university or made a donation. You really didn't do anything to earn it. I have seen Chomsky's lectures, great speaker, kind of ignorant.  Robert Reich?  The same Robert Reich who says that raising the min. wage is common sense?  You know, I am pursuing my PhD.  If I were to stand in front of my advisory team and say "common sense" I wouldn't get it.  I get my info from actual research.  I don't watch the "corporation media".  As a man who is working on his PhD I have the ability to do research and look up information and make my own decision, not listen to people spewing out deceptive information to gain viewers and money (in the case of Sanders win elections).  There isn't on good reason to even have a min. wage when you break it down.
    1
  44. Kathie Bishop My opinion on Chomsky shows that I can look past a guy that speaks well.  He is not very economically sound.  I remember one talk he gave where he mentioned about one group of people holding on to all the resources where he was talking about money.  The thing is that money isn't a resource.  It is just a universal means of trade with an arbitrary value.  So what he said is wrong.  But that isn't surprising coming from a guy that feels people could just volunteer their services and our society will function just fine. There is a youtube video where he talks about taxes and how we should celebrate April 15th if we are really a free, democratic society.  He says that taxes are there to fund policies for us.  The problem is that in the US we don't have a democracy, we have a republic with 300 million people and 50 states.  The American people have little voice at the federal level in the US thus us paying taxes are not necessarily paying for policies we support.  He doesn't understand how this country was designed and how it is supposed to be ran.  One can go on.  He is a great writer and speaker, but his political and economic ideas are disconnected from what goes one, especially in the US.  Look past the great writing (because he is a great writer) and you see a guy who spent his whole life behind books but never in the general public to understand what goes on, or understand people in general.  This is a youtube comment by the way.  I don't put too much effort in writing and editing this.  Where as with my PhD dissertation I will spend 3+ years working on it.   
    1
  45. Kathie Bishop Nice response.  Remember, you are the one listening to people who have no experience.  Like Sanders, career politician.  Same with Robert Reich.  Noam Chomsky, he has done nothing but read and write.  Talk is cheap, remember that.  
    1
  46. +Sandra Nonofyourbusiness The top 6 CEOs of Walmart earn $77 million a year combined. Spread that money to the 525,000 workers who earn $25,000 or less at Walmart they will earn an extra $148/yr. That is not much. So by placing a cap on CEO pay what do you accomplish?
    1
  47. +Sandra Nonofyourbusiness Ok, then what? Those people eat for a week.....then what? Now we are at a standstill. You have just pointed out that pure fact that socialism workers until you run out of other people's money.
    1
  48. +Sandra Nonofyourbusiness "Walmart's employees are subsidized by the taxpayers" That isn't Walmart's fault. "Since the wealthiest people pay the LEAST taxes, that burden is mostly on the average worker." The top 10% pay 70% of taxes. "Meanwhile, Walmart is making record profits. " With only 3-5% profit margins. The term "living wage" subjective and means nothing. "CEO pay continues to rise while the typical worker is paid less and less." Not true in that workers are not paid less. CEO pay is more because they are responsible for more employees, innovation and production. The middle class is still strong today.
    1
  49. +moneymaker2dx It isn't.
    1
  50. +cuulcars Trickle down economics is not even an economic term. It is a political attack term used by the left to make their opponents look bad without even looking into their policies.
    1