Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox u0026 Friends Bernie Coverage Breaks The Stupid-Meter" video.

He is a socialist and arguably a communist.
2
@888strummer , I agree the left does not know how economics work (well, the far left). My point is that equality is what they want. Essentially they want everyone to be equally poor. If millionaires and billionaires did not exist what will Bernie's economic policies be?
2
Most Bernie and AOC supporters are about as ignorant as it gets.
1
Bernie has a very little chance of winning. Trump is very successful and there is way too much dirt on Bernie.
1
@TheXboxName , he hasn't had a job until he was 40. He stole electricity from his neighbor. There are videos of him in Russia celebrating and he rallied along side communist leaders. He praised bread lines. The big one, though, is that his policies will raise taxes on everyone which the country will despise. If not than he does support a Venezuela style economy which is a disaster. When pressed with all of this dirt Bernie will fall apart on stage and will lose the election big time.
1
@madroon7 "Socialism requires capitalism to even exist." True. What would Bernie's economic policy be if millionaires and billionaires did not exist?
1
Bruce Boring , government with too much power breeds corruption. All a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. For as bad as Amazon may be I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force people to work for them or buy their product. Government has that power thus if government has a lot of power people who are rich can pay off government to do them favors.
1
@madroon7 , I agree.
1
Bruce Boring , I agree, but that is not capitalism.
1
Bruce Boring , we have crony capitalism.
1
@Parking Lott ,but yet he supports the Green New Deal.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=306s Because Bernie does what Venezuela type economy.
1
There is a lot on Bernie. In fact, the RNC wants Bernie to win as they can attack him easily. There is a lot of dirt on him. Also, his ideas do align with Venezuela which is a mess.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=306s Bernie's plan is more in lined with Venezuela than those Scandinavian nations. Also, read the book "Debunking Utopia" on that issue. Saying "other nations do it" is not a strong argument.
1
It will kill jobs.
1
@jammyjamjars6995 , unions are a free market idea. There is a desire to have unions as long as you don't have crony unionism. The problem is that unions have become corrupt by government as well as some of the top donors are unions.
1
@TheXboxName , you are comparing two complex economies by only looking at McDonalds and the min. wage. Think about that.
1
@888strummer , bud, that is called "equality" which the left wants.
1
C W , a reminder that you make fun of people with mental disorders.
1
@TheXboxName , what nations? Also, define a "living wage". That is subjective.
1
@TheXboxName , what "basics"? Define a "decent life". And why child care? If someone does not have a child do they get paid less? Also, statistically people who do work full time year round are not poor with only 2% being in poverty.
1
@TheXboxName , Denmark has no min. wage.
1
@TheXboxName , uh, when you start going deeper and look at other nations you realize the far left's arguments fall apart.
1
@JokinJoe , great, I support strong unions as long as they are free from government corruption. Unions are a part of the free market.
1
@TheXboxName , unions are a part of the free market. Also, republicans don't disband unions.
1
@TheXboxName , what "necessities"? Also, does this include roommates? And why 40 hours of work? Why not 30 hours?
1
treydarling , define a "decent living".
1
@kruger2035 "3 people own more money that half the country" That is factually not true. The top 10% bring in 40% of the income. Also, government creates monopolies.
1
@spetcnaz83 "So far we only had prices going up and wages staying stagnant. " That is arguably not true. A lot of data suggests that wages have outpaced inflation. "If McDonald's starts selling their BigMac at $20 when the minimum wage hits $15. They will lose business. " Flip it around, if labor costs $15/hr than less people will be hired. It goes both ways.
1
@TheXboxName , what kind of shelter? A two bedroom apartment by yourself or a studio with 3 roommates? Also, republicans are pro union, they are against crony unionism.
1
The comparison of the min. wage to the price of food in McDonalds is a very bad argument on both sides. You are taking a complex economy and reducing it down to the min. wage and the price of food at McDonalds, think about that. There are more companies than just McDonalds, and there are other factors besides the min. wage that influence how the market works.
1
@TheFallinhalo "if you cannot pay your workers a living wage like $15/hour and your skilled workers alittle more then that. then its a clear sign you have done something spectacularly wrong with your buisness and thus deserve to go out of business so a new business can take your place." That can be flipped around by simply saying that if you cannot justify a $15/hr wage than you deserve to be unemployed and someone else that is worth $15/hr can take your place. The simple hard fact is that, due to how the market has been established by us, the consumers, some business models simply can't afford higher wages. Many business models, such as retail and fast food, are set to where they cannot afford higher wages, period. There is nothing you can change about that.
1
C W , what makes you think I supported Trump making that statement?
1
treydarling , not true. You are looking at overall productivity. Productivity increased due to better technology. Those that invested in it and became skilled in it saw an increase in wages. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". Put it this way, just because the medical doctor is more productive does not mean the fast fodo worker is. In fact, if you look at unit labor cost, which is hourly compensation over productivity, it is positive in the food industry. That means the price of labor is outpacing productivity in that field which typically pays the min. wage https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm On luxury items, they improve everyone's life. In the past a phone in the car was a luxury item, now almost everyone has smart phones. A rich person having a better item than me does not mean I am poor. In reality, the car I drive is better than the car a rich person drove in the 50s. I earn $23,000 a year.
1
@TheXboxName , what massive income inequality? Yes, we have income inequality, but is it massive? You have to show that first. Just because Jeff Bezos is rich does not mean you are poor. The free market leads to competition which leads to better goods and services that are cheaper.
1
treydarling , with increased technology means better goods and services that are cheaper. I say that because this paper you posted only used CPI inflation where there are shortcomings in CPI inflation. CPI has a tendency to overstate inflation which is why it is used the most by politicians and leftists activists in economics like Robert Reich. CPI has shortcomings in that it does not include certain biases. One is "new product" bias where a new product that enters the market will be over priced. For example, a new Iphone will enter the market and be priced very high which, in CPI, will be listed as cell phone prices have gone up. But shortly after the price falls. Even at that there are other cell phones on the market that are very cheap. Essentially, CPI does not account for the outlier. Same with technology. CPI has a difficult time accounting for technology. A couple of examples are the car and the cell phone. Cars today are, in sticker price, more expensive than cars in the 60s. But cars today are much safer, last longer, and get better gas mileage all which saves money. A brick cell phone in the 80s would cost $4000 if you include CPI inflation. However, cell phones today are essentially free where a smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon. There are other methods to measure inflation such as PCE where the Minneapolis Fed argued that should be used instead https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce You also have GDP deflator and the Boskin Commission adjustment for inflation. When you use that there are arguments to be made that wages have outpaced inflation and productivity https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf The second article has been cited over 150 times. So while the paper you sent me has valuable information and a good argument, they do use only one method to measure inflation which I find to be a major flaw. It is forcing a conclusion they believed from the beginning. But as a whole, you are comparing the overall productivity to the work force to the lowest earning members of the work force. You can't do that. As I said, just because the medical doctor is more productive does not mean the fast food worker is. As for increasing the min. wage and problems. the issue is that there is more to the economy than the min. wage. If you increase it by a little bit you may not see, overall, any changes. Any changes will be essentially lost in the statistical noise. As for a car being a luxury item? Increase in productivity made cars more affordable. As I said, cars today last longer, get better mileage and are safer. As for increases in demand, the demand is there, the supply isn't. There is a demand for better goods and services, you don't need to artificially create it. Businesses will push to provide those better goods and services at a lower price. But if you increase the min. wage you are increasing demand without increasing supply. That will raise prices.
1
@TheXboxName , learn what wealth is. Wealth is assets, not income. For example, if you give me the Hope Diamond I would have a lot of wealth, but I will still only have $2000 to my name in income. The wealthy are as wealthy as they are because of a few reasons 1. They are the largest shareholders of their companies. That increases confidence in investors thus the value of the company is much higher. If you were take their wealth and give it to some random guy on the street the value of the stocks will fall. 2. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into the home. 3. We have large wealth inequality because a lot of people, like me, have negative wealth. Someone with no debt and $10 to their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. That is because a lot of people, like me, have debt from college loans or home loans or business loans. That is arguably not a bad thing. It shows that we are so rich as a nation we can allow people like me to go into massive debt to achieve something to better themselves in the long run, like owning a home or a college degree. You say "massive income inequality" by go to a source that talks about wealth. Not to be rude but if you want to discuss economics you need to fully understand the difference. Someone can have a lot of income but still be in the red in terms of wealth if they have massive debt.
1
@JokinJoe , read my comment to TheXboxName on wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is, arguably, great for society. Jeff Bezos became very wealthy by making shopping easier for people. Because of him I can shop at home without wasting time and gas driving around looking for something that might not exist.
1
@TheXboxName " I was simply pointing out that many countries Australia included has a fairly higher minimum wage than the U.S. and that has not collapsed their economy. " There is way more to the economy than the min. wage.
1
@TheXboxName , to add on wage stagnation, it depends on what method of inflation you look at. Do you look at CPI, PCE, GDP deflator, Boskin Commission adjustment? Or better question, did you know there is more than one way to measure inflation?
1
@JokinJoe , Amazon is a corporation, I am an individual. Our financial situations are completely different. Amazon employs over 600,000 people directly, I employ 0. You can't compare my taxes to their taxes.
1
@JokinJoe , also, based on the federal tax code I do support, I say that is good. I don't want the federal government taxing businesses, I want them taxing individuals with a flat income tax and a consumption tax, or tax the states like we did before 1913.
1