Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "O'Reilly: Living Wage For Workers Would 'Collapse' The Economy" video.

  1. Automation will happen, but if we leave the market alone it will happen gradually as opposed to quickly so the change doesn't hurt the economy. A company can't just raise prices to increase profits. If a company raised prices then they will get less customers. Also, if you want healthy food then eat at home.
    2
  2. Who disliked this? People who understand economics.
    2
  3. You literally compared complex economies around the world to only the min. wage and the price of the Big Mac. Think about that......maybe with some thought you will see how ridiculous your analysis was.
    1
  4. "There is already a minimum wage in place so the idea it will collapse the economy by just raising it some is ridiculous." The min. wage has never been increased by over 100% in this short amount of time. A $15/hr min. wage in a span of a few years nation wide will lead to an economic collapse. "Also, the reality is people used to be able to make good money without an education in manufacturing jobs but those are less available." Because the economy changes. Before the tractor people earned a living working on the farm. In Virginia City, NV people earned $4 a day which was a lot of money then (workers were making less than a dollar a day in the 1800s then). Those jobs are now gone. We are an advanced nation and should push people to take on higher skilled jobs. Jobs like being a doctor or a professor so we can offer more people a college education and healthcare. Rewarding laziness does not grow a nation and an economy.
    1
  5. Money is not an issue if you plan on becoming a doctor. With the money you get you can pay off any loan easily. And yes, we should push people to take on those skills. That is how you generate wealth. If you don't you will just increase income inequality. "If the company wanted a high school kid in a job then why didn't they hire them? " Because the min. wage prices them out of the job. A company would like to hire a high school kid. But if the price of labor is too high then they will go after and adult and tell them to work fulltime and do more. But, you are an adult and the only job you can get is a min. wage job, then that is your fault. "Not saying it should go to 15 but it should be raised because the cost of living doesn't stay the same each year" Yep. In a lot of cases it has dropped. Especially in places the fed has not touched. " And most companies want to pay the least possible amount." But yet, less than 4% of workers earn the min. wage. That means businesses pay more.
    1
  6. "Exactly how should the government push people into doing jobs? " By not rewarding laziness. "And does it mean they will loan out the money for them? Take care of their kids or whatever until they can make enough money??" No. Just leave the economy alone and people will gradually adjust to the gradually changing economy. "And If Less than 4% actually earn min. wage then it's not a big increase to effect the economy, right?" A $7.25/hr to $15/hr min. wage is a large increase. "Yes most companies want to pay the least amount possible for labor, for material etc. as long as they don't see it will have a negative effect on their business, aka bottom line." Yes, but if they pay too little then they don't get the best employees in a competitive market. Just like if I were to pay less rent I would not get a good apartment in a nice neighborhood. I can get a better apartment but I can't afford it just like a business can't afford better workers. "They will charge what they can get away with above and beyond regardless of actual cost." If a business charges too much no one will buy their product if a competitor offers a lower amount. Just like if a worker asks for too high of a wage they won't get a job.
    1
  7. I care a lot about people. I said earlier that in order to be able to allow more people to have access to healthcare and college we need more higher skilled workers such as doctors, researchers, professors, nurses, etc. That means pushing people to take on those high skill jobs. You, on the other hand, don't care about people. You want to reward people for being lazy and create a market with limited wealth so people suffer.
    1
  8. "The reality is if someone has the ambition or drive to do better they will regardless of the min. wage. And getting more money will just help them." If they have drive and ambition they will work and people will take notice. They will earn their money. " However there are some people who are desperate and who only have limited options. The truth is some people don't have the intelligence, ambition, or skill. " And I agree. We can develop something at the local level to help them out, but the harsh reality is that if you can't produce, and no one cares enough about you to help you out, then you are not worth anything. " A mother supporting children or a senior who lost a spouse and has no money because of the medical bills is not lazy. " I agree, and I don't mind a program ran locally to help them. But it needs to have standards and control. Also, friends and family should help.
    1
  9. "somebody working 40 hours a week is not "lazy"." It's subjective. Working 40 hours a week digging holes in the desert is a lot of work but develops little to no wealth. Working 40 hours a week cooking at a fast food restaurant with no desire to move up and take on more difficult challenges is being lazy. Also, less than 2% of min. wage workers work full time to begin with. Anyone can do that job. It takes work to develop skills. "no ceo or executive for the burger place is making any money unless somebody is making the fries" The vast majority of burger places are not ran by CEOs or executives or millionaires. Also, anyone can do those jobs. It takes a lot of work to be a business owner. " that person's job is incredibly important " If it is only worth the min. wage than it is not important. As I said, anyone can do it. If one person refuses to do it then someone else will. "any job that a business needs done should pay enough that somebody working it 40 hours a week can live off of it. " Except most of those workers are part time and short term. They are not that important of a job. " you have absolutely NO historical precedent or any other evidence for that matter that any of your doomsday predictions would come true." I never made a doomsday prediction except raising the min. wage at over 100% of what it is now in a short amount of time will lead to an economic collapse since it has never been done for good reason. Democrats support the min. wage purely for political reasons to get votes. That is why the raise it at small amounts, to avoid the negative results from rising up from the statistical noise. "you've also said in the past that you would be just fine if each individual state raised their min wages." Because I support state rights. I stick to my principles. "so why can businesses all of a sudden afford to pay their workers more if the wage was raised by the state, but not if it's raised by the fed?" The reality is that they can't. But with that said, if a state wants to run their state like that then fine. I can only vote in one state, I have no say what goes on in the other 49. "you just have no fucking clue how economics works." Ironic you say that considering how you feel that someone cooking fries is an important job. So important that someone without a high school education can do it.
    1
  10. " if you are WORKING, any job, for 40 hours a week, you're not lazy" Uh, yes you are if you have not desire to move up. "your rationalization about states raising min wage vs federal makes so little sense that i can't even find anything worth continuing. " Well consider this. Cost of living is different in all states. "every single one of your arguments against raising the min wage are contradicted by your arguments for states rights." No, my support for state rights comes from the idea that smaller, more local governments are more efficient. "and the person cooking fries IS an important job to that business. " But not to society which is why they are paid so little. "can a burger place sell fries if nobody makes them? " No, but if they have no customers they can't sell them either. A owner will find a way to get the fries cooked though. " kinda seems important to me." So important that they work part time and make the min. wage. "you said i feel that the job is important but didn't give any evidence to the contrary. " I did. You don't even need a high school diploma to do that job.
    1
  11. "lazy has nothing to do with desire to move up." Yes it does because while others are working to develop wealth in our society the person refusing to move up wants the benefits of the wealth being created while not creating any themselves. I do work that can aid in curing cancer or diabetes. Why should I get paid the same as someone who flips burgers?
    1
  12. "Well then don't be lazy, move up to a CEO position where you make more money. Or go back to school and become a lawyer." I agree. Develop a skill. I am working on my PhD in physical chemistry. "Why should someone who throws a basketball through a hoop make more than someone trying to cure cancer???" That's the market. They make their money off of TV contracts which is why they make so much money. "The burger flipper is. When you go on vacation for two weeks do you need a replacement or the organization can't function fully? The burger flipper does." Anyone can flip burgers. "The idea that a "min wage job" isn't work is ridiculous" No it's not. " Society needs to first value people as human beings instead of letting employment dictate their value." Good luck.
    1
  13. "you dodged my question. lazy means unwilling to work, so how is somebody working 40 hours a week "unwilling to work"? " I didn't dodge your question. They are unwilling to work because they are unwilling to work at developing skills to earn a higher income. They would rather work a low skill/low wage job which isn't hard to do. A high school kid can do that. So are they unwilling to work? No. But are they unwilling to work hard? Yes. Thus they get paid a low wage. You don't have to believe that I don't study science. I am working to submitting my third paper for publication. That fact will never change. You point out the one mistake I made, need I point out the numerous mistakes you made like not knowing who Christina Romer was. Not knowing what "subjective value theory" is. Not knowing what Skilled Biased Technological Change is. Those are the three that come up first. I can think of more later if you want.
    1
  14. Are they willing to work? Beyond a certain level they aren't. Yes I study science. You make a lot of mistakes. Now excuse me while I study quantum mechancis
    1
  15. Doubling the min. wage has never been done before in that short amount of time. The average hourly earnings is around $24/hr. Such a large increase will lead to an economic collapse.
    1
  16. This actually was discussed the other day at work http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/new-us-overtime-rules-will-bump-postdoc-pay-could-hurt-research-budgets
    1
  17. One thing that happened is that now when writing a grant proposal a PI can't asked for money for a postdoc since they now cost so much. So the mandated price floor in postdocs means less jobs for them. I am witnessing this first hand. My PI is writing a grant proposal and he can't request a postdoc because they are now too expensive.
    1
  18. You have the cart before the horse. Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. People having more money but not more to spend it on will just devalue the dollar. It isn't rocket science, it is basic economics.
    1
  19. I get a lot of services from workers in the US. Even with that you have to increase productivity and wealth creation. Even if the consumers have more money if more wealth is not created as well then all you do is increase demand without increasing supply thus prices go up. If all it took was more money being spent then why not $100/hr min. wage? The economy will be booming. If there is a large amount of supply then prices will drop. Businesses have no desire to have a lot of supply thus they will sell it at a lower price. What increases the value of the dollar is investing and creating wealth, not spending. I find it ironic you mention crony capitalism when the min. wage is a tool for it. Larger competitors like Walmart supported it knowing it will hurt smaller competitors and union members support it knowing it is a negotiating tool. But if you really think spending is important then why not $100/hr?
    1
  20. "You need to balance it against inflation, otherwise you're right, you'd just devalue your currency" What is a factor that causes inflation? Government involvement in the market, especially the federal government. When you artificially raise the price floor of labor prices of goods and services will go up. In a healthy market the prices of goods and services will go down and will improve in quality. We have seen that in areas where the fed does nothing, like LASIK surgery and technology. But in places where the fed has had a huge involvement in (healthcare, housing, college tuition) prices have gone up a lot. So we can't "balance it against inflation" because in reality you are contributing to inflation. " In a consumer -based economy, cash is exchanged for services as well as goods. Whole sections of the economy don't really operate based on production or wealth creation...they operate by simply exchanging goods already produced. " You can't consume what you don't produce. If the goods are there then prices will drop. There is no need to circulate the money. If all it took was circulating the money then why not $100/hr? Or why not give people yearly checks of $50,000? You really need to understand what money is and how it is given value. "Take a movie theater for example...once it's built, there's not much left to produce. " Yes there is. The theater has to rent out the movies, clean the theater, offer food (that is where they get most of their money), advertise. There is a lot to produce. " As the owner of the theater...all you're doing is circulating cash for services, and making a profit off the transactions." You are paying employees an amount they agreed to take for giving you their services. Just like when you go to the movies, you pay a price you agree with to watch the movie. Working at a movie theater requires little skill and there is a lot of workers that can do it, thus their wage is low. "but they need people to be walking around with spending money, or they go out of business fast. " If they are not able to sell their product then they need to provide a better one or lower their price. Just like a worker who can't find a job needs to lower their wage they are asking for and/or work better. "These are the areas of the economy that need flow more than they need creation." Nope, you need creation. You can't show the same movies over and over again. You can't sell expired food or have a limited selection. You can't leave the seats sticky in the theater. "If you want small businesses to flourish...they need local people in their immediate neighborhood with cash to spend." That small business needs attract customers with a high quality product and low prices. They can do that with limited regulations (like a lower min. wage). "They don't need investors, " Yes they do, the owner themselves are investors. If the price of labor is too high then the price of doing business is too high thus they will go out of business. "If they're customers are all struggling to make ends meet" Like if the min. wage prices them out of a job or raised prices. "You need to regulate that shit, and prevent that kind of monopolization. " What causes monopolies are regulations by the federal government. Large businesses like Walmart have resources go work with regulations where smaller competitors don't. If you want to get rid of monopolies you have to have the free market. If you want monopolies then push for regulations. "The free-market only works if there's a governing body over-seeing it's operation...in order to keep the market open, and fair. " What's fair? Walmart sells crap products and gives crap services. They stay around due to regulations that hurts a smaller competitor from rising up and challenging them. That is the exact opposite of the free market. The "governing body" allows Walmart to be as powerful as it is. "It means bigger government sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong...but it's the only way to keep clever, but greedy assholes from putting their fingers on the scale, and doing real damage to the economy in the process. " Or "greedy assholes" using the government in their favor. "If there's no over-sight...it's just a matter of time before your free-market turns into a monopoly, and then as a consumer, you're at the mercy of something you can't even challenge, let alone change. " In a free market I can go to a competitor and get the best product out there. "Companies like Walmart do what they do, simply because they can...and in the US, the government rolls out the red-carpet for them to keep doing it" In the US the federal government creates regulations hurting smaller competitors to where Walmart can thrive. "Regulations are there to protect the economy" Regulations hurt the economy.
    1
  21. http://socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf
    1
  22. Also, the DOL new OT rule has required that postdocs are paid double. Because of that when writing a grant proposal they won't accept it if you request money for a postdoc because they are now too expensive. So the new postdoc pay law has killed jobs.
    1
  23. There is no such thing as a "living wage". It is a completely subjective term that has no standard thus no definition. When broken down there is no good reason to even have a min. wage. Also, what is going to stop businesses from just employing people at 30 hours a week to avoid paying the "living wage" old Bernie wants? Bernie is an economic illiterate. O'Reilly is correct here.
    1
  24. Do you have an actual rebuttal or are you just going to name call?
    1
  25. There are jobs available, they just require skills. Obtain a skill and take one of those jobs.
    1
  26. If you are saying FDR then you are wrong. He prolonged the recovery and created the depression.
    1
  27. Slowest recovery from a recession ever happened under FDR. The facts are clear, FDR caused a depression.
    1
  28. The policies of FDR led this country into the slowest recovery following a recession ever until 2007. Both recessions were met with the fed trying to "fix" the economy through spending. Every other recession was met with little to no federal government involvement and we recovered in around 5 years or less. It is clear FDR caused a depression. After WW2 every other country had to rebuild were we didn't that is why we got so powerful.
    1
  29. "Maybe they are clear to your dyslexic mind, but that dosen't make your words any less wrong. Learn your history." Ah, the classic "educate yourself" response It is clear you have no understanding of history. Explain to me why we have never had a depression before or after FDR? Why is FDR so great when under him we saw the country's only depression?
    1
  30. What exactly did Reagan (who took us out of a recession in around 2 years) and Clinton deregulate?
    1
  31. Read a book? What book? Communist Manifesto? Fact is that FDR was president during the depression. We have never seen that much action by the fed until 2007 and guess what happened then? Another slow recovery.
    1
  32. That is true. His policies were ruled unconstitutional in the past but him threatening to stack the courts made them change. FDR was corrupt and power hungry.
    1
  33. " Please stop, your IQ is acting like a vacuum." Until you give an actual rebuttal it is safe to say that I am correct here.
    1
  34. Bolgernow, a question for you. Name the only other president to reside during a depression?
    1
  35. If you are referring to FDR the economy did collapse and we saw a depression.
    1
  36. "There is a reason why every list ranking US presidents always put him, if not the best, one of the bests." Lists done by historians who don't understand economics. Under FDR we saw the slowest recovery following a recession ever. It was the war that got us out, not FDR's programs. FDR's programs prolonged the recession and caused the depression. We never saw a depression like that in the US for a reason, because the fed never implemented those programs and recovery was quick (like the recovery following the crash of 1921). The only other recession that is similar in recovery to the depression is the recession of 2007 which also involved massive federal government spending and involvement. There is a strong correlation there. On top of that almost all of FDR's policies were ruled unconstitutional. He got them to pass because he threaten to stack the courts with his judges to get his way. He was pretty much a dictator. The the only reason why the economy was prosperous for decades is because every other country was rebuilding after the war and we weren't, but now that, along with the expansion of his policies in the 60s are catching up to us creating the problems we have now.
    1
  37. Nice name calling. "douchenozzle", really? I gave out actual facts. Name the only other president reside over a depression? I never ceases to amaze me how people thought FDR was a good president when under his watch we were in a depression. That is like saying Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions. I am sorry, but saying FDR always tops the list of best presidents ever doesn't do it for me. I need more than that. And saying the economy stabilized under him is not true considering we were in a depression. If FDR did hands off government and allowed the economy to fix itself and we were under a depression people praising him now would rip on him for doing nothing. Instead, after the 1920-21 crash Wilson did nothing, and recovery happened a year later. You never hear about that though.
    1
  38. What facts and statistics do I fabricate? It is clear. Under FDR we lived in a depression. Name the only other president where that happened? Also, what does Christianity have to do with this? I always admit to my mistakes. I have not problem with it. That is how I learn. Now tell me, name the only other president that was in office during a depression. Also, do you agree with FDR threatening to stack the courts to get his way?
    1
  39. Can you point to me that conversation? That would help. Until then you are just pulling a logical fallacy and going off of people trusting your word off of something that supposedly happened. And I admit, I make mistakes. So I am completely wrong on everything just because of one mistake?
    1
  40. Ok, I don't remember that conversation at all. You really would have to link me to the video. I am not saying it happened, I am just saying I don't remember it.
    1
  41. So you can't provide evidence to support what you are saying. Then move along.
    1
  42. Susan, the recession started in 1929, that is true. Hoover tried to "fix" the economy with the plan he developed while working with Harding as the United State Secretary of Commerce. By the time they were going to implement it the recovery was happening so the fed. did nothing. So Hoover used that plan following the 1929 crash and FDR expanded it when he became president. Not surprisingly recovery was still slow. So no, FDR was not elected long after 1929, he was elected during the recession, expanded Hoover's plan and made a depression. I passed American History with an A. I am a graduate student working on my PhD in physical chemistry. I know how to read up on history and facts to fully understand what happened.
    1
  43. Jackhammer, if you look at all of those recessions based on GDP growth you will see that recovery was quick in all of them except for two, the great depression and the current on now. Recovery was around 5 years or less and they involved little to no federal government action. And when I say recovery, I mean a spike of GDP growth to catch us up and then steady GDP growth (around 3-5%) for years (around 10 years or so). The two slowest recoveries were during the great depression and the one now. The great depression saw a spike of GDP growth but then immediate (around 4 years later) fall again due to an unstable economy. The "recovery" was not real. The current situation now has not seen that spike of GDP growth to catch us up. We were close to -10% GDP growth but never went above 5% since. That as opposed to the recession of the late 70s where we had a GDP growth of over 15% to catch us up, or of the late 50s where we had a GDP growth of over 15% to catch us up. We haven't had that thus we are still behind. Compare it to you are running a race. You then trip and fall behind. You must sprint to catch up and then jog was you keep up. If you don't have that sprint part you are still behind. That is why the 2007 recession we haven't recovered from, we are still behind. The time between recessions is usually around 10 years, give or take a couple. Also, severity should be considered. Under FDR the initial recovery was not stable thus we had another severe crash in less than 4 years and slow recovery. You have to look deeper into it. There is more to it then just a recession ending and beginning. Did the 2007 recession end? By definition yes, but we didn't recover. Like the recession ended in 1933 by definition, but it was artificial and thus not stable. You need to think about the facts more.
    1
  44. Mufer, read what I wrote to Susan and JackHammer.
    1
  45. The main causes for recessions is the evolution of the economy. As the economy evolves the change can be gradual or drastic for whatever reason. But when left alone it will settle back to growth. Looking at the Great Depression, yes there were weather factors, but it didn't help when FDR implemented the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Yes the stock market took a nosedive, but again, that happens. If left alone it would recover. Crashes happen, how we recover is key. What slowed down recovery was the federal government getting involved like limiting how much food is being developed, or wasting money through government spending. The crash in 1921 was similar to the one of 1929 and recovery happened within a year. "If you are familiar with economics, it has been proven that classical economics fail to work in the real world because of their assumptions," Like what? What part of "classical economics" fail? " and while Keynesian also fail to work as effectively as they should for the same reason, they prove more often than not to generate good results" Keynesian economics has never worked on the large scale and have failed. " and I am therefore backed by economics in my points. " Except you are not backed by economics. In the end recessions happen, and when the fed does not get involved then recovery is quick. When the fed decides to get involved then recovery is slow. That is the fact that has happened all throughout history.
    1
  46. I agree that the federal reserve is the blame, but FDR didn't help. FDR was good are bringing people together during tough times, but that still doesn't excuse his poor economic policies, nor his dictator like attitude in wanting to stack the courts in his favor. The Gilded age saw economic growth and sped up the rise of the US during a time of development. Poor working conditions were subjective mainly due to the fact that at the time technology was not advanced. You see that in developing countries. Even at that workers in tough conditions were paid well. Take the miners in Virginia City, NV or example. They worked in conditions that were so hot that one president (I can't think of it at the time) said that in the mines were the closest to hell he want to get. Miners at that time were paid $4 a day when workers were paid less than a $1 a day elsewhere. To say that working conditions were poor and wages were bad is being very deceptive.
    1
  47. Jak, you have the cart before the horse. People having more money without more goods and services being around to spend on will just lead to higher prices.
    1
  48. I like how Kyle and Bernie love to reward failure. If you are trying to live off of a min. wage job then you are a loser.
    1
  49. If you look at history the min. wage has led to an increase in unemployment.
    1
  50. Interesting discussion the other day at work. A new law by the DOLrequires postdocs to be paid more has led to less jobs for postdocs. When you now write a grant proposal some of them refuse to have you ask for money for a postdoc. So the mandated salary increase for postdocs has led to less jobs.
    1
  51. Kyle, slaves were forced to work and treated as property. Comparing people who work full time for a low wage to slaves is similar to calling Bernie a communist. Also, Australia's min. wage, when you take into account PPP is less than $15/hr. Kyle is like his old friend Bernie, and economic illiterate.
    1