Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Republicans Are Coming For Your Overtime Pay" video.

  1. True.
    4
  2. Actually, more jobs will be created. That means people earning $0 will now be earning money.
    2
  3. oscar F Yes it will. 
    2
  4. Brandon It was a great argument.  Business will hire more and this has been seen all the time.  Problem is that if you increase the cost of labor than businesses hire less.
    2
  5. Chris M Yes, business work off of thin profit margins.  You need to go to school to learn how businesses operate. 
    2
  6. Pridetoons Reviews That is my frustration with socialist like Bernie and his supporters.  They feel that all we have to do is raise taxes and magically things will appear.  We lack skilled workers in healthcare and universities.  I know the stress and work required to get a PhD.  It is not easy.  How many Bernie supporters are willing to put in that work?  Not many I assume.  But yet they want the current workers to put in more work. . If it were as easy as raising taxes and moving money I will be all for it.  But the reality is that it is far more complicated than that.
    2
  7. In reality you don't have a right to literacy. Also, should we be so dependent on the government to "educate" us? That is a valid argument. People on the left are so concern about government run education but don't question their motive at all.
    2
  8. I support this. One area that this hurts are post docs. Post doc positions, due to Obama's order, are harder to come by because their pay doubled as a result of the new law. That means someone who has a PhD in the sciences had a harder time getting a post doc position following graduation. The reason why is because many funding programs said they will turn down grant proposals if they request a post doc since they simply can't afford to pay that much. As a person pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry I am seeing this first had. It is basic economics. When you increase the cost of labor less of it will be hired.
    2
  9. I am not a Trump supporter but I will say this. This new OT law by Obama has hurt positions like post docs. Since the pay for post docs, in the STEM fields at least, were doubled there are now less positions for them. That means less job opportunities for those just getting their PhD. This was brought in my group meeting the other day (I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry myself our research group has weekly meetings). Post doc positions are harder to get because grants refuse to pay for them since they don't have the money. I imagine it has a negative impact on other areas of the job market. Salary workers are dedicated which is why they take a salary. They work very hard but also have flexible scheduling. I am a salary worker and I took work off today just because I wanted to. I decided to work tonight. That is the advantage of salary. You can come up with a somewhat decent argument for OT pay with hourly wages (I feel that shouldn't exist either), but for salary OT laws are rather dumb. If someone earns a salary they can set their own hours and could get done with a week's worth of work in less than 40 hours.
    2
  10. Not really. All OT laws do is hinder jobs. If someone wants to work more they won't be allowed to.
    2
  11. BLAIR M Schirmer What do you mean by "supply side economics"?  Also, you can't consume what you don't produce.  If the money is not there then businesses will cut back if you make the wage too high.  Business will hire more to produce more which will increase profits due to more consumers.  But in the end you can't consume what you don't produce. What grows the economy, and a company is production.
    1
  12. Chris M There are several advantages for hiring more people.  You can create flexible scheduling, workers won't be overworked, you can replace workers if they leave, you have more workers to choose from to promote and so on.  Also, if they don't initially invest in workers they will invest in growing the company which will mean more jobs. The increase min. wage has never led to more jobs or demand but has always led to less jobs.  The reason comes back to you can't consume what you don't produce, period.  Paying workers more who will just end up producing the same means prices will have to go up or workers will get cut.  Cutting staff could lead to a business closing their doors down early, such as a business who was open until 10 pm will close at 9 pm instead.  You also get a situation where only a couple lanes in a grocery store are open forcing customers to wait. In the end, though, saying that an increase in the min. wage will lead to increase demand is 100% false.
    1
  13. Chris M You can't consume what you don't produce. A business isn't just going to produce anything.  It will produce what people demand.  Demand will always be there.  But if we can't produce it than it will cease to exist.  This idea that we need to stimulus demand is wrong.  People will demand better goods and services.  But if it is not produced, than it doesn't matter how much money people have, it just won't exist.
    1
  14. Chris M Do I have evidence? Yes. Look at several businesses and how they grow.  Business such as Raley's or Hy Vee for example keep adding stores.  Jimmy Johns just open up a new location in my home town.  A reason why a company is successful is because of investing.  If it doesn't invest a competitor will and will over power a company that doesn't. When it comes to stocks you have to keep share holders happy.  Businesses that are large enough to have stock options are as big as they are because of share holders.  If you don't keep them happy then shareholders will sell their stocks forcing the business to downsize meaning less jobs.
    1
  15. Chris M To give you an example of how just because we have more money in something does mean it will exist look at college education. The college loan program made college more accessible to people. We lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, staff, classrooms, resources, etc.  That is why college tuition has skyrocketed.  In my university we have dorms that have too many people, and that is by only allowing freshmen to live there, upperclassmen can't live in the dorms.  We are short TAs and students are having a hard time scheduling classes because the professors don't exist to teach them.  We are opening weekend courses to make due. The same goes for any sector of the market.  If you raise the min. wage and the result means more money to low paid workers, the amount of goods and services won't increase.  .As a result prices will go up.
    1
  16. Chris M A company just pocketing that much money won't go far.  The reality is that they will invest that money into expanding the company, hiring more workers, or raising the price of stocks.  Businesses work off of razor thin profits. Take Walmart for example. If their top 6 executives earned $0 and spread all of their money to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, they would earn an extra $147 a year.  That's it.  A lot of their profits go to the over 3 billion shares outstanding they have.  If they were to cut profits than shareholders will sell back their shares leading to downsizing and thus less workers.  The same goes for every major corporation and company. You Henry Ford example is poor.  He paid his workers more because he had a business model to do so.  Paying his workers more met lower turnover and hiring better employees.  All companies practice that, but there comes a point where they simply can't afford higher wages.  It wasn't about wanting his employees to afford his product.  It was about hiring the best.  No different than when Google pays their workers so well.  They have a business model that allows that.  It isn't so their workers can buy Google products.  Same with Boeing, they don't pay their workers so they can buy private jets. 
    1
  17. ***** Back what up?
    1
  18. gradostax Shareholders want to see their investment grow.  Without shareholders those businesses will have to downsize leading to less jobs.
    1
  19. True antitheist2006 Subsidies come from the government. 
    1
  20. True antitheist2006 Not really.
    1
  21. True antitheist2006 Democrats have gave plenty of money to the rich.  Social programs don't work, we should get rid of them at the federal level.
    1
  22. True antitheist2006 Who said anything about giving money to the rich?
    1
  23. True antitheist2006 Military spending is constitutional and makes up less than 20% of our budget and less than 4% of our GDP.  Social programs make up more of our federal budget. The democrats did a very good job and giving money to Wall Street and businesses.
    1
  24. And that is why Trump won. Everything to you has to be about race. How about the fact that Obama's policies were crap.
    1
  25. Kisaragi Mitsukai Almost all of his policies were bad.  Race has nothing to do with it.
    1
  26. Actually this will help the little guy more. Jobs get killed because of OT laws.
    1
  27. Matthew Ciaramitaro Point to me where in the constitution abortion is a right. 
    1
  28. Pridetoons Reviews It isn't about affording education and healthcare.  It is about how are we going to offer it. We lack doctors, professors, researchers, TAs, nurses, tutors, etc.  How are you going to get the skilled workers to provide those services?  We are already short staff as it.  To you it is only about money.  To people who actually work in that field, like me and my colleagues, it is how we are short staff.
    1
  29. Pridetoons Reviews So explain to me, how do we provide education and healthcare to all?
    1
  30. Ponderingtaco Programs like the FDA can be ran at the state level.  Same with the EPA.
    1
  31. Matthew Ciaramitaro And it was a wrong ruling.  Same as Kelo vs City of New London, or with the Patriot Act.  There is no right to an abortion.  You have a right to privacy as the SC ruled in Roe vs Wade, but you don't have a right to an abortion. 
    1
  32. Daniel Pierik https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book.  Universal healthcare has just as many problems, if not more than the for profit system.  Not saying the US doesn't have problem or that the for profit system doesn't have problem.  And I am also not saying that universal healthcare is a complete mess.  But in reality is that it has problems as well.
    1
  33. Ponderingtaco There are always species going extinct and an island or two becoming inhabitable in some ways.  The planet is always changing.  Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years.  The questions that remain are 1. how much is man playing a role, if at all 2. can we do anything at all 3. is it even bad
    1
  34. Daniel Pierik Read the book I linked you to.
    1
  35. Pridetoons Reviews "Again no, I'm asking for an education funded by American tax dollars" How are we going to provide those programs when we lack professors, TAs, tutors, labs, dorms, etc.  Tell me that. "Bitch, all I've given you are facts and evidence!" You have yet to comment on my book.
    1
  36. Ponderingtaco You have no standard to go off of what you are saying.  That is why no scientist are making the claims that politicians and those on the political left are.  Is it something we should look at?  Yes.  But we shouldn't be making drastic decisions based off large doubt.
    1
  37. Ponderingtaco Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years.  How much is man playing a role is in question.  Is man playing a role?  Sure, like all of nature is.  Beyond that the issue is no clear.  I am sure I understand science more than your freshman biology teacher.
    1
  38. Ponderingtaco I am getting a PhD in physical chemistry
    1
  39. Ponderingtaco I know how scientists think and how they interpret data.  No credible scientist is making the claim politicians and those on the left are making. That would be a very ignorant thing to do. 
    1
  40. Ponderingtaco Bill Nye does not have a PhD and does not publish in peer review journals.  If that is all you have than you are not doing to well.
    1
  41. Ponderingtaco Wow, an honorary doctorate. That requires no dissertation, no defense, not doing years of research.  All that requires is donating a lot of money.  And now you are looking up Wikipedia. The consensus you keep pointing to has been debunked fro a long time now.  You are not going to find a credible scientist making the definitive claim you and the political left are.  You need to read more peer reviewed journals to fully understand how scientists think and come up with conclusions. 
    1
  42. Pridetoons Reviews I doubt you gave him facts.  If you did then you did so in a very deceptive way.
    1
  43. Pridetoons Reviews Ok, what else did you give him? To be honest I agree with a lot of what Global Warming Skeptic says.  That is why I doubt you actually gave him facts.  If you did you clearly don't understand them.
    1
  44. Pridetoons Reviews Going up the comments 1. he is right, the US is not a democracy 2. I agree, we should not pay for other people's college. The whole "tuition free" college idea is dumb.  It goes back to the fact we lack professors, TAs, tutors, and so on.  3. I agree with him on healthcare 4. I agree that the federal government is not there to serve the people.  It is there to protect the borders and to protect rights listed in the constitution That is a start
    1
  45. Pridetoons Reviews 1. Fair enough 2. Yes, universal college is dumb.  We lack the skilled workers to provide it.  All you will be doing at this point is lowering the quality of education.  We are doing it already with several classes doing online assignments such as WebAssigns and Mastering Chemistry and so on.  Students just punch answers into a computer without fully understanding the subject.  In my university we are doing that with labs because we lack TAs.  I, as a TA, will pick up more labs to teach, but all assignments will be done online so I don't have to grade.  But I also don't give any feedback so the students don't learn. 3. There is no evidence that universal healthcare is superior or efficient in any way compared to the private system 4. The state and local governments are there to serve us.  The federal government is there to deal with foreign affairs and protect rights.  Beyond treason and the draft the federal government was never supposed to have control over individual citizens.  Thus the federal government does not serve us.  States and local governments do.  That was the design of the country. On taxes, the only tax at the federal level used to be a tax on the states along with imports and exports. States were taxed so states had representation, not people.
    1
  46. Pridetoons Reviews 2: Again, we lack skilled workers.  We can't provide universal healthcare and universal education to all if we don't have the people to provide it.  If we do the quality will drop.  We are seeing it in education already.  Several courses have online assignments where it is graded online and no feedback is given to the students.  With that only the really intelligent will succeed meaning those at a disadvantage will struggle and be left behind.  I support offering a high quality education and healthcare to as many people as possible.  We can make it universal, the quality will just have to drop. "Living wage" nothing more than an appeal to emotion talking point that means nothing.  There is no defined standard for what is a "living wage" as it is subjective.  Anyone who uses that phrase is appealing to emotion or simply displaying economic illiteracy.  While I am a firm believer that there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage, anyone who says "living wage" has no argument at all.  Let me give you this.  With a "living wage" you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week.  "I could argue that we could hire more teachers" Again, the teachers don't exist.  That is the barrier. 3: "is not a sufficient argument because if this is the case why does every other first world nation plus Mexico and soon Brazil have a Universal healthcare system?" And their quality is low and they have just as many, if not more problems than the US. Sure, everyone is "covered".  But the quality is low.  4: The constitution lists what the federal government is there for.  It is there for foreign affairs and to protect rights.  The second you start with this "serve you" idea you get into a vague area.  Serve you how?  That was the exact problem the founding fathers ran into which is why they created state rights.  You want universal healthcare and education, establish it at the state level.  At the state level you can create a government that serves the people better and you can control it.  At the federal level you don't get that which is why we have corruption.  Also, you get into territory of oppression.  How do you provide universal education if we lack skilled workers?  You make the current workers work harder.  That's how.  You are oppressing some to serve others. 
    1
  47. Pridetoons Reviews https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There is a good book to read on healthcare.  Other countries have problems.
    1
  48. Daniel Pierik Where am I wrong?  Take education for example.  Other countries counter for the fact they lack skilled workers by limiting the number of people who can go to college.  They track students and say that some of them, by law, can't attend college. On healthcare, I will point you to this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  49. Daniel Pierik Where is that book wrong?  Please point it out, reference the page and explain.  Do you know how countries manage "free college"?  They track their students and if they feel you are not college material they prevent you from going.  In the US people at least have the opportunity to attend if they want.  But in Europe those countries prevent people, by law, from going.   Based on your comment I feel you would be one of those who won't be allowed in college.
    1
  50. Pridetoons Reviews "You say the quality will drop like this wouldn't happen under a privatized Healthcare system; Also you dodged the question of why can't we have both? Also your argument for Universal education is overly simplistic. The problems your stating aren't fully contingent with Universal education but with education itself. Also no not all degrees require more teachers like Programming, IT, or Economics. As for Doctors, Lawyers, Mechanics, and Physicist yes." We can't have universal healthcare, period.  I told you why.  At the state level maybe, but not the federal level.  Look at K-12 education.  We have both public and private.  In public schools we lack teachers and funding.  Now you want to create that same problem with our healthcare nation wide? My argument for universal healthcare is not overly simplistic.  It is legit. You can't provide something to people if there isn't anyone to provide it. "That's a problem with online courses not Universal Education. Also some careers don't require you to attend any classes in classrooms." Several assignments are being done online even if the course is a lecture based course.  In physics, for example, they have lectures and in class tests.  Their assignments are done through WebAssigns.  So no, that isn't limited to online courses. "What's subjective about having a wage that allows you to not only afford all the necessities, but also have a little bit of money on the side to invest in something else. There's nothing subjective about it." What are "basic necessities"?  And invest in what?  If you and I were to break down what a living wage would be I am sure my standard will be far lower than yours.  As a whole it is subjective based on one situations.  When my girlfriend had a min. wage job she was able to buy a $10,000 car with it.  The reason why is because we had dual incomes.  Here wage was now a luxury wage. "First off what evidence suggests that a state-level healthcare system would work. Secondly corruption is from our government going down to state government." Corruption at the state level is minimal. "What makes you think there's a finite number of jobs in these fields." There is a finite number of workers.
    1
  51. Pridetoons Reviews 1. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book 2. Other countries have just as many problems, mainly dealing with poor quality. 3. Money isn't the issue. Lack of skilled workers is.  The workers to provide the services simply don't exist. 4. I do 5. You need to set standards when it comes to developing laws. 6. No they aren't
    1
  52. Pridetoons Reviews 1. I am not stretching it.  I am saying read it. They do a great job at breaking down the numbers. 2. It is in that book 3. The workers don't exist.  The unemployment rate of those with at least a Masters degree is around 2%.  If it were as easy as "hire more" I would support it.  The fact is they don't exist. 4. I never said universal healthcare was inferior.  There are advantages to it.  The issue is that at the very least we will be exchanging one set of problems with another.  We won't be accomplishing anything. 5. There phrase "living wage" is subjective and means nothing.  6. At the state level you don't have the situation of congress has a less than 10% approval rating but a greater than 90% retention rate.  You also don't hear about corruption much because those politicians get booted out. Finite number of jobs in what? 7. Establishing universal healthcare is just creating a new set of problems.  If we had universal healthcare we will still have private for the very rich along with problems that comes with universal healthcare.  You haven't solved anything.
    1
  53. Pridetoons Reviews 1. Good 2. In the book. But, lower quality and longer wait times are big 3. Places like Denmark and Cuba lower the quality 4. Look at number 2 5. The phrase "living wage" is subjective
    1
  54. Guillermo, you won't be working for free. You just won't be paid more than you are worth. OT laws are stupid.
    1
  55. rambofan334 Nice rebuttal
    1
  56. rambofan334 Again, what is your rebuttal?
    1
  57. rambofan334 If you increase the price of labor than businesses will offer less hours  They will stop workers before they work OT so they will earn $0.  OT laws, like min. wage laws, prevent people from working and earning more money. 
    1
  58. rambofan334 My bad, I made a mistake.  I corrected it to that if you increase the price of labor than businesses will offer less hours. 
    1
  59. Daniel Pierik What?
    1
  60. coldsteel2204 All the rights are clearly listed in the Constitution.  Education is not one of them.
    1
  61. bflo1000 I agree, we need to end corporate welfare as well.
    1
  62. coldsteel2204 Education is not a right in the constitution thus it is ran and funded by the states.  States don't have to have an educational program at all, thus choose to. You are wrong about the ruling on the 14th amendment.  If a state offers education to citizens they have to offer it to all.  They can't just offer it to some people and not others.  That violates the 14th amendment and is the ruling used for Brown vs Board.  But nowhere does it say that a state has to establish an educational program.  As is not every state adopts Common Core State Standards (there are seven).  And even less states adopts Next Generation Science Standards.  They create their own standards.  They can create the standard of no education at all and the federal government can't do anything about it.  Guess what?  States do offer education because there is an advantage of educating kids. So no, there is no right to education.  You only have a right to be treated equal under the law. But you have no right to education. By the way, Michigan does use CCSS.
    1
  63. bflo1000 Bribery wouldn't be a problem if the federal government had limited powers.  If we followed the constitution than we won't have that problem.  If the federal government had limited power than it can't sell anything. Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of a disease.  That disease is of a federal government with too much power.  Kill the disease, not the symptom.
    1
  64. bflo1000 The same can be said about liberals.  They only care about power.
    1
  65. Exactly. People don't realize that if you create regulations businesses will find a way to work around them to where the employee and consumer gets hurt.
    1
  66. ***** People who do that much work are very dedicated to their job.  They could always get a Masters and get a high paying job, they have that option.  Instead they choose to take that route.  I am earning a PhD and I work very hard for little pay.  I choose my life.  Believe it or not I don't need your sympathy. You have to understand that a lot of people earning their PhD or have them are not starting families because of their dedication.  And with taking less pay, there comes a point where you as a worker won't work for less.  Yes, I work for little but if my employer were to offer me less I would work elsewhere.  Eventually money does call. In a job you have to consider three things, 1. do you enjoy it 2. do you enjoy the people you work with 3. do you enjoy the pay You have to weigh out their three factors.  People going after post docs like option one so much they feel option 3 is not as important. But eventually the money aspect does play a role.
    1