Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Host Shrugs Off 40% Of Americans Struggling To Meet Basic Needs" video.

There is a reason why Kyle just mocks as opposed to form an argument. Kyle is an idiot when it comes to economics.
2
Not true. Trump being in office created this environment of a stronger economy.
1
CutThroatJuggalo, Kyle gave facts? All I heard him do was mock people and cry that this is a bubble with little to no evidence.
1
Lexort 420, except I do back up my arguments. That is why you name call and run away from me. You can't argue against my points so you just name call. Kind of what Kyle does in his videos.
1
Kansas was average in economic growth. For a rural state dependent on agriculture that is pretty good.
1
C Wilson, a lot of areas use gambling money to fund schools. Others just cut, like CA in pushing for 4 day a week school. Or in the bay area where it is so expensive that teachers have to commute for hours to get to work. But ignore all of that, just point to KS I guess.
1
That is 40% facing a "struggle" at least once a year. That means if one time in a year you could not produce a meal than you "struggled". That is a low bar to set.
1
Kyle is an idiot when it comes to economics. This is why he just mocks as opposed to actually forming an argument.
1
He has a point. It comes down to your standard of "struggle". And it was at least once a year. That is a very low standard for "struggle". Heck, I fall in that 40% as there was one time I could not afford a meal one time.
1
Clint Holmes, people, at times, face financial struggles that is temporary. It can be between jobs for example. A friend of mine was between jobs and did not have healthcare insurance for three days. But definition they are a part of that 40%. They ended up with a better job. That is why that 40% stat is misleading.
1
What do you consider to be helping the middle class?
1
The Mother Flickers, yep. Give me your best shot.
1
The term "living wage" is 100% subjective.
1
Kevin, it is subjective as it depends on your living situation. I can personally live off of $6/hr where I live if I had to. Others can't. Also, the people are alive so by definition they are paid a "living wage".
1
acreppinstp, I live 1500 miles away from my parents.
1
Kenneth, in my city you can get a studio for $600 a month all utilities paid. So say, after taxes, you earn $6 an hour. Forty hours a week time four weeks a month is $960/month. After rent you have $360. Utilities, including internet is paid. You share a kitchen with three other people. I can have a grocery bill of around $100 (high end). Cell phone is $35. I walk to work so no need for a car. Thus I am spending $735 a month on bill. That leaves me with $225 for whatever.
1
Barry, I never said personal experience applies to the entire country. I am giving an example of how subjective the "living wage" is. You say "poor Americans can't afford to live" when they are alive. If they can't afford to live they would be dead.
1
Anthony, it is possible, that is the point. And the place I live at does not have rent control. You can have hobbies. Books are essentially free. Internet is paid for at that place. Hobbies don't have to cost money. You can have friends as well, or are you one of those people who have to buy their friends? My overall point is that a "living wage" is subjective. Someone who has health problems, that has to drive to work, dress professionally at work, and has a kid will need a much higher wage, possibly more than $15/hr. Saying "living wage" is not an argument at that point as the standards vary depending on the person's living situation. At that point the phrase "living wage" is nothing but an appeal to emotion talking point. This is the problem with Bernie and his fans. They can't get into details on these ideas. When challenged they name call and ridicule. I want to improve society and people's lives. I understand the complexity of it and understand you can't just say empty statements like "living wage".
1
Anthony, people cry about a "living wage". Ok, so what is that? And why? And what if someone just wants to be a beach bum their entire life? Should they get a "living wage"? I need details.
1
Anthony, again, you are proving my point. A "living wage" is subjective. That is the point. If you set the "living wage" to $15/hr that can be a "luxury wage" to some. Reality is that you are paid the market rate, period. You use the phrase "living wage" as you have no argument. You only have appeal to emotion.
1
Anthony, define "reasonable". That is subjective.
1
Anthony, I am simply challenging you. You have not given any details on what a "living wage" is beyond talking points. Also, what if someone cannot produce enough to justify a "living wage". Now they are unemployed. Also, what if the employer is only going to employ them part time? With a wage that is how much you are paid per hour, not per week. There are many factors you are not realizing here.
1
Anthony, a market wage has a lot more hard data attached to it. It is based on 1. How much you produce 2. The demand for your labor 3. The supply of your labor 4. Experience 5. Dedication to the employer 6. How dangerous the job is and so on. Almost anyone can work at McDonalds, which is a job that is not that dangerous, and not many people are willing to spend $20 on big mac. Thus the McDonald worker is not paid much. An engineer is a rare skill, that is in high demand as we are constantly looking for ways to improve infrastructure, and at times can be dangerous depending on the job. Thus engineers are paid a lot. A "living wage" is completely subjective. You can't compare it to gravity and experimental error as experimental error is hard data through a lot of collection. A "living wage" varies from person to person and thus you cannot give a hard value to it. You may say that in some places the "average living wage" is X. But problem with averages is that outliers can skew the results. Why not the median? And again, what standard are you going to use? You also have the issue of financial stress. Many people can simply live with less money and have the mentality of handing stress better. Others don't. That is subjective. Problem with that is that any mental condition is hard to quantify. That is why the term "living wage" is almost useless. You can't quantify it.
1
Dante Ratto, Anthony has not addressed anything. I am showing how a "living wage" is completely subjective. There are many variables that you cannot account for so a "living wage" varies by person. Also, a wage is how much is paid per hour, not per week. If someone is employed only part time what does earning a "living wage" do? Most who are on SNAP programs work part time or don't have a job. This idea that people who work full time and are poor is, for the most part, not true. Do they exist? Yes, but they are a very minute portion of society. Saying "living wage" is purely a talking point. It is simply appealing to emotions. And what makes it worse is that if you disagree with that particular policy than that person would get ridiculed for not supporting a "living wage". I support people not being poor. I just won't go around saying "living wage". I understand the complexity of the situation. And when I do you just call me stupid. This is why we have Trump as president, the left is so extreme they refuse to discuss the issues.
1
Dante Ratto, read the article entitled "Most Working-Age SNAP Participants Work, But Often in Unstable Jobs" Read the 2015 analysis by the census.gov entitled "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015" Only around 2% work full time year round and are poor. 32% of those that don't work are poor. 2% is minute. I have sources. I have read up on these things. Fact is that the left is extreme. When Bernie is pressed on the issues he resorts to talking points because facts and logic are not on his side. The "working poor" is defined as someone who participates in the labor force for 27 weeks or more. There are 52 weeks in a year. The reality is that people like Bernie have to lower the standards to prove a point. You challenged me for references and I gave them.
1
It doesn't go against my claim. Read the census data. Also, read the paper entitled "Minimum Wage and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?" They break down the fact that most min. wage workers are not poor. SNAP programs are dependent on family income, not individual income. On the first link, hardly half worked full time at least 6 months. How low are you going to set your standard? 52% is low. Fact is most on SNAP don't work full time and have unstable job. Read the article entitled "Sorry, Bernie, Few Full-Time Workers Live in Poverty" They use the census data. Bernie is extreme left. Easy to prove. He refuses to listen to the other side and misrepresents his opponents. Three easy examples. 1. He completely misrepresented the Koch Brothers' study on Medicare for all. Bernie said the study concluded that it would save the American people money. He compared the number reported to what we pay now. A few things A: The number reported was said to be a conservative estimate and said chances are it would be higher B: The number reported assumed healthcare providers would be willing to take a 40% pay cut and not lower quality and that increase in demand will not raise prices. C: The number reported is just for public care and the number we have for what we pay now is for both private and public 2. In the Amazon situation he is being dramatic on who collects welfare. Most work part time and are temps and we see that trend in the market through Census data. He refuses to see a fulfillment center. And he does not present stories of people who enjoy working there 3. In his debate against Cruz on healthcare a small business owner asked how she can pay for healthcare for her employees. He said he did not know but that she has to. He admitted that he does not understand the hair salon business, which is fine, but had no desire to learn. Compare that to Bill Clinton's discussion with Herman Cain in 1994 on a similar question. Clinton had facts, data and logic. He showed he understand the challenges a business faces. Bernie does not nor does he care to try to learn. He saw a business and he see someone he must force to pay up. Bernie is as extreme as it gets. This is why so many consider him to be a joke and why he will never become president. Reality is that he is not popular and he has zero chance of winning. Nor will his ideas get passed. You ask me for citations. I provide them and then you go on a tangent. You are not doing well on this. But considering how you are a Bernie fan facts and logic don't sit well with you. Only talking points do. Think of this. If the country was as in bad of shape as Bernie claims why aren't candidates like him winning? Why didn't he win? Why aren't his policies being passed? Why did every attempt to pass universal healthcare fail? Because the nation is not as bad as Bernie makes it.
1
On your last statement, sorry you don't understand. Let me lay it out for you. Bernie has to lower the standards to prove a point. For example, he will say that many workers at Amazon collect SNAP. Ok, maybe that is true. But he lowered the standard by including temp workers who cannot keep a full time job. If you remove that and raise the standard to full time workers the number drops a lot.
1
Dante Ratto, I give you a link, up to you to read it. How is your doubt increasing? You give no reason? I am not trolling, I gave you sources. It seems like you are done because you have no counter argument. I expanded my resources as well to show you that the vast majority of full time workers are not poor, as in close to 98% of them. SNAP recipients are usually part time workers or unemployed. Also, it strongly depends on their household income, not individual income. You have no counter argument but to call me a troll. The reality is that Bernie is being deceptive here. He is leaving out several facts to push a point. I bring up the facts and you just call me a troll. You need to include children as many people have children who receive SNAP. Again, SNAP is dependent on household income, not individual income. If a company hires person A and they have no children, and person B who has a kid and pay people the same rate, person B could receive SNAP. Why should person B receive more money from the company? Also, it isn't the responsibility of the company to decide if they should hire someone based on if they have a kid or not. On disability, many companies hire people with a disability. Walmart does. Should they not give them a job? This is the thought process you should have but don't. I dig deeper on the issue and you just call me a troll. This is why someone like Bernie does not win.
1