Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Proposes Job Guarantee" video.

  1. No, it is stupid. Jobs are easy to create, wealth is much harder. Giving three people a job that one person can do is a complete waste of resources.
    11
  2. RandomGuy7092, rich people invest their resources, they don't waste it. Rich people did not become rich by just shootin' at some food one day and out came oil. They actually worked for their income.
    5
  3. Bernie would win, at best, 10 states if he ran. Economy is doing much better under Trump and people don't like Bernie's policies. Also, there is too much dirt on Bernie for him to win.
    4
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk
    4
  5. Danny, under Trump unemployment is low along with worker participation going up. Under Obama unemployment was going down along with worker participation. There is a key difference. Also, the Fed is talking about raising interest rates which typically happens in a growing economy with higher wages. The stock market is "chaotic" because it is settling now. I grew high to a new norm and now is settling.
    3
  6. Amere, creating jobs is easy, creating wealth is hard. You say "fixing infrastructure", how many who are unemployed right now have the ability to work in construction? Also, giving people jobs in construction and giving them spoons to dig with will create millions of jobs, is that the progress we want?
    3
  7. Ole Four Eyes, Bernie rallied besides hardcore socialists and stole electricity from his neighbor. The RNC wanted Bernie to win the primaries as they had a lot of dirt on him where middle class Americans would not vote for him.
    2
  8. "California also is the 6th largest economy in the world, it passed both France and Brazil in recent years." There is a correlation in the US between state population and state GDP. CA has a large economy due to its size in the country with the largest economy in the world. Just like Rohan Davey has a SB ring for being with the Patriots when they won the SB. It doesn't mean he was a good QB. CA has a large economy by default. What Scotty Rose is saying correct. Bernie's plan has been scrutinized and it has shown to cost too much. Even at that guaranteeing jobs to people does not grow the economy. In some countries they pay one person to take a ticket on the bus and another person to punch it. That is two people doing a one person job. That does not maximize resources and leads to less productivity. This is why people make fun of Bernie, his ideas are stupid.
    2
  9. The problem with Bernie's plan is not how he is going to pay for it but how it will grow our wealth? Where is the incentive to work hard if the government is going to guarantee you a job. And what kind of jobs are these going to be? Having one person dig a hole and another fill it is not productive. Creating jobs is easy, creating wealth is hard. To add, this will create too much economic uncertainty as the private sector will have little idea what kind of jobs government will create and how those workers will act.
    2
  10. Raizhen010, in the long run the idea is that the tax cuts will produce more wealth and revenue and thus cut into the debt and deficit more. You are looking short term.
    2
  11. R. m, paying people with tax dollars to dig a hole and fill it back up is no different than giving them government assistance.
    2
  12. This isn't a great idea. It is to simply buy votes. What kind of jobs does he want to create? How will it grow the economy? Just giving people jobs is not a way to grow the economy.
    2
  13. Brian Tan, under FDR we had a major depression that took nearly a year to recover from. FDR's economic ideas were terrible and done way more harm than good.
    2
  14. "The USSR was not Communist it was Socialist hence the name Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics." Yep, and North Korea is actually the "Democratic People's of North Korea"
    1
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk
    1
  16. Danny, I agree to facts. Now look at work participation rate and how the Fed is going to raise interest rates.
    1
  17. A Nonymous, during the primaries the RNC was attacking Clinton but not Bernie for a reason. Middle class Americans are not going to vote for a socialist who stole electricity from his neighbor.
    1
  18. People are growing up and see him as a radical.
    1
  19. Purple Nurple, if people believe in Kyle than why is he losing views and people like Crowder and Shapiro are gaining more followers? Fact it, Kyle is a radical. No one is buying his BS. His fan base is growing up and realize how dumb his ideas are.
    1
  20. Matt Christiansen gets more views than Kyle.
    1
  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk
    1
  22. This is highly asinine. Creating jobs is easy, creating wealth is harder. Giving a handful of people a job that one person can do is a complete waste of resources. You can also create millions of jobs by banning technology such as removing the tractor, is that progressive?
    1
  23. There isn't much of a debate. Watch this video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk
    1
  24. Reptillianbobcat, exactly. That is the thought process of ultra leftists.
    1
  25. Coolidge Dollar, I feel Bernie is evil, or highly ignorant. This is a guy who stole electricity from his neighbor when he was younger. He complains about wealth and income inequality but owns three homes. In the Cruz vs Sanders debate a business owner from Texas asked him about Obamacare and paying for healthcare for her employees. When asked Bernie did not care at all about her revenue, profit margins, how many employees are short term, etc. He had no desire to understand her situation or how a business operates. It is one thing to have a disagreement with people. But Sanders has no desire to learn. It is either because he is evil or very stupid. I can't decide which. There are many politicians I disagree with, but they show intelligence. Bernie doesn't.
    1
  26. Raizhen010, it is buying votes. He is catering off of useful idiots and desperate people. Just giving people jobs does not help out society.
    1
  27. 100% employment is impossible for several reasons. People will be out of work either due to losing a job, or transitioning to a new job. In both cases that can be due to growth to the economy. The person transitioning could have graduated and could struggle to get a job but eventually gets one. The other person could lose their job due to the place they work at closing down, but they can find another one. 100% employment means maximum productivity and no more growth possible. We will never reach that in our lifetime.
    1
  28. Rip Sumrall, even productive people become unemployed as I said. They may graduate and be out of work for a little bit struggling to get a job and refusing to work for less. They will eventually get one. 100% employment means everyone who wants a job has one and is not willing to move up.
    1
  29. Rip Sumrall, people do want to move up, that is where there will be unemployment. If a company goes under people who will refuse to work at another job for a lower wage and will remain unemployed for a while. There would be people who quick and would wait for a better job. Also, at 100% employment supply for labor is literally zero. With any demand that will raise the price of labor. If too high eventually people will be let go. In all, a reason why we have a natural rate of unemployment is because of people having a desire to move up.
    1
  30. Mckenzie .Latham, FDR prolonged the depression. Germany literally started a war and genocide. Is that what you want?
    1
  31. Mckenzie .Latham, the war got us out of the depression. That was an extreme situation under FDR and Germany. It wasn't about giving them jobs. It was about building a military to kill others. Do you want another war?
    1
  32. Ugo, I study economics one the side and I am taking a graduate level MBA course that is focused on economics. Economics is not hard to understand people just let emotions get in the way and refuse to listen and rather remain ignorant. Prof. Gruber of MIT referred to people like these as "useful idiots". Bernie takes advantage of these idiots. Luckily not many exist so his policies will not get passed.
    1
  33. "Brian Tan, yes, the recession started in 1929, however it did not end until WWII which was 10 years later. What caused the slow recovery was FDR's policies.
    1
  34. Brian, you call me uneducated but you feel a 10 year recovery from a recession, that the war got us out of is a success. I bet you think that Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions as well.
    1
  35. "Actually prices and product costs have gone up while wages have remained stagnant for 90% of the country" 100% false. Prices have fallen in many areas such as cars, computers, food, etc. And wages have gone up in many statistical measures such as PCE level of inflation for example.
    1
  36. "The depression started under President Hoover, not FDR. " The recession started under Hoover. Under FDR the recession was prolonged due to his policies. It was the war that got us out of the depression.
    1
  37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk Here is a good starting point.
    1
  38. Matthew Enriquez, I agree rich people are born with parents who are well off, but that comes down to nature vs nurture now. Someone born in an environment with parents who teach their kids how to work hard will become successful. This is one reason why many on the left push for the idea of less government assistance so people actually work hard in life.
    1
  39. ". For one thing, the US has both the need and demand for more government subsidized work due to its crumbling infrastructure. " How so? You complain about a crumpling infrastructure when I don't see it. I read the ratings of a D and some of it is flawed. Just because a bridge is X amount of years old does not mean it is bad. Next, infrastructure spending is a very minute portion of the economy overall. But on the point of that video, we can create a lot of jobs giving people jobs in infrastructure but give them spoons to dig with. Many jobs will be built and infrastructure will be made. However, I don't think you would support that. You would, I assume, support strong infrastructure to where it would last a long time. Well, it it lasts a long time after it is built people are out of jobs. Where do they work now? " the problem is that the wealth is concentrated and needs to be redistributed" Learn what wealth is. A lot of wealth owned by the rich are tied into stock options, not actual consumable resources.
    1
  40. Matthew Enriquez, I agree, help out poor people, especially children. But we can do that locally with either charities or with local government programs. Creating "jobs for all" is not the way you help out the kids in poor neighborhoods. They require a case by case bases best suited for the local level.
    1
  41. "Yes thy invest it in shares of their own company and or shares in other companies, which only makes the shareholders wealthy... their investment never goes down or affects the everyday business people at all. " It does. Apple investing in themselves allows for better computers for the people to afford.
    1
  42. " no they became rich because their fathers were rich anyone that has more than 2 million was born with it" Not true.
    1
  43. http://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-who-came-from-nothing-2013-12
    1
  44. Ramon Suarez, 1. Again, I read that report. I question it a lot. Not saying our infrastructure does not need repairs, but to say it is terrible is an exaggeration. Also, your logical fallacy is not an argument. 2. The cost in infrastructure is almost impossible to figure out. The price of concrete and steel varies and changes a lot. Also, if the government were to start investing in it that will jack up prices due to increased demand. Next, to rebuild requires the re-direction of traffic and movement. If you start rebuilding bridges and roads that will cause the shut down of lanes and slow down the movement of traffic. How much will that cost the economy? In 2007 the McArthur Maze in Oakland was destroyed by a tanker explosion. CC Myers took the job on a low bid but with a high payout if the job was completely quickly. He finished it quickly and earned a lot of money. You have to factor that in as well. In order to alleviate the delay in traffic flow you have to encourage jobs to be done quickly and that means paying these companies more. You are talking about 2027 to completion, that is a long time. This is why I question the reports you give me. These numbers vary a lot and may variables are involved. 3. You do not know what wealth is. Wealth is not income. Wealth is asset. The top 1% own so much wealth due to shares of the companies they own. Jeff Bezos is the largest share holder of Amazon. Those shares of Amazon are not food, gas, homes, etc. They are shares of a company that give it value based on numerous factors such as number of jobs, revenue, production, etc. But at the very core those shares are not consumable resources like food, gas, etc.
    1
  45. knavishknight, If they spend 1/3 of their working day there they deserve 1/3 of the pay because that is all the produce.
    1
  46. " The main point of this that conservatives will never understand is that by offering decent paying jobs with benefits, you pressure private companies to raise their own wages and provide benefits so they can keep their labor force. " No, they just won't invest. And where is the incentive for the workers to work hard if they are guaranteed a job? Why should I work hard if I am guaranteed a job?
    1
  47. "CHARITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN ENOUGH, AND U KNOW THAT" In some places they are, in some they aren't. That is why I said local governments as well. Each case is different and I want to leave it up to the local governments to deal with those case by case situations.
    1
  48. John Koblanski, I saw the Panama papers. That is why I support lower taxes and regulations, bring the money back. The rich stimulate the economy by investing in businesses and infrastructure.
    1
  49. celvester allison, the vast majority of rich people have worked for their money and invested well. You can find the very few who don't, but they are rare. Compare it to this. Many complain about how welfare recipients take advantage of the system. I bet you will agree that those individuals exist but will say they are rare. Is that grounds to completely remove the system all together?
    1
  50. nscloud29, these are youtube comments, not dissertations. You ask for studies than I can as well and before long we are citing peer reviewed studies and writing papers and going down the rabbit hole of asking for our comments to be peer reviewed. You don't have to believe me or Maxwell. But typically I am correct which is why others just call me a troll. A troll comment would be "Bernie Sanders is a communist" or "Bernie Sanders' wife is a crook". Something that does not provide anything to this discussion. My comment, going back to the first one, is about how anyone can create jobs, creating wealth is hard. For example, we can create jobs by making a law requiring all grocery stores to have a separate working bagging groceries. That will provide another job at a grocery store where one person checks out the items and a second bags in. No matter how busy the place is that job must exist. Is that productive? At busy times it will be, but at slow times that extra worker would be better off doing other activities. Now apply this to government jobs. Say there was a government building and the janitor there can clean it in 8 hours and he worked 5 days a week. That is 40 hours. Now say the government were to hire three workers and they all worked 5 days a week at 8 hours. One person could get that job done, now they have four. They get all the jobs done in 2 hours. What do they do for six hours? Nothing. Zero productivity. They are not generating any wealth in society. But they have jobs because of a government program that guarantees them a job. Those jobs of a janitor were easy to create. They were created out of thin air. But they produce no wealth. I have not seen a counter argument besides someone saying that with more workers people can work on other things. Thus with 4 workers they work for only 2 hours a day and have the rest of the 6 hours to do whatever. However, they are no longer getting paid for 40 hours a week but only 10. It becomes a problem.
    1
  51. nsclout29, how did the video I link you make you dumb? You are challenging Maxwell for sources but you just made a vague rebuttal yourself.
    1
  52. "No, nice strawman though. It’s grounds to refine the system so people don’t live off of welfare their whole life." There are people who refuse to get off of welfare. How do you "refine" it? Do you kick them off? "And oh look, Bernie’s proposal actually provides a solution to that problem too." What if they don't want to work? You want to punish every rich person just because a few "got lucky" and became rich. So I proposed a similar scenario with welfare where a few refuse to get off it or work.
    1
  53. Green Square, stock value are subjective. You give a rich person stock they will sell it for what the market feels it is worth. You give it to a poor person they will be desperate and sell it for pennies on the dollar just to get food or pay for rent. Why? Because stocks are no food, shelter, gas, etc.
    1
  54. ShadlowmanFan1, so people are rebelling against capitalism by voting for Trump?
    1
  55. Green Square, a UBI will lead to inflation as people will have more money to spend which increases demand without increasing supply.
    1
  56. Green Square, I know what stock options are. Can you eat it? Is it a home? No. Is is a share of a company that someone owns. "Demand drives supply you idiot" Demand does not have to be stimulated. People demand better goods and services so companies create them. When Apple first released an iPhone only the rich can afford it. They developed it because eventually it would become cheaper where all can afford it. They built it because people demand better goods and services. However, we have limits. People and machines can only build so fast. Artificially increasing demand does not increase supply, so prices will go up.
    1
  57. Green Square, if you were to give people more money to buy things, say clothes for example, that will mean more people will shop at a clothing store. However, they have limited employees and goods, so they would raise prices. If you say "they can just hire more" the question becomes why would someone work there if you give them more money? The UBI decreases the incentive to work and raise prices.
    1
  58. Green Square, what should I study? I am taking an economic base course right now (it is an MBA course but it is focused more on economics). The course is a grad level course. Also, I watch many lectures on youtube. I watch a lot of Learn Liberty videos for examples.
    1
  59. Ramon, 1. I find it ironic how you want me to give specifics but you refused to do so on my video I linked. I am trying to open the report card link right now but can't. Maybe later I can and I can give you a better analysis by quoting it, but right now I can't. I am going off of what I read in the past such as an over exaggeration. 2. "Gee, which one will I believe? Your anecdotal point that you don't see crumbling infrastructure or a nationwide study conducted by the oldest engineering society in America? Tough choice..." That was your logical fallacy. You are appealing to authority. You don't think that they have a motive in what they report? Was their report peer reviewed by someone? I clicked in the report card link from their website and it did not work. They are having a hard time running a website. I am not saying their work has no value, it does. But like everything it should be questioned. 3. Yes, the cost of infrastructure is almost impossible to figure out. Concrete and steel prices change a lot. You have labor cost, cost of completion, bids, etc. And with anything, you increase demand prices go up. You also have to factor in cost for productivity going down due to traffic delays, fuel being wasted in traffic, etc. 4. We face traffic problems due to location. Look at areas with bad traffic. The LA area, the bay area, NYC, the DC area, etc. They are shoved in a corner where they are building up, not out. You can't build out as one side is water. In the Bay area, for example. One whole side is water. You can only go so far east. 5. Taxing wealth like you would income is not smart. The value of wealth is subjective. You tax something that is valued at a certain price and assume that person has that money. For example, you tax my car which cost me $70 a year thinking I have that money. Now I do, but that is income, not my car. That is the flaw of taxing wealth. As for company shares, that is where most of the wealthy have their wealth tied into. They don't have that income. Jeff Bezos earns $80,000 a year. He has billions in wealth due to his shares. That is why the capital gains tax rate is so low, it isn't actual money.
    1
  60. The Jack HQ, Paris Hilton is one person, she does not represent the norm.
    1
  61. Sheldon Adelson invests in casinos. Casinos are the reason why NV has no income tax and still does well.
    1
  62. Deez Nuts, cars today do not need more repairs than cars from the 70s.
    1
  63. Green Square, what academic sources? I have been in academics for years and that, mixed with my experience in the private sector, I have become a moderate. You say I am not studying anything, why? You bring up supply and demand. Where have I been wrong on this? If you understand economics you would oppose Bernie's plan. Take this jobs program and supply and demand. You limit the supply of workers and increase demand for them wages will go up. Now you may say that is great, but prices will go up as well. In economics when unemployment goes below the natural rate of unemployment wages go up causing inflation. Now the Fed can try to counter with interest rates but that can only go so far. In the 60s and 70s we saw massive inflation due to low unemployment that eventually led to a recession and high unemployment. Why? Because if wages go up 5% and prices go up 10% eventually people realize that they are not earning enough. You need to study more bud.
    1
  64. Devin, he is a Bernie supporter, he has others read for him.
    1
  65. Godless, being a Bernie supporter is a litmus test for stupidity in economics. If you support Bernie you are an idiot economically.
    1
  66. Jack Ban, I can give a rational, detailed argument. Consider this. Where is the incentive to work hard if Bernie is just going to give you a job? I am at the point now where I can just make fun of Bernie as I have said enough about him, so have others. Think about how pathetic he sounds. Giving people jobs no matter what they produce? I mean, we might was well give people jobs building a building, tearing it down, and building it again. I mean, jobs for all, correct?
    1
  67. Jack Ban, I have jobs we can give to people. We can have one person dig a hole and another person to fill it back up again. Sounds good? We can pay them $15/hr to do it. We can give it to everyone who does not have a job. How much wealth will that create? None. But people will have jobs. See how stupid this "jobs for all" idea can be? Sounds good on the surface, but economically it is incredibly asinine.
    1
  68. ch33to Sesh, we have to take a step back before we go forward. Also, Bernie's plan would have cost a lot more.
    1
  69. "Ok, so just give everything to the elites permanently " Who said about giving things away besides Bernie and his fans? I don't support giving things away. I support people earning it. " Trump's shitty tax plan that a handout the the rich. By the way, that's also spending?" So allowing people to keep money they earned is spending? Ok, I'm done.
    1
  70. "Bernie's medicare for all plan would save businesses money " 100% false. The reason why businesses offer healthcare to employees is because of the payroll tax. It is a tax free way to pay employees. Bernie wants to raise the payroll tax to pay for medicare for all which will lower wages and cost businesses more. The phrase "living wage" is 100% subjective.
    1
  71. Mckenzie .Latham, defense spending is still around 4% of GDP. The bailouts, while myself and many one the right disagree with them, were loans from the Fed that were paid off. Many on the right disagree with corporate welfare as well.
    1
  72. "but its also 54% of the discretionary spending and is more than the next 13 countries combined" It is 16% of federal spending. Also, saying it is more than the next 13 countries combine is highly misleading. To start, I have read various numbers on that but he most common one is the next 8 countries combine. Next, if you combine the GDP of those nations their defense spending is around 2.5% of that, ours is 3.5%. Still higher but by only 1%. The point is that their combine GDP is comparable to our GDP. We spend more on education than many of those countries combine. Does that mean we should cut education spending?
    1