"Trickle down clowns." 
Real Time With Bill Maher
- Thread starter Nobby style
- Start date
the guy is indeed a clown....pretty much every single word he says is wrong.
Who? Nick Hanauer?
So what was he wrong about? Show me some actual proof of where this rise to 15 dollars an hours will screw the economy. There is actually no proof other than the repetition after repetition of right wing political whores and well funded think tanks. It´s more like the typical, if you repeat it enough times the lie becomes the truth.
And how would Hanauer´s clown economics be possibly worse than the trickle down clowns and their deregulated "free" markets and wage suppression that brought us the economical wonders of 2008, and the slow death of the American middle class, outsourced manufacturing et al, massive student debt, unseen inequality, the need for illegal alien labor and having to subsidize so many corporations´ unliving wage. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be around 28 dollars or so. How did we do it before?
So what is he actually wrong about?
The academia overwhelmingly opine that a minimum wage has a negative effect on employment. You might not like it and you might even disagree, but that has absolutely nothing to do with right-wing propaganda or “trickle-down economics”. So he is either ignorant about this FACT or is lying.
If he is already wrong about the absolute basics of his argument, the rest of his rant becomes just a joke. He is just throwing around buzzwords and is making a moral case for a 15$ minimum wage. I can accept the moral case, but don´t pretend that the overwhelming amount of economists agree with you. They don´t and that is a fact, not an opinion.
That said it is quite rich to make the moral case, when you refuse to pay a minimum wage of 15$/h in your family company, while being a billionaire, who was born with a silver spoon deep up his ass. What a charming hypocrite.Talk the talk and...well...pay less.....
The economists, who try to make a different case struggle badly and neither their theoretical nor empirical work is convincing. We could go into detail about all those things, if you are interested.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp2570.pdf
http://www.iza.org/de/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=7166
If he is already wrong about the absolute basics of his argument, the rest of his rant becomes just a joke. He is just throwing around buzzwords and is making a moral case for a 15$ minimum wage. I can accept the moral case, but don´t pretend that the overwhelming amount of economists agree with you. They don´t and that is a fact, not an opinion.
That said it is quite rich to make the moral case, when you refuse to pay a minimum wage of 15$/h in your family company, while being a billionaire, who was born with a silver spoon deep up his ass. What a charming hypocrite.Talk the talk and...well...pay less.....
The economists, who try to make a different case struggle badly and neither their theoretical nor empirical work is convincing. We could go into detail about all those things, if you are interested.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp2570.pdf
http://www.iza.org/de/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=7166
If the minimum wage is such a great thing, why stop at 15$? How about setting it to 100$/h and we all get rich.
Last edited:
Yeah, that´s what he was saying. Brilliant. Let´s make an absurd straw man and use it as a conclusion.
You´re just regurgitating studies, nothing concrete, as usual. The thing is, there is no concrete evidence against it will cause under employment. Just the same old unproven crap. There´s plenty of studies that show a quick increment to 15 hr would be actually beneficial.
http://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-not-falling-from-seattles-minimum-wage-hike/
As for you´re argument on personally attacking Hanauer . . . so we should follow you for some reason, and your laughing troll. What have you guys done? Have you been big players in the entrepreneurial scene? Venture capital? I´m sure Hanauer would roll over from your expertise. Maybe you´ll get a TED talk too. Have you ever even lived in the US? Or worked there?
And the stagnant wages and pitiful minimum wage of say, Walmart, has everything to do with right wing economic philosophy. How can you say it doesn´t?
And you´re saying everything he said was wrong? So far you´ve mentioned the unproven 15hr wage. What else was Hanauer wrong about? Just cause YOU say so?
What I think is maybe we should give it a try. Let it disprove itself. It couldn´t be much worse than the stagnant wages and government subsidies paid to make up for an unliveable wage now, nor the economic philosophies that gave us a meltdown.
It is absurd to suggest a high wage increase as PM hyperboled above. I believe the consensus is to raise to a level that puts minimum wage workers above a poverty line, and also to raise the wage in line with inflation adjustments over the years. The majority of the strategies I've read about prefer a rise over time, like a dollar per year or thereabouts, for a few years.
Bill and Nick were spot on about McDonald's bullshit PR nonsense. Businesses have been looking towards automation for years to improve efficiency and cut personnel costs, and often times when big business suffer in revenues the lower tenured employees (often lowest paid too) are axed while the big cats get their bonuses and shareholders receive their dividends.
Bill and Nick were spot on about McDonald's bullshit PR nonsense. Businesses have been looking towards automation for years to improve efficiency and cut personnel costs, and often times when big business suffer in revenues the lower tenured employees (often lowest paid too) are axed while the big cats get their bonuses and shareholders receive their dividends.
It´s also absurd that the tax payer is subsidising Walmart employees with benefits, the nations biggest employer, to the tune of like 6 billion dollars because they aren´t paid a decent wage, while 4 of the Waltons are among the ten wealthiest billionaires in America . . . yet somehow, "pretty much every single word he (Hanauer the clown) says is wrong."
Go figure
Go figure
At 1:21+ he says "(..)this insidious thing, if wages go up, employment goes down (...) and the facts are there is no evidence for this whatsoever".
The majority of economists are not on his side on this issue. If wages increase via government intervention usually and on average that has negative impact on employment. There are other opinions, but that is the mainstream view (at least if you dump it down to a talking point). So I am not making up any straw-man. It is simply the opinion of the academia. You might disagree, but it has little to do with politics. I am not trying to convince you that the minimum wage is bad for the economy. That would be pointless. I am trying to point out that the majority of economists thinks that there is a causal link between unemployment and minimum wage. You can chose to ignore them; fair enough. Economists have a terrible track record of predicting things, so I wouldn´t blame you for that. Still the whole thing has nothing to do with any right-wing propaganda campaign, funded by big business.
There is also nothing like trickle down economics. It is an unspecific political label, that hardly exist in the economic sphere. I don´t know any serious economist who would label himself as an stalwart of this brand. At least he defines what he means with a couple of buzzwords ("deregulation", "tax cuts for the rich", "wage suppression for the poor"). All these things are very much contested.
The only thing we might be able to agree on is, that very rich and influential corporations get favourable legislation, tax breaks and subsidies because of their influence on politicians. That is a problem. Absolutely. That is why I have a lot of sympathy for Sanders despite all his left-wing ideas. The solution is to abolish those privileges and not to add other nonsense.
Regarding regulation:
Before the financial crash in 08/09 the USA alone had about 115 different agencies that were involved in regulating and monitoring the financial sector. The cost of the regulation has tippled since the beginning of the 90s. Only a madman would believe that agency #116-150 would have done the trick. The dysfunctional monstrosity of dodd-frank should be enough prove for that. Hardly any problem is solved and the market share of small and middle sized banks and financial institutions declined by over 10% in various sectors, because they get handicapped by this shit. Well done state intervention. When the next bail-out is "necessary", people will blame the "free market" for it and ask for even more regulation.
You also expect the sort of truth that economics can´t deliver. Most specific economic studies who try this (regardless of the content, so I include many studies who try to show the negative effect of the MW) are ridiculous. They often overuse maths and statistic models and fail to realize that they don´t really capture reality. They end up with models that have more holes than anything else. We simply don´t have the tools and knowledge to model complex and dynamic situations accurately. That doesn´t mean that economics models are nonsense, but they are not comparable with models in physics or biology.
We also shouldn´t follow me and I don´t care about his "credentials". I care about arguments and his "arguments" are inaccurate, very simplistic and not compelling at all. That said I hate hypocrites and people who (publicly) lecture others about morals, should better live up to their own standards. He is a very very privileged person and has no excuses to pay his workers below 15$. That is the reason for my snidy remark.
Later in the video he starts to mix up all sorts of issues with the minimum wage (food, health-care, "corporate welfare", etc.pp) and I have no interest in going into them.
One honest question for you: If the minimum wage doesn´t have any negative impact on employment, why not raise it higher? 15$ is just a completely random number. Why not 25$ or 35$? At what point does it get too high and why?
edit: You do realize that Wall-mart is actually a supporter of a higher minimum wage nowadays and you do realize that they are not the only company, that would be affected by this?
The majority of economists are not on his side on this issue. If wages increase via government intervention usually and on average that has negative impact on employment. There are other opinions, but that is the mainstream view (at least if you dump it down to a talking point). So I am not making up any straw-man. It is simply the opinion of the academia. You might disagree, but it has little to do with politics. I am not trying to convince you that the minimum wage is bad for the economy. That would be pointless. I am trying to point out that the majority of economists thinks that there is a causal link between unemployment and minimum wage. You can chose to ignore them; fair enough. Economists have a terrible track record of predicting things, so I wouldn´t blame you for that. Still the whole thing has nothing to do with any right-wing propaganda campaign, funded by big business.
There is also nothing like trickle down economics. It is an unspecific political label, that hardly exist in the economic sphere. I don´t know any serious economist who would label himself as an stalwart of this brand. At least he defines what he means with a couple of buzzwords ("deregulation", "tax cuts for the rich", "wage suppression for the poor"). All these things are very much contested.
The only thing we might be able to agree on is, that very rich and influential corporations get favourable legislation, tax breaks and subsidies because of their influence on politicians. That is a problem. Absolutely. That is why I have a lot of sympathy for Sanders despite all his left-wing ideas. The solution is to abolish those privileges and not to add other nonsense.
Regarding regulation:
Before the financial crash in 08/09 the USA alone had about 115 different agencies that were involved in regulating and monitoring the financial sector. The cost of the regulation has tippled since the beginning of the 90s. Only a madman would believe that agency #116-150 would have done the trick. The dysfunctional monstrosity of dodd-frank should be enough prove for that. Hardly any problem is solved and the market share of small and middle sized banks and financial institutions declined by over 10% in various sectors, because they get handicapped by this shit. Well done state intervention. When the next bail-out is "necessary", people will blame the "free market" for it and ask for even more regulation.
You also expect the sort of truth that economics can´t deliver. Most specific economic studies who try this (regardless of the content, so I include many studies who try to show the negative effect of the MW) are ridiculous. They often overuse maths and statistic models and fail to realize that they don´t really capture reality. They end up with models that have more holes than anything else. We simply don´t have the tools and knowledge to model complex and dynamic situations accurately. That doesn´t mean that economics models are nonsense, but they are not comparable with models in physics or biology.
We also shouldn´t follow me and I don´t care about his "credentials". I care about arguments and his "arguments" are inaccurate, very simplistic and not compelling at all. That said I hate hypocrites and people who (publicly) lecture others about morals, should better live up to their own standards. He is a very very privileged person and has no excuses to pay his workers below 15$. That is the reason for my snidy remark.
Later in the video he starts to mix up all sorts of issues with the minimum wage (food, health-care, "corporate welfare", etc.pp) and I have no interest in going into them.
One honest question for you: If the minimum wage doesn´t have any negative impact on employment, why not raise it higher? 15$ is just a completely random number. Why not 25$ or 35$? At what point does it get too high and why?
edit: You do realize that Wall-mart is actually a supporter of a higher minimum wage nowadays and you do realize that they are not the only company, that would be affected by this?
Last edited:
Your straw man is the absurd, well, let´s raise it to 100 dollars and all get rich conclusion. It´s hard to even discuss this when you argue like that.
15 dollars seems to be a realistic wage. It is anything but a random number, as many major cities are using it and protecting on it. And it is well below what it should be based on historical rates and inflation. You keep coming with the majority of economist argument, but no actual proof. The sky is not falling in Seattle.
And however much you want to spin it, the "free" market is a deregulated one. How are all these banks getting away with fixing scandals, laundering money etc etc etc + the 2008 crash???? Maybe it´s cause the foxes are regulating the hens . . . yet for you, it appears to be over regulated. What would you suggest? And less regulation for the environment?
Is Elizabeth Warren full of shit?
You are just parroting tired right wing talking points, the ones we followed to the 2008 crash, which the Bernie "no-better-than-Trump" Sanders actually predicted. Yet, according to you guys, he knows nothing about economics.
We also shouldn´t follow me and I don´t care about his "credentials". I care about arguments and his "arguments" are inaccurate, very simplistic and not compelling at all . . . yet somehow, we should follow yours???????????
Again, do you work and live in the US?
15 dollars seems to be a realistic wage. It is anything but a random number, as many major cities are using it and protecting on it. And it is well below what it should be based on historical rates and inflation. You keep coming with the majority of economist argument, but no actual proof. The sky is not falling in Seattle.
And however much you want to spin it, the "free" market is a deregulated one. How are all these banks getting away with fixing scandals, laundering money etc etc etc + the 2008 crash???? Maybe it´s cause the foxes are regulating the hens . . . yet for you, it appears to be over regulated. What would you suggest? And less regulation for the environment?
Is Elizabeth Warren full of shit?
You are just parroting tired right wing talking points, the ones we followed to the 2008 crash, which the Bernie "no-better-than-Trump" Sanders actually predicted. Yet, according to you guys, he knows nothing about economics.
We also shouldn´t follow me and I don´t care about his "credentials". I care about arguments and his "arguments" are inaccurate, very simplistic and not compelling at all . . . yet somehow, we should follow yours???????????
Again, do you work and live in the US?
Last edited:
His point about Walmart is absolutely on the point. The Waltons are getting richer, while their employees are subsidized by general public on foodstamps so that they can improve Walmart's profit margins. For feck's sake..
okay. I just leave it there. When someone starts to use "???????????", all things are lost anyway. You forgot to press caps-lock.
$15 is the number I recall seeing drawn up to put one above poverty line number, i.e. multiplied by X (hours) and Y (months) for Z (total in year) to put one above poverty line. If minimum wage had kept up with inflation over the past 50 years, it would be around $22/hr today. Based on actual increases over the years, it would be around $10.50/hr had it been adjusted in line with inflation since 1968. But the fed rarely adjusts the minimum wage, hence the skewered numbers.
What pisses me off is the demonizing by far right politics (and asshat supporters) of those seeking to increase the minimum wage to any number. It's always the $15/hr that's used as a scare tactic/mocking point when there are numerous numbers tossed around, the most often touted being in the $10-12/hr range which has received much support from both parties.
I'd be for a federal minimum level with a local adjustment based on cost of living factors, as defined by states and approved by fed (so states can't just feck about), much how the civil service pay scale is structured. $15/hr in Alabama has much greater purchasing power than say in California. Therefore, $11/hr in Alabama and $14/hr in California (or some variation) seems more reasonable. It's also utter horseshit to pay tip workers less than the federal wage. Tip workers often pool tips to other persons within the establishment, like busboys, cooks, doormen, servers, etc.
As always there lies compromise in the middle. But we've become too polarized where everything is black OR white.
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/minimum-wage-real-value-changed/2015/04/06/id/636741/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
Interesting take https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Nov2015_EPI_MinWageSurvey4.pdf
What pisses me off is the demonizing by far right politics (and asshat supporters) of those seeking to increase the minimum wage to any number. It's always the $15/hr that's used as a scare tactic/mocking point when there are numerous numbers tossed around, the most often touted being in the $10-12/hr range which has received much support from both parties.
I'd be for a federal minimum level with a local adjustment based on cost of living factors, as defined by states and approved by fed (so states can't just feck about), much how the civil service pay scale is structured. $15/hr in Alabama has much greater purchasing power than say in California. Therefore, $11/hr in Alabama and $14/hr in California (or some variation) seems more reasonable. It's also utter horseshit to pay tip workers less than the federal wage. Tip workers often pool tips to other persons within the establishment, like busboys, cooks, doormen, servers, etc.
As always there lies compromise in the middle. But we've become too polarized where everything is black OR white.
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/minimum-wage-real-value-changed/2015/04/06/id/636741/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
Interesting take https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Nov2015_EPI_MinWageSurvey4.pdf
I have no problem with that at all.
Your argument for the minimum wage is based on the need of employees, who would suffer, if they earn less. That is what I´d call the "moral" argument and that is totally legitimate point. I also have no problems with people who argue for a higher minimum wage, because they think it increase the overall prosperity, if they can come up with reasonable arguments. I actually share some of their views, but we never arrived at this point in this discussion. All i read was "right-wing economics suck and are wrong. You are responsible, that people suffer." I tried to respond somewhat reasonable, but apparently I failed.
I simply pointed out that the the mainstream of economic academics think that there is also a downside regarding employment. The downsides of a 15$ minimum wage are certainly not gigantic in the USA. Nobody can really quantify the consequences accurately and the world would certainly not come to an end. A minimum wage of 15$ would also not end poverty or inequality, but that is a different issue.
Last but not least, the far left is also pretty good at demonizing people. "You don´t support more economic redistribution? You must hate poor people, you selfish monster. Evil capitalist!"
Do you ever get tired of this obnoxious trolling all the time? I mean, it was´t even funny to begin with, and was a total cop out of an answer.
What are you referring to ????????
I think the term would be more like democratising the wealth made in this country, as opposed to this insane wealth inequality (trickle down) that most mainstream economists seem to worry about. No one has said evil capitalist. I think we all are capitalists here, maybe not so much free market for everything, and progressive, fair non avoidable taxing, living wages, things Many of us don´t thing the supposed "free" market should have free rein to dictate.
That´s the second obnoxious
in this thread alone, not too mention all the others. You constantly do this, and it´s quite annoying, and something a mod should probably avoid. Don´t be coy. I´m guessing you might be the only one that thinks it´s cute.?????????? heeheeheee
You'd be best off sticking to answering Pedro's question about why $15 and not much higher ?That´s the second obnoxious
The user "@Bacon apologist" has send me a message and his take on the situation. The link is well worth reading for anyone who is interested in MWs.
OMG, he´s playing the Bacon apologist card. Let´s hear his take on the situation. Certainly more credible than Hanauer the clown. What was I thinking?
Just kidding, Bacon apologist
Good fragment of the panel discussion last night
“I think the Frankenstein monster is the Trump voter more than Trump”
“I think the Frankenstein monster is the Trump voter more than Trump”
Sometimes he annoys me when he doesn't let people finish their sentence but they have to listen quietly when he talks. But he talks a lot of sense imho.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/l...ive-emily-miller-with-gun-views-on-real-time/
Col (ret) Lawrence Wilkerson owned this Emily Miller nutter. He annihilates her around the 4:00 mark.
Col (ret) Lawrence Wilkerson owned this Emily Miller nutter. He annihilates her around the 4:00 mark.
I sincerely hope he continues his streak.
Last edited:
She got b@tchslapped hard in the Overtime segment as well. Not the brightest bulb in the box.
I hate when good looking are so fecking dumb. She's good looking even though she's so bloody thick.
I think he has the odds on his side. I've lived 59 years in 3 countries without anyone ever coming into my house trying to kill me. In fact, no one I know has ever had that happen to them. I must admit, I never lived in a country with a gun problem though.
Well of course the odds are on his side. The odds typically are until it happens. I wonder if all those years of nothing happening has led him to not lock his doors at night?
A woman about a quarter mile from my parents house was home invaded and stabbed to death this spring. She was in her 60s. Had a good streak going herself.
Last edited:
If only she had a gun. That would probably have been locked away somewhere safe because responsible gun owners don't leave them lying around the house for kids to shoot themselves with. I'm sure the robber would have waited while she went and got it.
Fwiw, she lived alone.
It's not worth anything, responsible gun owners still wouldn't leave guns just lying around in easy reach. Infact I'm sure that's taught as part of any gun safety 101 to keep them in secure and safe places. So it doesn't really change the point at all. Also it being kept unloaded when not in use. I'm sure the robber would have respected her right to protect herself and allowed her to just go and retrieve it, load it and then come back to him.
If you feel you must own a gun, let's say... because you worry that the country might be invaded and feel patriotic enough to want to join a militia, then it makes sense to keep that gun locked away. If you want to defend yourself in case someone enters your house to try to kill you, then you should probably talk to someone.
Do you typically make assumptions about things or just on this subject?
Do you typically make assumptions about things or just on this subject?