’)David Sirota on CNBC with ABC’s John Stossel
Mr. STOSSEL: & I now realize who you are because you, on my Amazon page, he came on and said, `I’m a smarmy-looking liar.’
Mr. SIROTA: You are.
I have and continue to have numerous disagreements with Sirota’s tone and positioning, but damned if he wasn’t dead on here. Too many liberals come on tv looking to make friends and get blown out of the water by cons. There are way too many Jeff Jarvis/Joe Lieberman liberals who think the most important thing is getting invited to the big party, when in fact they’re laughing at you behind your back.
If only David Sirota was intelligent. I love how instead of addressing the issues Stossel raises, he just calls him a liar.
how profound…
Following David Sirota’s logic, if everyone made $100k, we’d all be rich, no? they’d all be spending that money, right?
what happens if all states raise their minimum wage above the federal level? Unfortunately for Sirota, reality doesn’t support his assertions. I recommend that he take a basic economics course… or read “Thinking beyond stage 1” by Thomas Sowell.
Regards,
St Wendeler from Another Rovian Conspiracy
I’ll admit to ignorance on this, so I simply have to ask: If the arguement is that higher minimum wage destroys the very low paying jobs, then is that actually such a truly horrible thing? I mean really what benefit is it to someone to be working a job that pays so far less than a decent living wage that they must take welfare anyway?
In case you’re interested in empirical facts instead of more right-wing spin, by all means check this out, in which we learn that minimum wage hikes historically have not hurt employment. St.Wendeler, you should spend more time arguing against positions people actually hold instead of whatever 100k fantasy argument you’re having so much pointless fun with.
“The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.”
Nobel prize winning economist: 1
Conservahacks: 0
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/18/13215/4062
I watched it and loved Stossel. Why didn’t Sirota answer Stossel? States always raise minimum wage when the economy is doing well, when the market minimum wage is increasing dramatically. Let me rephrase that, the market wage for the minimum jobs is increasing. When that is increasing, a governmental price floor on wages will have no effect on anything!
ga dunk ga dunk dunk!!!
Yes, in fact Stossel highlighted several communities that increased their minimum wage… in many cases jobs were never available at the minimum wage.
Oh, and of course, housing prices and the cost of living in those communities skyrocketed at the same time, but don’t let those economic realities enter Sirota’s mind….
What should Sirota have debated? That Stossel is a liar bought and paid for by right wing think tanks? Stossel uses anecdotes in place of real evidence.
David Schultz didn’t hit him hard enough.
“Says the party of Cindy Sheehan& ”
Says the party of Anne Coulter…
Says the party of Cindy Sheehan…
Sirota’s nastiness is typical for the left. Just like the idiots who claim Bush lied. Rather than try to debate policy on merit or lack of it, they attack the individual and what they cynically GUESS is his motives.
Dugger, Why I continue to be more of the right than the left
“While raising the minimum wage may not have a very large adverse effect on current jobholders (though it does put people out of work. That s a fact), ”
Proof?
TomY like most liberals misses the larger point when debating the issue of raising the minimum wage. And Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson discussed this over 30 years ago. While raising the minimum wage may not have a very large adverse effect on current jobholders (though it does put people out of work. That’s a fact), what it does do is eliminate other minimum wage jobs that employers will make available. What good is it for a young person that needs a job that would pay $7.00 an hour when it’s that figure that keeps a company from hiring him in the first place? Gary Becker, another Nobel Prize winning economist holds the same position. As does Milton Friedman — Nobel Prize winning economist.
The ironic thing about minimum wage increases? Those who support are on the side of the Wal-Marts of the world that also support it. Why? Since Wal-Mar already pays workers above the minimum wage, they support it because they know it makes it more difficult for competitors that pay lower wages to continue to compete with them.
Also, sam, note that you didn’t provide any proof for what I asked for, which is “{The minimum wage} puts people out of work. That’s a fact.”
Chop chop.
“Proof”?
Factcheck,
Think about it from an employer’s perspective and apply common sense. If he employs 20 unskilled workers and is forced to raise their pay by $2.10 an hour each, how do you think he might compensate for that additional burden on his already slim profit margin? Layoffs, hiring freezes and employee reduction through attrition come to mind.
Here are some stats from the Employment Policies Institute:
“Who makes the minimum wage?
The average family income for employees who would benefit from the proposed $2.10 minimum wage hike is $45,558. Why? Nearly six out of seven of these employees either live with their parents or relatives, have a working spouse, or are single and don’t have children.
Virtually all minimum wage employees will see their incomes rise as they increase their value to employers by gaining skills through experience. Analysis of US Census Bureau data shows the median raise these employees receive is six times higher than that of employees earning above the minimum wage.
This traditional growth out of entry-level employment explains why less than 1% of employees above the age of 25 are working at the minimum wage.
Among that tiny minority are the low-skilled adults we want to help. They are also the very people who lose their jobs when the minimum wage is hiked.
Who really benefits from a minimum wage hike? The answer may surprise you. Select a state from the list to view the distribution data on workers affected by a proposed $2.10 minimum wage hike.”
Pennsylvania for example:
“The average family income of Pennsylvania employees who would ‘benefit’ from Senator Kennedy’s proposed minimum wage hike: $ 52,415.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, fully 91% of employees in Pennsylvania whose wages would be increased by the proposed minimum wage hike either live with their parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse. Just 10% are sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through Earned Income Tax Credit.”
Maybe I should have been more specific about “proof”. I want real, scientific, peer reviewed proof, not talking points from a restaurant lobbyist
Not only is the sole earner eligible for the EITC, they are also eligible for WIC, AFDC, Section 8, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Proponents of min wage increases attempt to decieve people into thinking there are people out there raising families of 3-4 on incomes of $10,700 a year and that alone.
Looks like they conceded that point, factcheck. When presented with hard data, they countered with theory. They then argued that the minimum wage goes to the wrong people. Nice guys. Hopefully we can get a minimum wage hike passed and show you guys one more instance in which a rise in the MW coexists with a strong job market.
Oh please Factcheck. Your dismissal of a source based on the person who operates is nothing but ad hominem and intellectual laziness.
You don’t score any points simply because you don’t like the source of the information. So chop chop yourself.
Has anyone here actually tried to read Stossel’s book? It’s full of misleading statistics, deliberate factual omissions, and just outright intellectual dishonesty much like the man himself.
The most glaring example to me was when he launched into a supposed “debunking” of fears of global overpopulation. Stossel chooses in this passage to argue against people on the basis of the fact that if you crammed a global population of six billion people into Texas, you would come up with a population density that is less than that of some major metropolitan areas like New York City.
Anyone see the problem with approaching the argument this way?
He is the absolute worst kind of propogandist and tries all the time to pass himself off as some kind of vox populi.
So, you’ve presented yet another point and failed to back it up with facts. Pretty much par of the course for Crazy Jay and his compadres.
“Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”- Crazy Jay.
“Your dismissal of a source based on the person who operates is nothing but ad hominem and intellectual laziness. ”
Says the one who complains that the media is left wing propaganda.
By the way, the “study” sam cites uses extrapolated data from the CPS. In other words, they take government data and extrapolate results based on their personal biases. They also fail to break down the information between teenagers living with their parents and adult wage earners. That’s intellectually bankrupt “study”.
A real research paper details the methods and detailed breakdown of the statistics used to make their claims. This lobbying firm does none of this.
“Rather than try to debate policy on merit or lack of it, they attack the individual and what they cynically GUESS is his motives.”
Ya, that never happens on the right:
“Most hard leftists really don t give a gnat s *ss about the death of these military people (most are republicans) anyway.”
A missile hit the Pentagon.
http://whatreallyhappened.com
George W. Bush is the anti-Christ
http://bushisantichrist.com
These are backed up by facts. That you choose to ignore them based on the source, that’s YOUR problem.
Only trying to be fair and balanced here.
Ahhh…the party of $400Billion deficits weighing in on another economic security issue…minimum wage.
Yes, yes…deficits are a different issue, but I bring it up because I simply smile when I see the Jay’s of the world act all authoritative on stuff like this. It’s laughable, now, that a party that used to pride itself on being “fiscally responsible,” can argue that a $2.00 hike in the minimum wage will hurt the economy, and hurt the very people it is designed to benefit.
They’re not telling the truth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that just under half (about 47%) of Minimum Wage earners are over the age of 25.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002tbls.htm
They like to float this myth about the high-school burger flipper. It’s simply not true. There are people out there that do, unfortunately, try to support themselves or their family on one minimum wage job, or two.
I don’t know how many minimum wage hikes have been enacted since the law took effect, but I’d really like for one of these clowns to conclusively prove some sort of cause and effect, other than simply theorizing or posturing that it all makes common sense.
Did it happen, or not? Did the sky fall?
I thought so.
JK
So, you ve presented yet another point and failed to back it up with facts.
It has been backed up with facts. You chose to ignore them based on the source. That’s YOUR problem, not mine.
Says the one who complains that the media is left wing propaganda.
I never said any such thing.
By the way, these are the results of a peer-reviewed study on the effect minimum wage hikes had on employment.
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html
Surprise, surprise, the level of employment went up in the New Jersey study when the minimum wage was hiked over neighboring Pennsylvania’s level.
jk, they have a 2005 study http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm#1
it says that about 65% of minimum wage employees are over 19, and about 75% of minimum wage workers are full time.
Hardly consistent with teenage workers working part-time after school. But then again, for cons facts come “from the gut”, and not from actual study.
it says that about 65% of minimum wage employees are over 19,
So? The majority are between the ages of 16-25. Where would that put most of them? Oh, high school and college.
Oh and look at this other little nugget:
By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent. About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2005 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and service jobs.
In other words, “burger flippers” for those high school kids and mostly like as a waiter or waitress in a restaurant when they hit college. The reason why most of them work in service industries is because of the flexible hours such places afford high school and college students.
In addition, you have others that are adults with no dependents and earners that are part of a dual income household.
Surprise, surprise, the level of employment went up in the New Jersey study when the minimum wage was hiked over neighboring Pennsylvania s level.
Completely irrelevant as we’re talking about the federal minimum wage. I have no problem with states enacting their own min wage laws. However, it is counter productive at the federal level especially when it can be absorbed more easily in Connecticut than it can in Arkansas.
You said the minimum wage costs jobs. You provide no proof. I provide a peer-reviewed study that says that in a situation where the minimum wage was raised, there were job gains. You move the goalposts.
You say that most of the minimum wage earners are in high school and college, but you provide no proof. Ever think maybe a majority of those are dropouts and young adults who aren’t attending college. No, you ASS-ume that they are high school and college students. I don’t know whether they are students or not. Neither do you.
When are you going to come up with some facts?
Factcheck:
That is an interesting book that I have discussed with others. The reason is that in Economics, “Facts” as you call them (which I assume is hard data on cause and effect relationships) is extremely difficult to document. The reason for this is that there is an extremely large heap of variables on pretty much anything economical.
If Economists want to gather data on a certain hypothesis (such as min. wage and unemployment), we would have to observe a state or country that enacts a minimum wage and then control the thousands of other variables affecting unemployment.
The source you cite took on this task but it is a task nearly impossible to conquer and they were unable to control enough other variables affecting unemployment to make any serious claims.
For now, Economists are in pretty solid agreement that with all else equal, a higher minimum wage will result in less jobs.
However, my main problem with unemployment laws are that when someone hires, they are just buying labor. It is a volunteer trade on both sides. The employee and employer agree on a price for the labor and the transaction is complete. Imagine if I was buying an apple from someone for 50 cents and the government stepped in and said “Oh sorry, you have to pay $1 cuz that deal’s just too good.” Would that not rub the wrong way?
I am studying economics, and one premise is that no situation is truly “all things being equal”. Where I take issue with the “study” that another poster referred to is that it is bought and paid for by lobbyists. It has undergone no peer review, and its methods aren’t open for inspection.
There is no uninamity among economists that “higher minimum wages cost jobs” . Of course, it is a matter of degree, certainly a $20/hr minimum wage would cost jobs, but there is no evidence that a modest increase like the $2 Kennedy proposal will kill jobs.
A study I would like to see is what effect a higher minimum wage has on the amount of public assistance that low wage workers need. A raise in the minimum wage could be the best deficit fighting method out there.
It would shift the burden for supporting low wage workers from the state to the employers that benefit from their work. That’s a step in the right direction.
Harry Reid’s fight tickets were paid for by lobbyists as well. Do you take issue with him?
Let’s do the math.
Let’s be VERY conservative, and assume that 73 Million Americans are at minimum wage and recieve a $2/hr increase. Half of the recipients would be part-time. The other half full-time.
So…in the context of a U.S. $12 Trillion Gross Domestic Product, we’re talking about a “raise” that would constitute roughly 2% of U.S. GDP.
Why is it that almost every conservative policy adversely effects people that are living paycheck to paycheck? Think about it…immigration reform, abortion reform, minimum wage, health care, environmental policy.
It doesn’t matter. They are uniquely on the side of the people that HAVE, at the expense of the people that have not. U.S. Citizen or not…if you’re not what they consider to be a productive member of society….you lose, at the expense (Ken Lay) of someone else winning.
They feign concern for the people that have not, but ultimately, they can’t back up their false compassion. It’s about self-interest. That is, the nature of conservatism.
It’s not all bad–eg: excessive taxation. But whatever the issue, you have to consider conservative policy from the self-interest perspective. They don’t get all warm and fuzzy about social policy. To them, social engineering, no matter how small, will cost them money.
JK
I provide a peer-reviewed study that says that in a situation where the minimum wage was raised, there were job gains. You move the goalposts.
I didn’t move the goalposts. You cited an irrelevant study based on one state raising their minimum wage which has nothing to do with what effect a federal min wage hike would have on other states.
You say that most of the minimum wage earners are in high school and college, but you provide no proof.
Actually, I did provide proof. It comes from the very same BLS link that you provided. Over half of min wage earners are between the ages of 16-25 which happens to those of high school and college age. Now, if your contention is the majority of those between the age of 18-25 are not college students, then let’s see the evidence. The burden is on YOU, not me.
Let s be VERY conservative, and assume that 73 Million Americans are at minimum wage and recieve a $2/hr increase. Half of the recipients would be part-time. The other half full-time.
73 million is very conservative? JK, 1.9 million people earn the min wage or less (those earning less are probably in a service industry that provides tips).
They feign concern for the people that have not, but ultimately, they can t back up their false compassion. It s about self-interest. That is, the nature of conservatism.
That’s such nonsense and you know it. That’s like me saying that liberalism is all about feeling good. It doesn’t matter what it costs, doesn’t matter what the consequences are down the road, let’s just do it because it’s “the right thing to do. We care. We feel your pain.”
Don’t turn the debate into something stupid and don’t rely on the ‘guilt’ factor to strengthen your argument. If you’re for increasing the minimum wage, then support your position with facts and a clear argument instead of absurd appeals to emotion.
My opposition to a federally mandated wages has nothing to do with my self-interest. Raising the min wage doesn’t affect me at all. It’s about what is right and wrong. And it is WRONG for the federal government to set wage standards across the United States. What’s next? Is the federal government going to mandate that the state of Florida pay the same exact wages for the same job in New Jersey, even though the cost of living in Florida is less than NJ? Why not right? It’s “the right thing to do.”