I'm not a fancy pants British graduate of a prestigious economics school or anything but as I understand it there are arguments to be made both for and against a minimum wage and the majority of economists are very much in the "for" camp it seems.

Any point this bell-end might be trying to make is overshadowed by the seething hate-boner he has against working stiffs who have the nerve to get paid for the work they do.

Correct me if I am wrong!

What's happening now is we've managed to turn investment bankers and their firms into rock stars. Somehow, these middlemen who produce nothing except a higher score for their clients at the expense of everyone else are running the show. Higher labor costs are something they're able to ideologically afford because (1) they've convinced themselves anyone not getting their cash from capital gains is stupid or lazy or both, (2) their method of "earning" money is completely divorced from U.S. labor and in some cases, reality (a LOT of it is done by computer algorithms that "invest" based on predator/prey AI models, not on actual, y'know, investing), and (3) I think they're sociopaths.

#3 is just an opinion, but there's very little that can convince me these assholes don't practically consider themselves a separate race that can be polluted by mating with those who don't have a trust fund that's mathematically impossible to exhaust.

The more I read and see about them, the more I'm astonished that the pitchforks and torches haven't come out. I kind of worry that if it ever does get that bad, the pent-up frustration over just how long we've let ourselves be screwed is going to make the French Revolution look like an afternoon picnic (which I'd hate to see, since I like my cities and infrastructure un-trashed).

It's not some misconception via raegonomics on their part, it's deliberate deception.

CEOs and their ilk get massive 'performance' if company profits are high, and company boards want the highest stock performance possible because they own stock. So higher wages for the working dregs directly affects their ability to make several extra million a year.

It's literally "you shouldn't get paid more because I should get paid more"

I read an article about how the rich are now just hoarding money. Its not invested its just cash. Cash that's just sitting around doing nothing for nobody.
Its so tragic. So many of us (I included) have been suckered into the Reaganomics lie. I believe Reaganomics has held us back more than anything. Lowering taxes on the rich may help stimulate the economy every once in a while, but we've done it for over 30 years now.

>>I read an article about how the rich are now just hoarding money. Its not invested its just cash. Cash that's just sitting around doing nothing for nobody.

NOT TRUE!

https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/290d/96xb4yx7u2533v66g.jpg

They actively support the GOP, however. They perpetuate the echo-chamber that let people go to the polls thinking Obama was (and is) a secret Muslim and that he's going to take your guns away.

Frankly, as outrageous as this is, it seems a tad saner than a lot of what was said at CPAC. Where does the "entertainment" end and the propaganda/promotion of a party begin?

All television news is partisan entertainment, and I think a key thing to remember is that the news-entertainment megacorporations are not so much "right-wing" or "left-wing" (which would imply a principled agenda, independent of the temporary needs of our dynamically hypocritical two-party system), but are instead either "shills for the GOP" or "shills for the Democrats".

Fox News is only "right wing" or "conservative" when being right-wing or conservative is convenient for the GOP - case in point, the way they champion limited government and constitutionalism (both good things) now that a Democrat is in the White House, despite the fact that they spent all eight years of the Bush presidency singing praises for war and the surveillance state. The roles are, of course, reversed for news-entertainers like MSNBC, who demonized Bush, yet fiddle merrily away as Obama does the same things.

What matters isn't the ideology, so much as the current relative balance of power. For news-entertainers, when one's gang is not in power, the narrative will be libertarian in nature, to limit the strength of one's rival. When one's gang is in power, the narrative will be paternal, even authoritarian. Mark my words, the moment a Republican gets back in the White House, Fox will quietly put a bullet in the head of every Tea Party conservative they can find.

Right, that'll happen. Look up the bio of Roger Ailes. This goes way beyond any kind of decision over who's in power or what would make the most money. You don't have a looney in a corner office with bomb-proof windows who fears "gay terrorists" and have anything close to even the loosest definition of libertopianism.

Robert Ailes has been Chairman of Fox since at least Bush's second term. Where were all the Teabagger editorial attacks on Big Givernment then? Why did they only start when a big scary Negro took over?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying anyone at Fox IS a libertopian. In fact, that's really the opposite of what I'm saying. The right-wing media's commitment to anti-authoritarian ideology is no more sincere than the so-called left-media's commitment to anti-authoritarian ideals was back in 2000-2008 (why, for example, did opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan dry up following Obama's victory? It wasn't because these wars were over - they actually ramped up - and it wasn't because grassroots antiwar activists gave up and went home. No, they were still there, it was just that they weren't serving the interests of the Democratic Party anymore, so it was time to sideline them)

Robert Ailes is a nutbag, and I'm sure he really believes gay terrorists are out to get him. What I'm saying is, he's a nutbag who will spin whatever way best suits the immediate tactical interests of "his" gang, and that this behavior is not unique, but an intrinsic facet of our modern political-entertainment industry.

(I am, of course, being a little melodramatic when I say Fox will start putting bullets in people. They will not kill any of their talking heads, they may even keep some of them around. But these talking heads will retool and stop trying to dress their arguments in appeals to the Constitution, mistrust of authority, or our radical liberal not-even-Christian Founding Fathers.)

Just like Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. With an accent and a title like that he can't be wrong.

Wish I was a European nobleman. I'd settle for just a knighthood, but I'd be dreaming of a Barony

The secret to solving labor issues is more ball pits.

Non-profit volunteers are some of the best people I've ever met.

Non-profit salaried managers are some of the worst.

I've thought it's funny that "non-profits" can have CEOs and directors earning hundreds of millions.

Okay, I've met plenty of lazy salaried non-profit managers who don't give a shit, but I'm calling bullshit. Please show me a single non-profit director who makes hundreds of millions.

if I still had the link I'd have used it

The Pope

The rich also work hard to prevent deflation (so lower wages could afford more), and are against things that might lower housing costs on a large scale. (also against raising minimum wages to keep up with their artificial inflation)

They basically want to pay people less than Asian sweat shops while keeping the cost of living in the US rising continually.

If that downward trend continues, slavery might start looking good in comparison. At least they got food and shelter.

Huh? The rich HATE inflation. Deflation favors creditors and screws debtors.

Guess which one of those the rich tend to be?