20 votes

CNN Lying Agenda for Today: Minimum Wage Hike

This morning I watched an interview of Warren Buffet on CNBC. He was asked about his support of the minimum wage increase to $10.10, as proposed by the White House. His response was that he would love to increase the minimum wage even higher to $15 if there were no economic consequences.

However, there are negative consequences, so Buffet suggested increasing the earned income tax credit would be a better way to go. Buffet was also told the White House estimate of jobs lost would "only" be 500,000 if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10, but the White House gave a range of potential job losses from 0 to 1 million.

He was asked what number he thought was most accurate, he responded by saying that he didn't know, but agrees on the direction of change in number of jobs, which is why he would rather see an earned income tax credit increase instead of a minimum wage increase.

How does CNN distill down this interview? With the following headline:

"Buffet: I'd love to see minimum wage at $15 an hour"


Unbelievable. Sometimes I think I am living in 1984. Yes, Buffet said he supports increasing the minimum wage because he opposes it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No way. Here in Oklahoma

No way.

Here in Oklahoma City such a raise to $15 would be catastrophic. Even applying for tech jobs usually their around 12-15 per hour. What about warehouse and manual labor jobs? lol

Jan Helfeld's picture

Jim Pinkerton is undecided on minimum wage

FOX News CONSERVATIVE commentator Jim Pinkerton is undecided on minimum wage. He does not know that raising the minimum wage to $10 would increase unemployment.

Jan Helfeld

Has anyone seen the "Inequality for All" documentary on...

Netflix? I saw it yesterday and it did make me think, rather re-think what I thought to be true.

Granted, I'm no economic genius by far but I remember a time, late 60's and 70's when my dad was an electrician, not a supervisor or business owner, just a regular electrician and he made enough that my mom did not have to work. I had two brothers. We lived in a middle-class neighborhood and in a 3-bedroom home.

We went on vacations all the time, was never hungry, owned two cars and carried no debt other than a mortgage.

The documentary basically says, free-market capitalism works best provided it doesn't destroy the middle-class. Destroying the middle-class, will destroy the economy and it explains how wealth has been transferred to the few. It stated that 400 Americans own half the wealth in this country. It pointed out a lot of things. It compared 2007 to 1928 and their are a lot of parallels. It did discuss the minimum wage. It explained how wages for jobs back in the 70's paid way more than they do today.

If you have Netflix, I suggest checking it out. I'd love to hear other opinions on it.

Do you really think capitalism is to blame for inequality?

I was also interested in watching the show but more because I enjoy knowing the arguments of all sides. Much easier to have friendly debate if you understand your opponents position. I also had to turn the show off after too much opinionated nonfactual "data" was given. If you are interested in checking out a competing opinion that seems much more logical check this out. http://mises.org/daily/6653/How-Central-Banks-Cause-Income-I...

I missed it

Where was that written?

No, I don't think free-market capitalism is to blame for...

inequality. I think crony-capitalism is responsible for inequality and that was the point the documentary made...if you watch it to the end.

Also, it explained how technology has been used to replace workers and how investing in higher education is the best way to maintain higher employment levels.

And I can't really offer

And I can't really offer opinions on the doc, because I tried watching it once and I thought it was horrible and turned it off. A lot of misleading comments, cherry-picked numbers, etc. Feel free to bring up specific parts of the video, I would be happy to respond.

We've never been close to a free market in a LONG time, and the 60s were probably the last decade before economic policy just got ridiculous. The times you referenced to were a time when we were still on the Bretton Woods system or not too far from it, and the Fed was still somewhat bound by how much it could expand the monetary base.

Here's something you can help me with...

The U.S. economy has steadily grown but the distribution of the wealth it's generated seems very disproportionate today compared to the 60's - 70's. Wages are lower now for the same skilled labor that paid more in that era. Wages have stagnated for the last 30 years. Union membership has steadily declined.

I can provide statistics from several websites if you need them. A simple Google search will confirm it.

Corporations have taken over politics while enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in history. If lower tax rates create jobs, where are they? Why is unemployment so high?

I understand the Federal Reserve's role in all this but it doesn't explain why corporations sent our jobs overseas or pay government to allow illegal cheap labor into the country. I thought taxing them less would create more jobs. Why hasn't that happened?

Also, would you agree a diminished middle-class hurts our economy or are we better off with income inequality, cheap labor for higher profits? I realize it's great for those on the profit end but for the majority of the country that provide the cheap labor, are we better off? if so, how so?

Without a strong middle-class how can our economy grow since they make-up 70% of consumers?

Crony Capitalism,

Crony Capitalism, Corporatism, Corporate Welfare. This video is highly relevant to your comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkivn_3zn5I

Those problems you listed is

Those problems you listed is because of cronyism. You can't attribute those problems to the free market when there is no free market.

This country is not a Capitalist, free market economy. You could probably call it Corporatism. Where you have private owners that make profits, but those private owners are allowed to get special treatment with the government.

That's exactly the point the documentary made...

had you watched it to the end.

Like I said, I did not watch

Like I said, I did not watch it to the end. It just seemed from your comments that the documentary was blaming "free markets".

My comments never suggested that I blamed free-markets,...

never. I merely pointed out facts.

This is a 12 page paper in

This is a 12 page paper in response to the documentary Inequality for All: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0-wjk5tAiaFRDl3aElmNnBGRWM...

I also have a slide presentation from Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University going through the myth of inequality. I can provide that if you're interested.

That may not have been your

That may not have been your intentions, but that's how they came across to me at least. But the stuff you brought up really aren't facts, they're highly misleading. If you're willing to wait until later tonight (I'm on my phone), I can provide you with an economic paper a free market economist wrote completely in response to that documentary, along with a presentation from another well-known free market economist also dispelling all the myths about inequality. Then let me know whether or not you think those are compelling arguments.

Generalizing 'corporations' is like generalizing 'blacks' or any

Other group that can be given definition. Not all low tax rates are created equal. The 'crony' part of today's use of Capitalism has been brain washing for the public. You might hear news stories of politically connected huge companies that pay near nothing, but that is not the norm. 'Normal' businesses that tend to pay help the most (local and similar) pay huge taxes, fees, and costs due to regulations that are put up to stifle competition. The government has the power to pick winners and losers with the current tax code. If you tax one person or company twice as much as another how can they be competitive in wages? Inequality does not have to mean the Ultra rich and Very poor. Inequality in a true capitalist system would look more like completely equal flat pay compared to what we have today.

The old rules don't apply anymore

Here's why:
- The retail sector has massive overcapacity. We do not need more Home Depots, WalMarts, Lowes, Sears, Pizza Huts, Targets, Safeways, etc etc.
- Commercial real estate is flooded with vacant offices and plagued by falling rents.
- Housing inventory is enormous.
- Boomers will be looking to downsize their lifestyles.
- There is not going to be another internet boom.

This was cited from Mish's article at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/mish-unem... written in 2009 but unfortunately still holds true.

He goes on to say:
The peak growth in jobs, based on an analysis of jobs that are never coming back is clearly in.
- The internet boom peaked at 264,000 jobs per month in 1999.
- The housing bubble boom peaked at 212,000 jobs per month in 2005.
- The commercial real estate boom peaked at 178,000 jobs per month.
- The next peak will be lower yet.

You can also read articles by Charles Hugh Smith like this one which give additional details:

We'll we don't have a free

We'll we don't have a free market economy.

Willians and Sowell on the minimum wage laws

When is a Republican going to find the wherewithal (balls) to stand up and point out that the minimum wage is discriminatory? Wage laws were first enacted to prevent unskilled blacks from entering the job market. Who Knew?

The usual propaganda.

What I would like to see talked about in the 'news'. Minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25. If you were to have been paid 5 shiny quarters per hour, that would be the equivalent to about $18.00 per hour in todays nonFederal nonReserve notes. 50 years later minimum wage is worth less than half of what it was then. Yet the people keep on believing, and even worshiping, the system. Makes you just shake your head.

This is pretty much how this

This is pretty much how this thing goes in the corporate world:

1. Min wage laws are enforced.
2. Corp loses money and share prices fall.
3. Big stockholders on board get pissed and pressure CEO to do something.
4. CEO is a kind person and doesn't want to fire anyone but still cant make the numbers.
5. CEO is canned.
6. New CEO comes in and wants to look good and tough so he cuts a huge amount of jobs to jump the stock price while saying cliché remarks like, "We are a new, leaner, meaner and more efficient xxx company now that we are under my leadership."

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.


The Holy Grail logic

their response to why 10.10 works and 1 million doesn't is:
"because little tiny rocks float"

Here is the question I'd like to see someone ask

If raising minimum wage is a good thing, why not make it $1 million dollars an hour. Then we'll all be millionaires and live happily ever after right?

"Well obviously that won't work because..." And there you go, those are the same reasons it bad to raise it to $10.

Argument won!

Let me play devil's advocate...

No one can live off $10/hr. so they have to get government welfare. Taxpayers have to subsidize this person's income. Those who are barely making it now, have to pay more taxes to help those who can't make it at all or we borrow or print more money which causes bigger problems. That's how it works and at some point you reach a tipping point. At some point it all collapses.

Any politician that comes along and says they are going to end welfare and do away with minimum wage is not getting elected with record numbers dependent on it. You have to promise one or the other. At this point, smart politicians promise both and get elected.

I'm not saying I agree with it but that's the country we live in.

The middle-class is going away. Their jobs have gone overseas. We buy cheap goods from China. Corporations are making record profits. They use those profits to buy government favors.

Minimum wage is only part of the equation.

Go watch "Inequality for All" on Netflix. I'm still not sure what the answer is but after watching that documentary, I feel I understand the problem better.

The bottom line is minimum wage perverts the market

The fact is there are some jobs that aren't worth $10/hour and there are some people who would do those jobs for less.

By forcing a minimum wage that job either goes un-done or someone else has to sacrifice to pay the difference.

So whether its $10 or $1 million dollars the effect is the same and its negative. Its just more obvious at $1 million.

Oh and if someone can't live off $10/hour they will be naturally be motivated to improve themselves so they can get a better job and earn more. If they simply collect welfare that motivation is gone.

Let's just hope that motivation to improve themselves doesn't...

involve getting a gun and taking what they need. If you have millions that find themselves in that situation, then it leads to voting for someone that will get it for them with the force of a gun.

Black markets of drugs, gambling and prostitution are ways many people "improve" themselves.

Also, unions were a way people ensured they didn't fall into poverty.