Subtle correction. You should be paid when you create value, not for just “working”. Your wage represents how much value you add, not how hard you work.
I just checked Sam Seder's youtube channel and then Mike Walsh's channel Seder = 1.16 Million subscribers and in the last 3 days his highest view count is 60K Mike Walsh has 440.000 Subscribers and in the last 2 weeks his worst video has 17K while consistently having between 40 and 80K views i thought UA-cam deleted subscribers when they are not watching or like fake accounts?
Matt: "You get paid based on what you're worth" Probably gets paid a ridiculous amount of money to talk about politics and the news. He probably gets paid a lot more than he is worth.
@@ottz2506 Unless there's an instance of public corruption or nepotism in business, everyone gets paid what they are worth. if Sam Seder gets paid by Soros to lead the left on a bad path - Soros decided that Seder is worth it. If he wasn't worth it, he wouldn't get paid.
I'd like to ask this Majority Report guy if he wants the US to be more like the Scandinavian countries. And I'm pretty sure he'd say yes. When he did, I'd mention that those countries don't have a minimum wage. It'd be funny to watch him try to justify that.
Lol this is the most debunked argument ever...but fortunately for you there is a way...call in the sam seder show....I love those clips where he dissects someone like you in those caller videos...goodluck
@@fhffvgju6299 If you want to make the argument for stronger labor protections in the US, go ahead. But it doesn't negate the fact that countries leftist love to point to and scream "look, they're socialist and see how good it's going!" Like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and so on. All of which have strong market economies with no minimum wage, low corporate tax rates, etc.
@@adnanomerhodzic3869 "tHIs Is THe moSt dEBuNKeD ARgUmEnT eVeR" Those countries not having a minimum wage is an objective fact, plain and simple. Also, saying something has previously been "debunked" without providing a single peice of evidence isn't an argument.
@@theaveragewoodsman6002 first dknt get triggered over something you dont understand. Second as the the guy above already stated that sweden has unions who then negotiate the salaries. Those salaries are above a living wage, and they have strong social security which makes minimum wages redundant.
Uh so I think that the light green areas in Sam's background resonate to areas of your brain that recalls them as yellow instead of light green, which will only make you watch more of The Majority Report's videos. This video is a terrible move by the Daily Wire and honestly I'm just lucky I got out of there alive
If you are being paid $zero by a business, and you are not performing any work for that business, then that business which is _not_ paying you is _not_ your employer, and you are not their employee. It's pretty straightforward
I agree. I also say that employees' worth or the value they provide to their employer is what they produce or perform, and should be paid based on their production or performance.
And forcing you to pay a higher wage only increase cost that will end up making you hire less people and charge more for your services. Not to mention squashing the pay spectrum. Let’s say I’m making $5 more than minimum wage now it’s not like I would be seeing any raise in pay at all. In fact I’d be making the same as an entry level person or a slacker.
"Worth" is in the opinion of the beholder- in this case the employer's. With no minimum wage in a profit-driven environment, there are employers whom would literally try to pay a penny for a day's wage in order to maximize profits. There has to be some form of regulation in order to attempt to have some form of balance. Before 40/hr a week rules, numerous industries wouldn't even allow for a day off without penalty or loss of job. Balance is the key to not destroying the entire capitalistic paradigm...
“If you do a job, you should be paid for the work you do” You’re right. Companies could pay $15 an hour for workers since they keep the company thriving. Without them, you wouldn’t have a functioning business. If they can’t do the job and lose their worth, turn their wage to “zero” by firing them. Simple.
@ALJustice0 It seems it could probably be anything around that mark, but so far they're a few benefits to companies giving their workers a minimum wage raise like $15 (or more depending on the region). 1. Workers will get a boost to their income who struggle to get by around $20,000 a year. 2. This would give consumers more money to spend (spending money) on business goods and would help stimulate the economy even more. 3. It would help the taxpayer because this could get people off government programs. Most workers usually end up relying on government services because of their current minimum wage not helping them make ends meet.
ALJustice0 As Shapiro said, we have a progressive tax system. It doesn’t seem to work that way. www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071114/can-moving-higher-tax-bracket-cause-me-have-lower-net-income.asp It could push some into a higher tax bracket, but it doesn’t affect take-home pay as much as you think it would. I doubt most workers will exceed over $39,475 by the way.
It's actually possible for someone to be worth less than zero. If they come in, do nothing but break something when they're there they have cost the company money, or if they do nothing and your company loses sales because someone else would have been working in their place it would cost the company money.
@@sekulrtsnfnugg6126 exactly, why is it hard to understand that a job position can never exist in which someone is being paid nothing, and that if you pay someone who is not working for you zero dollars, then you never had an employer/employee relationship with them. Minimum wage simply keeps workers from being exploited, because value of labor is subjective.
If a minimum wage is to be set at all, it should be set be the state. The costs of living varies wildly from one location to another. If you merely average them out, a rate that would leave an employee living very well in one area (if his employer was still able to afford him and did not have to lay him off) would leave an employee in another living in a refrigerator box in the city dump.
My dude, Sam roasted the hell out of you. You’re rather uninformed on economic theory. You’re not an employer/employee to every other person in the world.
I kept seeing all these leftists demanding Ben Shapiro to debate Sam Seder on something (or anything, idk), so I thought at first that maybe he was an intellectual powerhouse of the left. Then I started listening a bit, turns out he's not much more than a typical SJW with typical SJW talking points. Just has a much bigger platform than a typical SJW.
Also turns out he supports throwing "milkshakes" at people you disagree with (ie, on the right), which puts a major dent in any credibility he had at all.
Just like Andrew Klavan says.... the left always takes our jokes literally. Act like there's no way anyone could've interpreted a particular joke as humor.
There is never a scenario in which someone is actually going to be worth zero to their employer. If someone is refusing to meet the requirements of a job that constitutes being paid a certain salary, they will not be strung along and paid nothing, they will be fired. If a random person who doesn't work for the establishment is not offering the business owner or recruiter anything that makes them believe that the person should be paid, then that also doesn't matter because they are not an employee of the business and therefore do not need to see the owner as an employer. An employer/employee relationship cannot exist if the employee is worth zero dollars or is being paid zero dollars.
I would disagree with you in that many states have a at-will exemption, so a lot of times (especially in this climate) it is more of a hassle to fire someone before they give them a solid cause. There are of lot of people that get jobs and do only enough to look busy. Looking busy is not of value to an employer. I would personally argue, that if someone accepts a job and does not try to perform to the STANDARDS (read, not going above and beyond) of the job, then I don’t see how you can put a value on that persons performance.
@@SVTStrikesback the value of that person's performance or that person's labor is still never going to be zero. At worst, their lack of productivity will cost their employer a loss, and at best they will help bring in a profit, but hiring someone who creates no profit or loss to a department or company is feasibly impossible. If that person is in fact contributing to a loss in profit, they will be let go, because even if they are scraping by, they are still more valuable to the employer than zero dollars. Eventually, their offenses will pile up to the point of a lay-off or a firing.
An unenthusiastic employee still gets the job done. Matt's anecdote about the unenthusiastic McDonald's employee still doesn't prove that their labor is worth zero, because their attitude towards him, in no way indicates that he hasn't completed his assigned work inside the restaurant. (not sure if that anecdote was included in this vid or in sam's original vid.)
I would agree with you that yes, eventually they will be let go for poor performance, but that’s not seeing the whole picture. If you want to get technical, research how much money it costs an employer to train an employee, and you’ll start to see what I mean about the fact that the statement about the work being worth zero can be true. I can give you another example. If it is a smaller business where the owner is usually the person doing the training, but is also an operator, the new employee will stall or cease productivity the employer. In that situation, the employee is certainly not getting the job done, and can prevent the operator from getting it done as well. I would say we are both arguing the extremes here and that yes, usually the employees efforts are not going to be worth zero. I’m just pointing out that there are cases where it can be.
@@SVTStrikesback but to say that there is ever a situation in which it is justifiable for someone to carry out some level of work without being fired and for that person to be paid zero is ludicrous, because all work is worth something, no matter how little, even if the amount is absurdly small. Matt saying that work can be worth zero dollars within the context of an employer/employee relationship is extremely incorrect because the word wage itself means "fixed payment" and the minimum wage is meant to ensure some form of livable payment for menial work/nonspecialized work. To pay someone a fixed salary of nothing for doing work that they are contractually obligated to do isn't humane and it's illegal so it would never occur in the US.
The problem I have with a minimum wage of zero dollars is that corporations are evil. If you took the minimum wage away (or even just lowered it), what stops corporate entities from dropping their workers' wages by a bunch and pocketing the difference?
Well that isnt true... everyone is working for someone else, they lower it rather for the investors that they have to please so they don't get removed, and the investors are just looking for profit, its brutal but not evil.
The fact that they actually need employees. Business compete for labor. If the wages are completely oppressive, people will just get unemployment benefits, then the companies won't have employees, and they shut down, because labor is a necessary component of the business. Another factor is this, if McDonalds decides to oppress their workers and give five bucks an hour, and Wendy's decides to give people ten bucks an hour, everybody at McDonalds quits and goes to Wendy's. McDonald's lowers their production, and loses employees, so they have to shut down stores. Wendy's has more available cheap labor that they can use to expand, and they have a greater market share now that McDonalds is shutting down restaurants and is downsizing. The only possible way that companies could begin to oppress people is by coordinating to all simultaneously lower wages, but that should be illegal according to anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Also, at that point, unions would go on strike, people would just quit, and the entire economy would collapse. I doubt businesses want that at all. If the minimum wage was completely destroyed would wages go up? Probably not. However, wages could be slightly decreased, and the newly acquired money could be allocated to hiring more people, which would decrease unemployment. The wages would be decreased to a any point above the bottom-line of survival for people. If a person can't afford a home and food and necessities with their wage, they will no longer be able to work, and they will quit, and the company will have to make changes. Also, if you want to raise the minimum wage to something like $15, then the employer has to cut worker hours, which will, in the long run, decrease company productivity, and the worker's net monthly income. Just look at Bernie. His employees got their $15, but they got their hours cut. In conclusion, no minimum wage, at its worst, means people have to be more careful with money, but less people have no money, because they are employed. It also allows people that are only looking for a small amount of money with a small amount of effort to achieve that, rather than being forced to commit their labor for the minimum wage value.
If people are dumb enough to take a wage of $0 for an actual job, they have issues. At a certain point the boss wouldn't have enough people to turn a profit. An evil capitalist wouldn't stand for that, would he?
I believe you got the idea of minimum wage wrong my friend of daily wire. There needs no argument. Your whole concept is wrong.... Minimum wage is a amount of money you get for an hour of work. He gave you an argument. A very simple one :p I just think you are over complicating the idea of minimum wage :p
no, not everyone bothers to earn a living wage. imagine life before government hand outs. either your family supported you, or you worked your ass off, or you starved and died.
O K I guess you watch Seder. Seder is likely a highly skilled KGB operative engaged in neurological warfare. He harms the neurons of conservatives so they can become leftists and give russia uranium and control in Syria. He is very intelligent, so your statement is entirely justified.
@@classycactus8449 so hey i have no idea who Seder is and this is the first time watching a Matt Walsh video probably cos i follow US politics to understand the sheer stupidity of Americans left and right, being from Malaysia, but just watching one Matt Walsh video shows me how stupid this guy is.
O K One of the fundamental truths of reality is that Sam Seder spews ignorant, uninteresting leftist propaganda. If you find Walsh annoying, fine, but Seder is still pinnacle of stupidity and ideology.
Yes everyone that goes to work deserves a living wage. Why is this even a question in our country. You simply cannot get by on min wage. Just paying rent power and water will consume all of a min wage workers pay in my town.
The employees worth to an employer starts at the employee making effort to travel to the employers work place on time to work. That’s definitely worth more than 0
The problem I have with no minimal wage is that there are people on food stamps and working full time. The big cooperation are giving minimum wage and their workers are being subsidized with public money.
No minimum wage means in the long run cost of living will go down, since you no longer have an artificial floor to pay everyone regardless of their actual skills. The people living on food stamps right now at $7.50/hour might only get paid $4/hour and still be better off, because essential goods will be that much cheaper. At least in theory. In practice anyone who contents themselves with an entry level job like Walmart clerk will always be poor regardless of where you set the minimum wage, if you set one at all, because they have nothing exceptional to offer that would warrant better compensation. There is something to be said however about how Walmart make 125+ billions in profit each year, and if they chose to split 25% of that profit margin in shares proportional to hours worked by all of their employees, it would DOUBLE the income of the lowest tier and Walmart would still be floating over 80+ billions in profits per year, which is a ridiculous amount. Walmart can afford to pay their employees much better wages, they just won't because they feel no pressure to do so.
The first 1:15 of video is golden. Sam says "breaking news: Matt denounces slavery" and then Matt comes swinging hard saying "breaking news: Sam takes joke seriously". That's funny.
@@adnanomerhodzic3869 how about NO You took the time to reply to me as if to educate me then fucking educate me. How about this- Lemme ask you this- Can you actually give an answer to the question and cite evidence? Google isnt gonna give me shit worth shit. You know why ? Because 'living wage' is anything Why not 50 dollars? Are we pretending to be generous to the people we hate because they pay us to tell us what to do? Is this how we project our mommy and daddy issues on the ppl who hire us? Gimme a fucking answer instead of directions to an answer that doesnt truly exist, smart guy. You wanna sit here and tell me to: *_Hurr just go to looking it up on da guggle surch_* And then provide nothing else but condescension. Thats whst that really amounts to: _If you haffta ask youll never know!_ You pretend to be all wise but have no wisdom. You have a referral to a known biased search engine. I dislike people like you very much because you love to condescend to others who disagree with you, but have no live ammo to use. You opt for the safe route without having to get your ass rolled in debate in full view of the public. Lemme paint a nice yellow streak up your back for ya so everyone knows what your deal is before having the misfortune of being given a box of your ersatz 'wisdom' care of google.
Why are these misogynists telling women what they can & can't do with their bodies? Shouldn't women be in control of their own bodies & be able to work for 0.01$ if they choose to? Talk about Patriarchy...
Just because Sweden doesn't have a legally-mandated minimum wage, does not mean they are allowed to pay workers nothing for their labor. Sweden doesn't need a minimum wage because they have strong labor unions, which collectively bargain on behalf of workers for fair wages. The US, by contrast, has neither a fair and adequate minimum wage, nor does it have strong unions (thanks in part to recent supreme court decisions)
Seder is very much like Kyle Kulinski. Much of the show is taken up with long, supposedly meaningful pauses before speaking. They are usually surrounded by a gaggle of sycophants too. When they appear on other people's shows they aren't anywhere near so sure of themselves.
I don’t believe in a minimum wage probably because I don’t believe in wage labour but because it exists the minimum wage should be abolished and all employers should be forced to pay their workers at least the living wage.
An employee does actually cost money even if the person gets zero in minimum wage. Hiring taxes, benefits, insurances. Minimum wage ensures that you are at least measured up to a minimum standard. If you can't pull your weight you're fired simple as that.
and what about the people who would only generate 6$ of hourly value? Clearly you cannot pay them 7.25$ an hour if they only generate 6$. These people are literally priced out because they cannot work for less than the price floor the country has set.
I think the Left needs to change their wording if they want to convince the rest of the country. When they use words like "deserve" or "right" when talking about things like wages and healthcare for example, it causes me to dismiss their arguments immediately. These things are not 'rights' and no one 'deserves' more money or benefits than they have earned. However, I might listen to an argument that says something more along the lines of this...in America, we value human life, and because of this we have made a conscious choice as a nation to make sure no one in our borders is treated below a certain standard....this could translate to providing certain minimal healthcare to everyone or making sure no one is paid below a certain amount. I would need to be convinced of course that using the government in this way would be better than a more free market approach, but at least I would take the argument seriously and we could have a conversation.
Right before I graduated college I did an internship...FOR FREE. My wage was zero. In fact I actually had to use my own money to drive to the place, so I was technically out some funds. What I got in return was invaluable experience for a 15 year career.
I'm 23 and have a kid on the way, my ass can't afford to do that man, my family doesn't want to help, and I work 84 hours a week because I have no ways to go to a trade or school because my local town has no good educationial programs, Heroin and meth run these streets. I cant take an unpaid internship while my babies mom can't work while pregnant
Elias Akkerman, no one said you had to. My internship was for 4 months, and then I found a real job. I respect that you’re working hard to support your family, but the fact that there’s a minimum wage law hurts young, inexperienced workers. That’s what Matt is saying here. Btw, I’m the chick in the picture, but I’ll let that pass this time.
Skill isn't the only factor in having a higher wage, I hear some fast food places are paying 10 an hour. Turns out that if the job you work is tedious you will get payed more regardless of skill.
You missed a very simple point here. You are speaking about a person's value in the market and Sam is speaking about the actual pay an employed person is entitled to(the negotiated $/hr). He makes poor assumptions that you are suggesting an employed person can justifiably be paid $0/hr AND that they negotiated a $/hr rate greater than 0. At least one of you, maybe both, are being dishonest or lazy with your arguments. Having said that, any person should be free to enter into an employment agreement to receive no compensation for their efforts. Of course the employer has overheard for each employee so one has to be worth at least the overhead cost.
I'm so tired of "living wage" arguments without including how much money a person needs without a cell phone, tv, internet and possibly even a car if they have access to public transportation. Not only that but entry level jobs shouldn't be a living wage because it's supposed to encourage someone to learn a trade or skill and move up. But encouragement and trying harder is something the left doesn't understand.
NegatveSpace You should be able to work your way out of a minimum wage job pretty quickly if you apply yourself and show aptitude and initiative. If you’re putting in the effort and getting nothing back from your employer then it’s time to look for other employment.
@@demonvictim That is true, in some fields in particular. The demand for higher wages has pushed the minimal qualifications up along with it. But its somewhat understandable when the guy mopping the floor thinks he should be paid the kind of wages that someone with a bachelor's degree usually starts out earning right out of college with no work experience.
minimum wage workers don't have any options to get better jobs and even if they did and they chose to stay at minimum wage anyway they still don't deserve to make so little.
Are they intentionally missing each other's point? Sam Seder isn't referring to "not working". He's talking about the minimum amount a person can get paid when they DO work for an hour. The talk of zero is that he doesn't think that someone who works for an hour should be paid zero. However, even that isn't correct. If someone is an intern and is talking a job because they want experience in an industry and to have something to put on a resume and the networking that provides, then if they are willing to work for zero, that IS effectively a minimum wage of zero. They are gaining something from the transaction. But Sam is really working hard to pretend that Matt is an idiot. Either that or he is such an idiot that he really doesn't understand what Matt is saying. Ultimately, this is really easy - when someone is willing to do an hours worth of work, the potential employer has to feel that the hour worked gains enough benefit to pay them the wage that is being paid. If the amount of work done is not valued as much as the money paid, then the job will not be provided. These people who think that raising the minimum wage will help entry-level employees are delusional. They talk in terms of "these are people who haven't had a raise in 20-years"...which makes me wonder if they really don't understand that minimum wage jobs are not intended to be permanent positions. Show me someone who has been working a minimum wage job for 20-years and you will have either someone who refuses to perform, someone who has absolutely no motivation, or someone who for some reason is devoted to an employer who has no loyalty to them. Either way, we're talking about an individual who for some reason probably isn't worth more than minimum wage. And if you raise the minimum wage, that individual will not be getting a raise because if they haven't gotten a raise in 20-years, there is probably a good reason for that and they will instead simply lose their job. This isn't rocket science...these people seem to feel that jobs and wages are somehow magically provided by having a government and a system. And to be fair, this is very much sort of what I thought...right until I was getting ready to graduate college and had to start preparing for living in the real world. But how anyone working a "career" can still feel that way, I have no idea...unless they simply lucked into their current position or were put there by their father or something...
Dunno, maybe. It'd be kinda hard to track who is producing more than others in a big fast food chain, since it's really a team effort most of the time, so paying everyone an average based of the team's day to day productivity is probably the best compromise. Then again, you'll always have over-achievers who want more and slackers who deserve less with any sufficiently large team. That's the problem and main source of irritation inherent to any system : the human factor.
LiwenDiamond I just thought it was interesting to present the idea that people should be paid what they are worth according to what they produce but yet most industries just don’t follow that model. For example I make $80 dollars for over 8 hours of work but I know I produce way more than that for the fast food company as I usually make that amount in literally two or three sales if I upsale like I should. If I’m producing $1,000 dollars for the company on average per shift while making $80 it doesn’t take a mathematician to tell you that you aren’t making what you are worth.
So basically anyone who is on YT, FB, Instagram, Twitter, etc. who are making comments, left or right, are really doing no work, ergo get zero dollars.
So.... less than $0 is slavery by their own words (when they took Matt literally), but they think Matt should pay them for his work which means he' be making less than $0 for his labor.... so they are in favor of slavery? If they can't see it was a joke initially they can't make a similar joke later
I understand your perspective.but the only thing is I believe in equal opportunities for everyone.Without a baseline to prevent people from being afraid to be homeless that person will never have the opportunity to reach their true potential. I belive every human life is equal and as such I hope you support there being a pathway to success for the poor other than merely survival.
Minimum wage increases crap on your grandparents and everyone's grandparents. By devaluing their life savings through inflation, so a bunch of spoiled brats can "think" they will get more.
Thats not how it works, minimum wage doesn't cause inflation, a lot of it comes from the printing of money, stuff like running up the debt, other countries wealth increasing, the fact that someone like Jeff Bezos or the Walton family probably each have more money then everyone in the united states combined did back when your grandparents were alive... your grandparents devaluated their grandparents life savings because they made exponentially more as well... You have a complete misunderstanding of how the economy and money even work
@@billyhart798 Agree, I should have said cost of living increase not inflation. Fact is the cost of living increase is always equal to the minimum wage increase. May take 6 months or 2 years but it will always even out for people still in the workplace, but retired people who saved 50cents out of $2 or 75 cents out of $3 for their retirement will always get screwed by minimum wage increases. Also agree anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to buy a house. Maybe companies should be required to pay a certain % of profit to employees instead of a minimum wage.
@@jonbedker5229 I'm open to ideas like that as well. There are lots of idea's out there, some via taxation, some like what you just said, some requiring some form of employee representation on boards of mid to larger sized companies... and a lot of others. At the end of the day the result should be rich people have less opportunity to price gouge their employees, they have less opportunity to squash out small businesses, and the lowest end of wages someone working a 40 hour a week job makes is enough to live off of independently
Here's the argument: Almost nobody is paid what they deserve. Many earn far more, and many more far less than they deserve. Normally we're talking about the later. If every life is God given, then every hour of that life has intrinsic value, skilled or not. If the person is incompetent, they may be fired. However, if they aren't fired, we can assume the person is doing their job as required. It's then reasonable to ask if it's fair to pay someone the lowest possible wage which they are desperate enough to accept, or if the intrinsic value of a life means an eight hour work day should enable you to live in dignity (not require food stamps and be able to go home in the evening and spend time with spouse, kids and friends rather than having to work a second job). Working for $1 (as an example) an hour is worse than slavery. Condoning that is condoning slavery. Whether it's a whip and chain that forces a person into that work, or economic anxiety and financial distress isn't much of a difference. If we condone either we're condoning the exploitation of a human life. A minimum wage is a must. Anything else is deeply immoral and unchristian. That's not debatable. What is debatable is how much one hour of a God given life is worth,.
Good job with the explainer. Just people with the brain capacity of Matt Walsh and his followers are too stupid to understand. That's why Sam Seder didn't even bother arguing with the idiot.
@@classycactus8449 lmaoooooo you serious bruh? Then why does everyone from Crowder to Shapiro pretend he doesn't exist? Why did Charlie Kirk get eaten alive in policon? Don't be a coward and just debate the guy.
@@theconquerorb286 Also, type in sam seder vs matt walsh in youtube. He literally puts intentionally bad pictures of matt in his thumbnails and then clickbaits the video harder than pewdiepie. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself how disgusting he is. It is obvious that he is irrelevant and wants people to click on his videos by putting in the names of more relevant people in his title.
@ALJustice0 lmaooo if you think that then you don't actually know Sam Seder. Let me give you at least one example of Cowering with Crowder. Crowder tweeted that no lefty wanted to debate him but all his replies were, "debate Sam seder" and what he do? Sam Seder then sends him an invite for politicon then suddenly he backs out of politicon. Coincidence? Oh fuck off lmaooo
I'd love to send two kids over that guy's house and have them bid on how much they'll charge to mow his lawn. Does he hire the kid that bids less than the other? Or does he so believe the quality of the work of the higher bidder will be better and will therefore hire him. And, yeah, I'm using he/him. Get bent if that offends you.
did he really insult the act of thinking out loud and active problem solving as a negative? no wonder these people refuse logic and reality, they havent learned to think yet
This guy spends his day trying to dissect every little thing any conservative does and then he titles his videos: ‘SAM SEDER DESTROYS SHAPIRO AND PETERSON’. He reduces his arguments to insults and hasn’t used a fact, it’s rather amusing. If you want a laugh I’d suggest some of his videos.
@@matth5885 I don't think Ben Shapiro does it about other people, and he certainly doesn't reduce his arguments to petty insults without using evidence.
If people were payed on the valor of their efforts rather then some arbitrary number there’d be many people on minimum wage right now that could make far more but they can’t because it doesn’t matter how good they are just the job itself I don’t see how leftists don’t understand this it’s an incredibly simple concept, not only would quality of life improve but workers would try harder making services better leaving them more accomplished and feeling that they earned what they got
When I was 16 I volunteered to work for nothing because I wanted to prove to this man that I was a hard worker, I did it because no one would give me a chance, and the man in fact payed me because I worked hard
did you have another source of income when you were 16? most people have to work for a living. that means if they dont get paid enough for their labour they wont be able to afford a place to live, food, water, clothes, transportation, etc. i would assume(and please correct me if i'm wrong) that at 16 all of those things were provided to you by your parents....
@@sabin97 Well that`s kind of the point. If you are a child you are not worth the minimum wage. You are worth more money over time as you develop your skills. To develop your skills you need a job. The minimum wage is an obstacle to you getting that job. Also as a principle It is always better to earn some although not enough money as opposed to not earning any money at all. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. It`s a wage you pay interns, children etc. You are not supposed to spend your life working for a minimum wage. If you do that you are a moron. If you spend your life working on a minimum wage it means you have made zero progress in your skills in 40-50 years of work experience.
@@cowboybeboop9420 " If you are a child you are not worth the minimum wage." you, personally, are NEVER worth ANYTHING. what is worth something is the wealth you create for your employer. it doesnt matter if you are a chinese child working on an iphone sweatshop or a 50 year old woman in usa working on a factory line. the wealth you create for the employer is what has value, you have zero value. the moment you die/quit, they simply replace you with another wealth-creating semi-slave. "To develop your skills you need a job" to develop myskills i went to college. it's amazing the level of skills you acquire when completing a degree in engineering, and then a masters degree in computer science. in the corporate world, sure you increase your skills a little. but the core skills, if you didnt get them while in college, you've wasted your time. "The minimum wage is an obstacle to you getting that job" not at all. if a business doesnt produce enough income to pay employees a living wage, then that business model is messed up beyond repair, and the business needs to stop existing. "Also as a principle It is always better to earn some although not enough money as opposed to not earning any money at all." yeah, and it's always better for a country that everyone who works 40 hours+ a week, get paid enough money to survive. those arent mutually exclusive things. "The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage." it is. it's there to ensure that everyone who works 40+ hours a week, is able to afford the basic necessities of life. "You are not supposed to spend your life working for a minimum wage" you get the jobs you can find. i dont know everyone';s circumstances. it's impossible to make any accurate assessment without knowing the circumstances of the person. "If you spend your life working on a minimum wage it means you have made zero progress in your skills" you dont get paid for skills. you get paid in a very lose relation to the wealth you create for the employer(and the influence you have with your employer). if you were paid by skills, the engineers in every fortune 500 company would be the richest people on earth, instead of unskilled people like steve jobs, bill gates, bezos, and the rest of the rapacious parasites.
How do we determine how much someone's labour is worth? It can't be however much they bring into their employer's pockets because then there would be no money left for the employer. Would it be a percentage of the revenue an employed generates for their employer and company, or would it be determined by some other factor of labour or a combination thereof?
Sam Seder really tests my patience. I don't advocate violence against anyone, but if he spoke to me, face to face, with that level of snide condescension, I'd be fighting a serious urge to pop him in the nose.
It doesn't matter what a person deserves. It matters what the job is worth. The person can get a more valuable job, but a job that is only worth $xxx is only worth $xxx regardless of who does it.
@@liwendiamond9223 its just because im tired of hearing that if u have a minimun wage on 0 that means u get 0 dollars... and that is not how the market works... im just trying to help busnisses down in america cause its gonna effect my family when usa crashes so im trying to promote to people down in the usa to get back to the gold standard and get capatalisme in the country cause even denmark has a free'er market then usa has but people dont know it cause their only search the income taxes their really dont know how it works over here that we almost got no regulations and our corporation tax is 22... is my country perfect... no but it sure is better then united states when it comes to econemy ;3 cause usa has sooooo many rules its crazy
Would you say that someone told to do something and that something being nothing. maybe standing at a door should get 0$ an hr for there time ? Or should they be compensated for there time they put aside to stand there
If you hire somebody to stand in front of a door then you should pay him/her a living wage (minimum wage) Sure enough those kind of jobs already exist lol
The reason for that is because of unsound economic doctrine that invariably advantages urban people that constitute a larger percentage of the popular vote for the politicians to pander to, so you get left behind. The best hope you have is to somehow work harder, find a new job, or move somewhere.
@@doom4067 thats what im doing, im studying for exams to get certifications so i can apply for a better position in a bigger town. its just frustrating having to live with the parents. i cant move out if i dont have a job elsewhere.
@@doom4067 He said he lived in the middle of farmland. Rural America is likely taking a hit, especially with the tariffs to China. Although those tariffs should be used to pressure China into a fair trade deal, it is, at least temporarily, likely destroying rural America. And it is likely hard to find a job in the middle of farmland. The only real option they have is to move to an urban area, but I personally would rather have rural America not be completely destroyed.
So basically you do believe there should be a minimum wage for work, but not working deserves no pay for able bodied people. This makes sense. It is kind of a muttled argument, though. Were you fishing for people to disagree with you, I kind of agree with the argument in principle, but it was badly worded.
If your baseline workers make $15 an hour, the job market would then adjust to pay those better that have jobs that are harder, require more education, or are in more demand more. So you wouldn't have lets say a retail store supervisor making the same as a mcdonalds cashier, that retail store supervisor would likely see his pay increase by the same factor the mcdonalds employee did. In the end, the minimum wage will help in the short term to bridge the wealth gap... but the owners of the corporations will continue to make adjustments to ensure they get the same level of profits... not because they need to do so to stay in business, but because they want to and they can
@@teriekwilliams2828 This isn't entirely true though, prices don't increase 1 for 1 with wage increases, because wages arent 100% of the costs of a business, and more most businesses wages are a small cost of operation . Additionally, with the increase of wages, demand also increases, so as an example, that store that you think may lay off a few workers or reduce hours wont actually do so, because a large percentage of people that are potential customers for them are now making higher wages too, meaning they are purchasing more products, and that store will need to retain it's staff or increase it to keep up with demand. See the inherent problem with the economy right now is that with corporations on average being more profitable than they ever have in history, are also funneling that money up to upper management, ceo's, and those that have the ability to dump large sums of money on the stock markets. If you give 1 person a billion dollars, he will spend a small percentage of it and keep the rest, where as if that billion dollars is split up between say 100,000 people, they will spend 100% of that billion. Basically, the more money you get into the hands of workers, the more money that circulates through our economy, meaning more demand for products, and more demand for labor. Now the left has different plans to create this circulation of money. I may just not be aware of what the conservative plan to do this is... but I have yet to hear one. If there is one, I would actually like to hear it, because I am open minded about different well thought out ideas. Thus far, the only thing I hear from the pundit class and politicians on the right are that rich people should be able to keep all the money they want, and if they don't want to pay more money to their workers, then they shouldn't have to. The more extreme countries govern in this way of thinking, the less money workers make.
@@teriekwilliams2828 Plus automation is already appealing and all companies will automate everything they can as soon as they can as it is. One thing steven hawking said prior to dying that stuck with me was that eventually we are going to reach a point where we have 2 options, you can either decide to let the machines do the work for us, take that wealth those companies and people make, and redistribute it among the people, allowing everyone to live comfortably... or, you can let the machine owners collect all the wealth, while the majority of the population lives in poverty as jobs become obsolete. It sounds like a far off futuristic scenario... but it's starting to come to fruition now. You have companies looking to make tractor trailers self driving... a self driving vehicle can conduct deliveries 24 hours a day, eliminating hundreds of thousands (or is it millions) of jobs. Same goes for other driving based services such as bus drivers, delivery drivers, cabs, ubers, etc. You have machines taking over the fast food industry, eventually youll have 1 or 2 people being able to do what it took 10 to 12 to do before. The retail store sector, manufacturing even more so than it already is, call centers, and so on. So again, if there is a conservative solution to these types of economic issues, Im open to hearing them.
hart actually they dont adjust. I live in a place with $15 min wage. Managers dont get much more. They get the same petty 2% raise each year. There is no bump for managers. They make the same as they would if it was $11. Automation will take the bottom away.
@@coltimusprime2518 this is more of a problem of it being a local minimum wage as opposed to a national one. Also like I said other reforms would be needed in addition to just a change to the federal minimum wage, such as better tax reform and other reforms made to help small to medium sized businesses compete with larger ones. The difference in the left and the right here, is someone on the right would tell you to work harder and if you were worth more money, then you would get paid more money. Anyone on the left that actually knows their stuff would know that the problem is likely not your work ethic, but more of a systematic issue that is keeping your workplace from increasing your wages, either by their own doing, or by some other economic restraint that makes it so they cant pay you more.
Okay so since the people on the Majority Report didn't really explain the problem with the proposed minimum wage, I will. To be fair though, its most likely because it was so obvious to them that they didn't think it merited a response. Merriam Webster defines minimum wage as a living wage which is also defined as "a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living." This means that someone working minimum wage should make enough money to feasibly survive. Until we decide that food water and shelter, the LOWEST step on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, are provided to everyone no matter their employment situation we cannot base pay on what we believe the job is worth if it dips below what people need to survive. I understand the rationale behind paying based on what the job is worth and how well it is done but if people have to worry about their ability to survive either alone or as a family because of their job performance, that's not reasonable motivation. Sometimes we get so caught up in semantics and rationale and details that we forget that the big picture is people will die or not based on how decisions like this play out.
I think Sam’s point was that for it to be considered a “wage” you would have to be employed. Yes a person can be worth 0 to an employer, and be not hired or be fired, but then that’s not a wage, that’s in fact the absence of ANY wage. If we take Matt’s argument to its logical conclusion, if a wage could be worth 0 while you are working for an employer, then that folks is at best indentured servitude, and at worst slavery! But, either way, it’s the American way
the issue isn't arguing what people "deserve" or not, when they can't even define what a living wage is. I hear people saying crazy things like it's a human right to be fed, clothed, given a home, oh and live in california. Sam Seder is an emotional child, you should ignore him tbh.
*LIKE & SUBSCRIBE* Don't forget to ring the bell so you don't miss a thing!
Watch the full episode here: ua-cam.com/video/AXUasn2xiJI/v-deo.html
Subtle correction. You should be paid when you create value, not for just “working”. Your wage represents how much value you add, not how hard you work.
This looks like a 1.5 Million Bot, channel...
Since when did you get a studio
I just checked Sam Seder's youtube channel and then Mike Walsh's channel
Seder = 1.16 Million subscribers and in the last 3 days his highest view count is 60K
Mike Walsh has 440.000 Subscribers and in the last 2 weeks his worst video has 17K while consistently having between 40 and 80K views
i thought UA-cam deleted subscribers when they are not watching or like fake accounts?
Sam, a talk show host, says Matt, a talk show host, doesn't deserve money. Um... Ironic isn't it?
Matt: "You get paid based on what you're worth"
Probably gets paid a ridiculous amount of money to talk about politics and the news. He probably gets paid a lot more than he is worth.
Entertainers in general get overpaid in my opinion, but people want to be entertained. Where there's high demand, there's supply, and a high price
@@ottz2506 Unless there's an instance of public corruption or nepotism in business, everyone gets paid what they are worth.
if Sam Seder gets paid by Soros to lead the left on a bad path - Soros decided that Seder is worth it. If he wasn't worth it, he wouldn't get paid.
Grifters do not deserve money for grifting, just as thieves don't deserve money for thievery.
@@ottz2506 Ok but we decide his worth based on his amount of views
I like that he says the video is 17 minutes, and then only shows 2 minutes of it and says there's no argument
What's better is the extended clip he did play still proved to be a better point than the one he's making
I really try not to hate people, but I HATE Sam Seder and his goons.
I'd like to ask this Majority Report guy if he wants the US to be more like the Scandinavian countries. And I'm pretty sure he'd say yes. When he did, I'd mention that those countries don't have a minimum wage. It'd be funny to watch him try to justify that.
Yeah but those countries also have very strong unions and labor protection laws so they actually get paid alot.
Lol this is the most debunked argument ever...but fortunately for you there is a way...call in the sam seder show....I love those clips where he dissects someone like you in those caller videos...goodluck
@@fhffvgju6299 If you want to make the argument for stronger labor protections in the US, go ahead. But it doesn't negate the fact that countries leftist love to point to and scream "look, they're socialist and see how good it's going!" Like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and so on. All of which have strong market economies with no minimum wage, low corporate tax rates, etc.
@@adnanomerhodzic3869 "tHIs Is THe moSt dEBuNKeD ARgUmEnT eVeR"
Those countries not having a minimum wage is an objective fact, plain and simple. Also, saying something has previously been "debunked" without providing a single peice of evidence isn't an argument.
@@theaveragewoodsman6002 first dknt get triggered over something you dont understand. Second as the the guy above already stated that sweden has unions who then negotiate the salaries.
Those salaries are above a living wage, and they have strong social security which makes minimum wages redundant.
Anyone literally never heard of this guy? ( Sam Seder)
Nope
Ask Rave Dubin about him. Or maybe Steven "definetly not gay" Crowder.
Honestly, never
@JJoe Google Crowder cross dressing
Steven crowder definitely did
Seder’s (??) background is atrocious. Looks so cheap.
Even though Matt Walsh is the man who literally filmed hundreds of podcasts in his car.
Reminds me of a gameshow.
Uh so I think that the light green areas in Sam's background resonate to areas of your brain that recalls them as yellow instead of light green, which will only make you watch more of The Majority Report's videos. This video is a terrible move by the Daily Wire and honestly I'm just lucky I got out of there alive
Thomas Sowell a world renown economist and political historian did state . The minimum wage is zero.
Beat me to it. Tom Sowell = living legend. Sam Seder = living moron.
I R O N I C A L L Y
If you are being paid $zero by a business, and you are not performing any work for that business, then that business which is _not_ paying you is _not_ your employer, and you are not their employee. It's pretty straightforward
Debate him. Debate Sam Seder.
Seder is irrelevant. Nobody even knows him.
As an employer, you cannot afford to pay an employee what they are worth. You can only afford to pay them what the job they do produces.
Yes, finally.
I agree. I also say that employees' worth or the value they provide to their employer is what they produce or perform, and should be paid based on their production or performance.
And forcing you to pay a higher wage only increase cost that will end up making you hire less people and charge more for your services. Not to mention squashing the pay spectrum. Let’s say I’m making $5 more than minimum wage now it’s not like I would be seeing any raise in pay at all. In fact I’d be making the same as an entry level person or a slacker.
"Worth" is in the opinion of the beholder- in this case the employer's. With no minimum wage in a profit-driven environment, there are employers whom would literally try to pay a penny for a day's wage in order to maximize profits. There has to be some form of regulation in order to attempt to have some form of balance. Before 40/hr a week rules, numerous industries wouldn't even allow for a day off without penalty or loss of job. Balance is the key to not destroying the entire capitalistic paradigm...
Darnell Sanders and those employers would literally have no one working for them. Your argument doesn’t stand up.
“If you do a job, you should be paid for the work you do”
You’re right. Companies could pay $15 an hour for workers since they keep the company thriving. Without them, you wouldn’t have a functioning business.
If they can’t do the job and lose their worth, turn their wage to “zero” by firing them. Simple.
@ALJustice0
It seems it could probably be anything around that mark, but so far they're a few benefits to companies giving their workers a minimum wage raise like $15 (or more depending on the region).
1. Workers will get a boost to their income who struggle to get by around $20,000 a year.
2. This would give consumers more money to spend (spending money) on business goods and would help stimulate the economy even more.
3. It would help the taxpayer because this could get people off government programs. Most workers usually end up relying on government services because of their current minimum wage not helping them make ends meet.
ALJustice0
As Shapiro said, we have a progressive tax system. It doesn’t seem to work that way.
www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071114/can-moving-higher-tax-bracket-cause-me-have-lower-net-income.asp
It could push some into a higher tax bracket, but it doesn’t affect take-home pay as much as you think it would. I doubt most workers will exceed over $39,475 by the way.
It's actually possible for someone to be worth less than zero. If they come in, do nothing but break something when they're there they have cost the company money, or if they do nothing and your company loses sales because someone else would have been working in their place it would cost the company money.
Every time the government gets involved with wages or benefit, it back fires. Cost goes up, hours get cut.
Yeah cause capitalism is shit
The real minimum wage will always be $0. The government cannot change that. The with sam seder majority report cannot change that, either.
You mean it isn't the minority report? Smh what a bigot
a min.wage can not be 0$, because it's a wage. if you get a wage, you get paid. so it's impossible to have a min.wage of 0$.
@@sekulrtsnfnugg6126 exactly, why is it hard to understand that a job position can never exist in which someone is being paid nothing, and that if you pay someone who is not working for you zero dollars, then you never had an employer/employee relationship with them. Minimum wage simply keeps workers from being exploited, because value of labor is subjective.
If a minimum wage is to be set at all, it should be set be the state. The costs of living varies wildly from one location to another. If you merely average them out, a rate that would leave an employee living very well in one area (if his employer was still able to afford him and did not have to lay him off) would leave an employee in another living in a refrigerator box in the city dump.
The argument is that you don’t understand how a wage works. Lol
Anyone get distracted by matt’s massive biceps?! 😂
I never realized how ripped he is 🤣🤣
Matt thinks that every employer in the US is currently employing me
My dude, Sam roasted the hell out of you. You’re rather uninformed on economic theory. You’re not an employer/employee to every other person in the world.
Took it out of context and use that as a literal interpretation of what he’s saying. Classic leftist.
17 minutes is insufficient to express the bounds of your ignorance.
I kept seeing all these leftists demanding Ben Shapiro to debate Sam Seder on something (or anything, idk), so I thought at first that maybe he was an intellectual powerhouse of the left. Then I started listening a bit, turns out he's not much more than a typical SJW with typical SJW talking points. Just has a much bigger platform than a typical SJW.
Also turns out he supports throwing "milkshakes" at people you disagree with (ie, on the right), which puts a major dent in any credibility he had at all.
Just like Andrew Klavan says.... the left always takes our jokes literally. Act like there's no way anyone could've interpreted a particular joke as humor.
@@OrangeBlue-ir5rf We get they are jokes. They are just shitty jokes.
Try watching more of his videos
There is never a scenario in which someone is actually going to be worth zero to their employer. If someone is refusing to meet the requirements of a job that constitutes being paid a certain salary, they will not be strung along and paid nothing, they will be fired. If a random person who doesn't work for the establishment is not offering the business owner or recruiter anything that makes them believe that the person should be paid, then that also doesn't matter because they are not an employee of the business and therefore do not need to see the owner as an employer. An employer/employee relationship cannot exist if the employee is worth zero dollars or is being paid zero dollars.
I would disagree with you in that many states have a at-will exemption, so a lot of times (especially in this climate) it is more of a hassle to fire someone before they give them a solid cause.
There are of lot of people that get jobs and do only enough to look busy. Looking busy is not of value to an employer. I would personally argue, that if someone accepts a job and does not try to perform to the STANDARDS (read, not going above and beyond) of the job, then I don’t see how you can put a value on that persons performance.
@@SVTStrikesback the value of that person's performance or that person's labor is still never going to be zero. At worst, their lack of productivity will cost their employer a loss, and at best they will help bring in a profit, but hiring someone who creates no profit or loss to a department or company is feasibly impossible. If that person is in fact contributing to a loss in profit, they will be let go, because even if they are scraping by, they are still more valuable to the employer than zero dollars. Eventually, their offenses will pile up to the point of a lay-off or a firing.
An unenthusiastic employee still gets the job done. Matt's anecdote about the unenthusiastic McDonald's employee still doesn't prove that their labor is worth zero, because their attitude towards him, in no way indicates that he hasn't completed his assigned work inside the restaurant. (not sure if that anecdote was included in this vid or in sam's original vid.)
I would agree with you that yes, eventually they will be let go for poor performance, but that’s not seeing the whole picture.
If you want to get technical, research how much money it costs an employer to train an employee, and you’ll start to see what I mean about the fact that the statement about the work being worth zero can be true.
I can give you another example. If it is a smaller business where the owner is usually the person doing the training, but is also an operator, the new employee will stall or cease productivity the employer.
In that situation, the employee is certainly not getting the job done, and can prevent the operator from getting it done as well.
I would say we are both arguing the extremes here and that yes, usually the employees efforts are not going to be worth zero. I’m just pointing out that there are cases where it can be.
@@SVTStrikesback but to say that there is ever a situation in which it is justifiable for someone to carry out some level of work without being fired and for that person to be paid zero is ludicrous, because all work is worth something, no matter how little, even if the amount is absurdly small. Matt saying that work can be worth zero dollars within the context of an employer/employee relationship is extremely incorrect because the word wage itself means "fixed payment" and the minimum wage is meant to ensure some form of livable payment for menial work/nonspecialized work. To pay someone a fixed salary of nothing for doing work that they are contractually obligated to do isn't humane and it's illegal so it would never occur in the US.
Arguments-none detected.
Very "skillful" way of holding that mic-yeah baby
The problem I have with a minimum wage of zero dollars is that corporations are evil. If you took the minimum wage away (or even just lowered it), what stops corporate entities from dropping their workers' wages by a bunch and pocketing the difference?
Well that isnt true... everyone is working for someone else, they lower it rather for the investors that they have to please so they don't get removed, and the investors are just looking for profit, its brutal but not evil.
If there are more jobs than people wage goes up, more people than jobs wage goes down
DarthMohawk1 other corporations that will pay those workers instead. Free market enterprise
The fact that they actually need employees. Business compete for labor. If the wages are completely oppressive, people will just get unemployment benefits, then the companies won't have employees, and they shut down, because labor is a necessary component of the business. Another factor is this, if McDonalds decides to oppress their workers and give five bucks an hour, and Wendy's decides to give people ten bucks an hour, everybody at McDonalds quits and goes to Wendy's. McDonald's lowers their production, and loses employees, so they have to shut down stores. Wendy's has more available cheap labor that they can use to expand, and they have a greater market share now that McDonalds is shutting down restaurants and is downsizing. The only possible way that companies could begin to oppress people is by coordinating to all simultaneously lower wages, but that should be illegal according to anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Also, at that point, unions would go on strike, people would just quit, and the entire economy would collapse. I doubt businesses want that at all. If the minimum wage was completely destroyed would wages go up? Probably not. However, wages could be slightly decreased, and the newly acquired money could be allocated to hiring more people, which would decrease unemployment. The wages would be decreased to a any point above the bottom-line of survival for people. If a person can't afford a home and food and necessities with their wage, they will no longer be able to work, and they will quit, and the company will have to make changes. Also, if you want to raise the minimum wage to something like $15, then the employer has to cut worker hours, which will, in the long run, decrease company productivity, and the worker's net monthly income. Just look at Bernie. His employees got their $15, but they got their hours cut.
In conclusion, no minimum wage, at its worst, means people have to be more careful with money, but less people have no money, because they are employed. It also allows people that are only looking for a small amount of money with a small amount of effort to achieve that, rather than being forced to commit their labor for the minimum wage value.
If people are dumb enough to take a wage of $0 for an actual job, they have issues. At a certain point the boss wouldn't have enough people to turn a profit. An evil capitalist wouldn't stand for that, would he?
I believe you got the idea of minimum wage wrong my friend of daily wire. There needs no argument. Your whole concept is wrong.... Minimum wage is a amount of money you get for an hour of work. He gave you an argument. A very simple one :p I just think you are over complicating the idea of minimum wage :p
The majority report reporter acts so smug but has clearly no understanding of capitalism or basic economics.
“Liberals don’t understand economics.”
That’s such a blanket claim disguised as legit criticism.
no, not everyone bothers to earn a living wage. imagine life before government hand outs. either your family supported you, or you worked your ass off, or you starved and died.
Sam is really good at being snarky and sarcastic af
He really is not even. Sad existence!
Anyone working 40 hrs a week should be able to afford an average rent and car payment. Wages should be set according to the local rent values.
Towns would have to either lower rent or risk losing business.
"The Majority Report", a poor name for a poor leftist channel.
imagine saying that someone's video is minimal effort, when your video is merely reacting to a video that was made with minimal effort.
Well said.
Haha. Thanks for trying, but an idiot like Matt Walsh can't be explained too. He's too stupid.
O K
I guess you watch Seder.
Seder is likely a highly skilled KGB operative engaged in neurological warfare. He harms the neurons of conservatives so they can become leftists and give russia uranium and control in Syria.
He is very intelligent, so your statement is entirely justified.
@@classycactus8449 so hey i have no idea who Seder is and this is the first time watching a Matt Walsh video probably cos i follow US politics to understand the sheer stupidity of Americans left and right, being from Malaysia, but just watching one Matt Walsh video shows me how stupid this guy is.
O K
One of the fundamental truths of reality is that Sam Seder spews ignorant, uninteresting leftist propaganda. If you find Walsh annoying, fine, but Seder is still pinnacle of stupidity and ideology.
I love how right-wing pundits comment politics and left-wing pundits comment right-wing pundits :D:D:D
Yes everyone that goes to work deserves a living wage. Why is this even a question in our country. You simply cannot get by on min wage. Just paying rent power and water will consume all of a min wage workers pay in my town.
The employees worth to an employer starts at the employee making effort to travel to the employers work place on time to work. That’s definitely worth more than 0
No, it's not worth anything to the employer. Either show-up to work, or don't.
@@jimziemer474 you showed up at some expense (travel and time) and you won’t get that back
The problem I have with no minimal wage is that there are people on food stamps and working full time. The big cooperation are giving minimum wage and their workers are being subsidized with public money.
No minimum wage means in the long run cost of living will go down, since you no longer have an artificial floor to pay everyone regardless of their actual skills. The people living on food stamps right now at $7.50/hour might only get paid $4/hour and still be better off, because essential goods will be that much cheaper. At least in theory. In practice anyone who contents themselves with an entry level job like Walmart clerk will always be poor regardless of where you set the minimum wage, if you set one at all, because they have nothing exceptional to offer that would warrant better compensation.
There is something to be said however about how Walmart make 125+ billions in profit each year, and if they chose to split 25% of that profit margin in shares proportional to hours worked by all of their employees, it would DOUBLE the income of the lowest tier and Walmart would still be floating over 80+ billions in profits per year, which is a ridiculous amount. Walmart can afford to pay their employees much better wages, they just won't because they feel no pressure to do so.
How about actually debating him?
The first 1:15 of video is golden. Sam says "breaking news: Matt denounces slavery" and then Matt comes swinging hard saying "breaking news: Sam takes joke seriously". That's funny.
I did not see this matt dude joking. how did he try to joke? there was no face expressions.
Anyone who works deserve a living wage. A living starting wage is ten dollars an hour. I start people out at $12.50 an hour.
A living wage? Whats thst?
Why isnt it 15? Or 20? Or 50?
I think a good living wage is $80 an hour.
i think thats easily a fair living wage dont you?
@@kristinarain9098 I think you might want to google what living wage means
@@adnanomerhodzic3869 how about NO
You took the time to reply to me as if to educate me then fucking educate me.
How about this-
Lemme ask you this-
Can you actually give an answer to the question and cite evidence? Google isnt gonna give me shit worth shit. You know why ?
Because 'living wage' is anything
Why not 50 dollars? Are we pretending to be generous to the people we hate because they pay us to tell us what to do?
Is this how we project our mommy and daddy issues on the ppl who hire us?
Gimme a fucking answer instead of directions to an answer that doesnt truly exist, smart guy.
You wanna sit here and tell me to: *_Hurr just go to looking it up on da guggle surch_*
And then provide nothing else but condescension. Thats whst that really amounts to: _If you haffta ask youll never know!_
You pretend to be all wise but have no wisdom. You have a referral to a known biased search engine. I dislike people like you very much because you love to condescend to others who disagree with you, but have no live ammo to use. You opt for the safe route without having to get your ass rolled in debate in full view of the public.
Lemme paint a nice yellow streak up your back for ya so everyone knows what your deal is before having the misfortune of being given a box of your ersatz 'wisdom' care of google.
Why are these misogynists telling women what they can & can't do with their bodies?
Shouldn't women be in control of their own bodies & be able to work for 0.01$ if they choose to?
Talk about Patriarchy...
I know right. Look at the ideologue *cough*, I mean hitchens who said that female empowerment solved poverty, not capitalism. What a genius.
Homosexuals should be allowed to make the same choice.
See where the supply line meets demand on this here graph. So you see that's why people who work full time shouldn't make enough money to live.
and yet magically as fuck they are not starving
you babies just want more money for flipping burgers
@@newerest1 hmmm interesting theory sir....do u know who else didnt starve?... slaves.
As someone who was eating one meal a day for less than 75 cents a day... Sure, you can live off of it! I'm going to assume Matt supports food shelfs.
I am curious if experts like seder know this: Sweden (their go to example of 'socialism') have no minimum wages, so it it fully legal to pay 0 SEK...
Just because Sweden doesn't have a legally-mandated minimum wage, does not mean they are allowed to pay workers nothing for their labor. Sweden doesn't need a minimum wage because they have strong labor unions, which collectively bargain on behalf of workers for fair wages.
The US, by contrast, has neither a fair and adequate minimum wage, nor does it have strong unions (thanks in part to recent supreme court decisions)
He who doesn't work doesn't eat.
major inception vibes in this video. Matt walsh making commentary of another person making commentary on matt walsh. Which layer is the true reality?
Thats UA-cam in a nutshell.
Seder is very much like Kyle Kulinski. Much of the show is taken up with long, supposedly meaningful pauses before speaking. They are usually surrounded by a gaggle of sycophants too. When they appear on other people's shows they aren't anywhere near so sure of themselves.
I feel my testosterone declining just looking at Sam Seder
I don’t believe in a minimum wage probably because I don’t believe in wage labour but because it exists the minimum wage should be abolished and all employers should be forced to pay their workers at least the living wage.
You make no sense bro. Go back to school.
An employee does actually cost money even if the person gets zero in minimum wage. Hiring taxes, benefits, insurances. Minimum wage ensures that you are at least measured up to a minimum standard. If you can't pull your weight you're fired simple as that.
and what about the people who would only generate 6$ of hourly value? Clearly you cannot pay them 7.25$ an hour if they only generate 6$. These people are literally priced out because they cannot work for less than the price floor the country has set.
I think the Left needs to change their wording if they want to convince the rest of the country. When they use words like "deserve" or "right" when talking about things like wages and healthcare for example, it causes me to dismiss their arguments immediately. These things are not 'rights' and no one 'deserves' more money or benefits than they have earned. However, I might listen to an argument that says something more along the lines of this...in America, we value human life, and because of this we have made a conscious choice as a nation to make sure no one in our borders is treated below a certain standard....this could translate to providing certain minimal healthcare to everyone or making sure no one is paid below a certain amount. I would need to be convinced of course that using the government in this way would be better than a more free market approach, but at least I would take the argument seriously and we could have a conversation.
Right before I graduated college I did an internship...FOR FREE. My wage was zero. In fact I actually had to use my own money to drive to the place, so I was technically out some funds. What I got in return was invaluable experience for a 15 year career.
I'm 23 and have a kid on the way, my ass can't afford to do that man, my family doesn't want to help, and I work 84 hours a week because I have no ways to go to a trade or school because my local town has no good educationial programs, Heroin and meth run these streets. I cant take an unpaid internship while my babies mom can't work while pregnant
Elias Akkerman, no one said you had to. My internship was for 4 months, and then I found a real job. I respect that you’re working hard to support your family, but the fact that there’s a minimum wage law hurts young, inexperienced workers. That’s what Matt is saying here. Btw, I’m the chick in the picture, but I’ll let that pass this time.
He tries the "this is funny yet I'm outta my mind pissy about it" act that late-nite comedians pull.
Skill isn't the only factor in having a higher wage, I hear some fast food places are paying 10 an hour. Turns out that if the job you work is tedious you will get payed more regardless of skill.
It's both skill and demand for the type of work you do.
You missed a very simple point here. You are speaking about a person's value in the market and Sam is speaking about the actual pay an employed person is entitled to(the negotiated $/hr). He makes poor assumptions that you are suggesting an employed person can justifiably be paid $0/hr AND that they negotiated a $/hr rate greater than 0. At least one of you, maybe both, are being dishonest or lazy with your arguments. Having said that, any person should be free to enter into an employment agreement to receive no compensation for their efforts. Of course the employer has overheard for each employee so one has to be worth at least the overhead cost.
I'm so tired of "living wage" arguments without including how much money a person needs without a cell phone, tv, internet and possibly even a car if they have access to public transportation. Not only that but entry level jobs shouldn't be a living wage because it's supposed to encourage someone to learn a trade or skill and move up. But encouragement and trying harder is something the left doesn't understand.
NegatveSpace You should be able to work your way out of a minimum wage job pretty quickly if you apply yourself and show aptitude and initiative. If you’re putting in the effort and getting nothing back from your employer then it’s time to look for other employment.
I just dont like how entry jobs have swapped with mid level job requirements
@@demonvictim That is true, in some fields in particular. The demand for higher wages has pushed the minimal qualifications up along with it. But its somewhat understandable when the guy mopping the floor thinks he should be paid the kind of wages that someone with a bachelor's degree usually starts out earning right out of college with no work experience.
I'm guessing you're a boomer, Negative.
minimum wage workers don't have any options to get better jobs and even if they did and they chose to stay at minimum wage anyway they still don't deserve to make so little.
Are they intentionally missing each other's point? Sam Seder isn't referring to "not working". He's talking about the minimum amount a person can get paid when they DO work for an hour. The talk of zero is that he doesn't think that someone who works for an hour should be paid zero.
However, even that isn't correct. If someone is an intern and is talking a job because they want experience in an industry and to have something to put on a resume and the networking that provides, then if they are willing to work for zero, that IS effectively a minimum wage of zero. They are gaining something from the transaction.
But Sam is really working hard to pretend that Matt is an idiot. Either that or he is such an idiot that he really doesn't understand what Matt is saying.
Ultimately, this is really easy - when someone is willing to do an hours worth of work, the potential employer has to feel that the hour worked gains enough benefit to pay them the wage that is being paid. If the amount of work done is not valued as much as the money paid, then the job will not be provided. These people who think that raising the minimum wage will help entry-level employees are delusional. They talk in terms of "these are people who haven't had a raise in 20-years"...which makes me wonder if they really don't understand that minimum wage jobs are not intended to be permanent positions.
Show me someone who has been working a minimum wage job for 20-years and you will have either someone who refuses to perform, someone who has absolutely no motivation, or someone who for some reason is devoted to an employer who has no loyalty to them. Either way, we're talking about an individual who for some reason probably isn't worth more than minimum wage. And if you raise the minimum wage, that individual will not be getting a raise because if they haven't gotten a raise in 20-years, there is probably a good reason for that and they will instead simply lose their job.
This isn't rocket science...these people seem to feel that jobs and wages are somehow magically provided by having a government and a system. And to be fair, this is very much sort of what I thought...right until I was getting ready to graduate college and had to start preparing for living in the real world. But how anyone working a "career" can still feel that way, I have no idea...unless they simply lucked into their current position or were put there by their father or something...
Hell no
Should fast food workers be paid proportionately to how much they produce instead of hourly?
Dunno, maybe. It'd be kinda hard to track who is producing more than others in a big fast food chain, since it's really a team effort most of the time, so paying everyone an average based of the team's day to day productivity is probably the best compromise. Then again, you'll always have over-achievers who want more and slackers who deserve less with any sufficiently large team. That's the problem and main source of irritation inherent to any system : the human factor.
LiwenDiamond
I just thought it was interesting to present the idea that people should be paid what they are worth according to what they produce but yet most industries just don’t follow that model. For example I make $80 dollars for over 8 hours of work but I know I produce way more than that for the fast food company as I usually make that amount in literally two or three sales if I upsale like I should. If I’m producing $1,000 dollars for the company on average per shift while making $80 it doesn’t take a mathematician to tell you that you aren’t making what you are worth.
So basically anyone who is on YT, FB, Instagram, Twitter, etc. who are making comments, left or right, are really doing no work, ergo get zero dollars.
So.... less than $0 is slavery by their own words (when they took Matt literally), but they think Matt should pay them for his work which means he' be making less than $0 for his labor.... so they are in favor of slavery? If they can't see it was a joke initially they can't make a similar joke later
I understand your perspective.but the only thing is I believe in equal opportunities for everyone.Without a baseline to prevent people from being afraid to be homeless that person will never have the opportunity to reach their true potential. I belive every human life is equal and as such I hope you support there being a pathway to success for the poor other than merely survival.
All the leftist actors should be talking about how they pay the producers to get on a film.
Minimum wage increases crap on your grandparents and everyone's grandparents. By devaluing their life savings through inflation, so a bunch of spoiled brats can "think" they will get more.
Thats not how it works, minimum wage doesn't cause inflation, a lot of it comes from the printing of money, stuff like running up the debt, other countries wealth increasing, the fact that someone like Jeff Bezos or the Walton family probably each have more money then everyone in the united states combined did back when your grandparents were alive... your grandparents devaluated their grandparents life savings because they made exponentially more as well...
You have a complete misunderstanding of how the economy and money even work
@@billyhart798 Agree, I should have said cost of living increase not inflation. Fact is the cost of living increase is always equal to the minimum wage increase. May take 6 months or 2 years but it will always even out for people still in the workplace, but retired people who saved 50cents out of $2 or 75 cents out of $3 for their retirement will always get screwed by minimum wage increases. Also agree anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to buy a house. Maybe companies should be required to pay a certain % of profit to employees instead of a minimum wage.
@@jonbedker5229 I'm open to ideas like that as well. There are lots of idea's out there, some via taxation, some like what you just said, some requiring some form of employee representation on boards of mid to larger sized companies... and a lot of others. At the end of the day the result should be rich people have less opportunity to price gouge their employees, they have less opportunity to squash out small businesses, and the lowest end of wages someone working a 40 hour a week job makes is enough to live off of independently
Minimum wage should be at least 1300 bucks.
Here's the argument:
Almost nobody is paid what they deserve. Many earn far more, and many more far less than they deserve. Normally we're talking about the later.
If every life is God given, then every hour of that life has intrinsic value, skilled or not.
If the person is incompetent, they may be fired. However, if they aren't fired, we can assume the person is doing their job as required. It's then reasonable to ask if it's fair to pay someone the lowest possible wage which they are desperate enough to accept, or if the intrinsic value of a life means an eight hour work day should enable you to live in dignity (not require food stamps and be able to go home in the evening and spend time with spouse, kids and friends rather than having to work a second job).
Working for $1 (as an example) an hour is worse than slavery. Condoning that is condoning slavery. Whether it's a whip and chain that forces a person into that work, or economic anxiety and financial distress isn't much of a difference. If we condone either we're condoning the exploitation of a human life.
A minimum wage is a must. Anything else is deeply immoral and unchristian. That's not debatable. What is debatable is how much one hour of a God given life is worth,.
Good job with the explainer. Just people with the brain capacity of Matt Walsh and his followers are too stupid to understand. That's why Sam Seder didn't even bother arguing with the idiot.
Minimum wage laws hurt the people that are supposed to help.
Meaning that it’s keeping you from being initially hired to get the needed job skills.
Then debate him.
Walsh vs. Seder debate would be hilarious, but Seder wouldn't do it, and he would never recognize an actual economical argument.
@@classycactus8449 lmaoooooo you serious bruh?
Then why does everyone from Crowder to Shapiro pretend he doesn't exist? Why did Charlie Kirk get eaten alive in policon?
Don't be a coward and just debate the guy.
@@theconquerorb286
Sure I am for debating him, I just said he would never change his mind, because it is too indoctrinated.
@@theconquerorb286
Also, type in sam seder vs matt walsh in youtube. He literally puts intentionally bad pictures of matt in his thumbnails and then clickbaits the video harder than pewdiepie. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself how disgusting he is. It is obvious that he is irrelevant and wants people to click on his videos by putting in the names of more relevant people in his title.
@ALJustice0 lmaooo if you think that then you don't actually know Sam Seder.
Let me give you at least one example of Cowering with Crowder. Crowder tweeted that no lefty wanted to debate him but all his replies were, "debate Sam seder" and what he do? Sam Seder then sends him an invite for politicon then suddenly he backs out of politicon. Coincidence?
Oh fuck off lmaooo
I'd love to send two kids over that guy's house and have them bid on how much they'll charge to mow his lawn. Does he hire the kid that bids less than the other? Or does he so believe the quality of the work of the higher bidder will be better and will therefore hire him.
And, yeah, I'm using he/him. Get bent if that offends you.
did he really insult the act of thinking out loud and active problem solving as a negative? no wonder these people refuse logic and reality, they havent learned to think yet
No he insulted the act of feigning ignorance .
This guy spends his day trying to dissect every little thing any conservative does and then he titles his videos: ‘SAM SEDER DESTROYS SHAPIRO AND PETERSON’. He reduces his arguments to insults and hasn’t used a fact, it’s rather amusing. If you want a laugh I’d suggest some of his videos.
Fire Ben Shapiro does the same rhing
@@matth5885 I don't think Ben Shapiro does it about other people, and he certainly doesn't reduce his arguments to petty insults without using evidence.
actually a lot of people are worth less than zero.
Dont be too harsh on yourself
If people were payed on the valor of their efforts rather then some arbitrary number there’d be many people on minimum wage right now that could make far more but they can’t because it doesn’t matter how good they are just the job itself I don’t see how leftists don’t understand this it’s an incredibly simple concept, not only would quality of life improve but workers would try harder making services better leaving them more accomplished and feeling that they earned what they got
Matt showing supreme patience to bother to put together a cogent response to this clown instead of just going straight to responding with F you.
When I was 16 I volunteered to work for nothing because I wanted to prove to this man that I was a hard worker, I did it because no one would give me a chance, and the man in fact payed me because I worked hard
did you have another source of income when you were 16?
most people have to work for a living.
that means if they dont get paid enough for their labour they wont be able to afford a place to live, food, water, clothes, transportation, etc.
i would assume(and please correct me if i'm wrong) that at 16 all of those things were provided to you by your parents....
@@sabin97 Well that`s kind of the point. If you are a child you are not worth the minimum wage. You are worth more money over time as you develop your skills. To develop your skills you need a job. The minimum wage is an obstacle to you getting that job. Also as a principle It is always better to earn some although not enough money as opposed to not earning any money at all.
The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. It`s a wage you pay interns, children etc. You are not supposed to spend your life working for a minimum wage. If you do that you are a moron. If you spend your life working on a minimum wage it means you have made zero progress in your skills in 40-50 years of work experience.
@@cowboybeboop9420
" If you are a child you are not worth the minimum wage."
you, personally, are NEVER worth ANYTHING. what is worth something is the wealth you create for your employer. it doesnt matter if you are a chinese child working on an iphone sweatshop or a 50 year old woman in usa working on a factory line. the wealth you create for the employer is what has value, you have zero value. the moment you die/quit, they simply replace you with another wealth-creating semi-slave.
"To develop your skills you need a job"
to develop myskills i went to college.
it's amazing the level of skills you acquire when completing a degree in engineering, and then a masters degree in computer science.
in the corporate world, sure you increase your skills a little. but the core skills, if you didnt get them while in college, you've wasted your time.
"The minimum wage is an obstacle to you getting that job"
not at all.
if a business doesnt produce enough income to pay employees a living wage, then that business model is messed up beyond repair, and the business needs to stop existing.
"Also as a principle It is always better to earn some although not enough money as opposed to not earning any money at all."
yeah, and it's always better for a country that everyone who works 40 hours+ a week, get paid enough money to survive. those arent mutually exclusive things.
"The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage."
it is.
it's there to ensure that everyone who works 40+ hours a week, is able to afford the basic necessities of life.
"You are not supposed to spend your life working for a minimum wage"
you get the jobs you can find. i dont know everyone';s circumstances. it's impossible to make any accurate assessment without knowing the circumstances of the person.
"If you spend your life working on a minimum wage it means you have made zero progress in your skills"
you dont get paid for skills. you get paid in a very lose relation to the wealth you create for the employer(and the influence you have with your employer). if you were paid by skills, the engineers in every fortune 500 company would be the richest people on earth, instead of unskilled people like steve jobs, bill gates, bezos, and the rest of the rapacious parasites.
You don't have to explain yourself. We get it. But it's your show. Upload what you want.
How do we determine how much someone's labour is worth? It can't be however much they bring into their employer's pockets because then there would be no money left for the employer. Would it be a percentage of the revenue an employed generates for their employer and company, or would it be determined by some other factor of labour or a combination thereof?
@The Kentucky Mama Monica Is basing minimum wage off of the cost of living different from a living wage, and if it is, how so?
Don’t bother yourself with the likes of Seder. They concern themselves with jokes rather than arguments.
And now it's begun
0 dollars? Imagine being in the interview and hearing that offer 😂
Yeah right. Next they'll say I'll get paid for my performance
Quit flooding the country with labor and minimum wage laws will be irrelevant. Make supply less than demand and value goes up
Sam Seder really tests my patience. I don't advocate violence against anyone, but if he spoke to me, face to face, with that level of snide condescension, I'd be fighting a serious urge to pop him in the nose.
The lighting and adio is better in this vidio
It doesn't matter what a person deserves. It matters what the job is worth. The person can get a more valuable job, but a job that is only worth $xxx is only worth $xxx regardless of who does it.
here in denmark we dont have a minimun wage an for a mc job we got average 20 dollars a hr :D
What's an mc job?
@@liwendiamond9223 mc donald ;D
@@liwendiamond9223 its just because im tired of hearing that if u have a minimun wage on 0 that means u get 0 dollars... and that is not how the market works... im just trying to help busnisses down in america cause its gonna effect my family when usa crashes so im trying to promote to people down in the usa to get back to the gold standard and get capatalisme in the country cause even denmark has a free'er market then usa has but people dont know it cause their only search the income taxes their really dont know how it works over here that we almost got no regulations and our corporation tax is 22... is my country perfect... no but it sure is better then united states when it comes to econemy ;3 cause usa has sooooo many rules its crazy
I agree.
Would you say that someone told to do something and that something being nothing. maybe standing at a door should get 0$ an hr for there time ? Or should they be compensated for there time they put aside to stand there
If you hire somebody to stand in front of a door then you should pay him/her a living wage (minimum wage)
Sure enough those kind of jobs already exist lol
What's a living wage?
A wage that covers costs of all basic things necessary to live ... minimum wage should be living wage
i live in a relatively poor area in the middle of farmland and i cant live by myself on a $15.80 wage i have now
He doesn't think you should deserve to live if you can't afford it
The reason for that is because of unsound economic doctrine that invariably advantages urban people that constitute a larger percentage of the popular vote for the politicians to pander to, so you get left behind. The best hope you have is to somehow work harder, find a new job, or move somewhere.
Then get a job that pays more. If you can't there's a reason.
@@doom4067 thats what im doing, im studying for exams to get certifications so i can apply for a better position in a bigger town. its just frustrating having to live with the parents. i cant move out if i dont have a job elsewhere.
@@doom4067
He said he lived in the middle of farmland. Rural America is likely taking a hit, especially with the tariffs to China. Although those tariffs should be used to pressure China into a fair trade deal, it is, at least temporarily, likely destroying rural America. And it is likely hard to find a job in the middle of farmland. The only real option they have is to move to an urban area, but I personally would rather have rural America not be completely destroyed.
So basically you do believe there should be a minimum wage for work, but not working deserves no pay for able bodied people. This makes sense. It is kind of a muttled argument, though. Were you fishing for people to disagree with you, I kind of agree with the argument in principle, but it was badly worded.
This guys hasn't owned a business , he like thom hartmen media liar isn't a small business owner
if minimum wage is $15 for low end work, does that mean all managers make $25 an hour minimum?
If your baseline workers make $15 an hour, the job market would then adjust to pay those better that have jobs that are harder, require more education, or are in more demand more. So you wouldn't have lets say a retail store supervisor making the same as a mcdonalds cashier, that retail store supervisor would likely see his pay increase by the same factor the mcdonalds employee did.
In the end, the minimum wage will help in the short term to bridge the wealth gap... but the owners of the corporations will continue to make adjustments to ensure they get the same level of profits... not because they need to do so to stay in business, but because they want to and they can
@@teriekwilliams2828 This isn't entirely true though, prices don't increase 1 for 1 with wage increases, because wages arent 100% of the costs of a business, and more most businesses wages are a small cost of operation . Additionally, with the increase of wages, demand also increases, so as an example, that store that you think may lay off a few workers or reduce hours wont actually do so, because a large percentage of people that are potential customers for them are now making higher wages too, meaning they are purchasing more products, and that store will need to retain it's staff or increase it to keep up with demand.
See the inherent problem with the economy right now is that with corporations on average being more profitable than they ever have in history, are also funneling that money up to upper management, ceo's, and those that have the ability to dump large sums of money on the stock markets. If you give 1 person a billion dollars, he will spend a small percentage of it and keep the rest, where as if that billion dollars is split up between say 100,000 people, they will spend 100% of that billion. Basically, the more money you get into the hands of workers, the more money that circulates through our economy, meaning more demand for products, and more demand for labor.
Now the left has different plans to create this circulation of money. I may just not be aware of what the conservative plan to do this is... but I have yet to hear one. If there is one, I would actually like to hear it, because I am open minded about different well thought out ideas.
Thus far, the only thing I hear from the pundit class and politicians on the right are that rich people should be able to keep all the money they want, and if they don't want to pay more money to their workers, then they shouldn't have to. The more extreme countries govern in this way of thinking, the less money workers make.
@@teriekwilliams2828 Plus automation is already appealing and all companies will automate everything they can as soon as they can as it is. One thing steven hawking said prior to dying that stuck with me was that eventually we are going to reach a point where we have 2 options, you can either decide to let the machines do the work for us, take that wealth those companies and people make, and redistribute it among the people, allowing everyone to live comfortably... or, you can let the machine owners collect all the wealth, while the majority of the population lives in poverty as jobs become obsolete.
It sounds like a far off futuristic scenario... but it's starting to come to fruition now. You have companies looking to make tractor trailers self driving... a self driving vehicle can conduct deliveries 24 hours a day, eliminating hundreds of thousands (or is it millions) of jobs. Same goes for other driving based services such as bus drivers, delivery drivers, cabs, ubers, etc. You have machines taking over the fast food industry, eventually youll have 1 or 2 people being able to do what it took 10 to 12 to do before. The retail store sector, manufacturing even more so than it already is, call centers, and so on.
So again, if there is a conservative solution to these types of economic issues, Im open to hearing them.
hart actually they dont adjust. I live in a place with $15 min wage. Managers dont get much more. They get the same petty 2% raise each year. There is no bump for managers. They make the same as they would if it was $11. Automation will take the bottom away.
@@coltimusprime2518 this is more of a problem of it being a local minimum wage as opposed to a national one. Also like I said other reforms would be needed in addition to just a change to the federal minimum wage, such as better tax reform and other reforms made to help small to medium sized businesses compete with larger ones.
The difference in the left and the right here, is someone on the right would tell you to work harder and if you were worth more money, then you would get paid more money.
Anyone on the left that actually knows their stuff would know that the problem is likely not your work ethic, but more of a systematic issue that is keeping your workplace from increasing your wages, either by their own doing, or by some other economic restraint that makes it so they cant pay you more.
Never heard any lib talk about this guy
we should increase the minimun wage to 50 dollars a hr so i could become a milionaire in the furture :)
But then being a millionaire wouldn't mean much, since apples would be priced at 200$/lbs. :D
@@liwendiamond9223 i dont care how much my money is worth i only care about the number! .-. thats why venenzuala is paradise ,-,
Preach👏 , maybe the tolerant left will learn something
Sam Seder is slime.
God Sam Seder fans are annoying.
Matt Walsh rules
Okay so since the people on the Majority Report didn't really explain the problem with the proposed minimum wage, I will. To be fair though, its most likely because it was so obvious to them that they didn't think it merited a response. Merriam Webster defines minimum wage as a living wage which is also defined as "a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living." This means that someone working minimum wage should make enough money to feasibly survive. Until we decide that food water and shelter, the LOWEST step on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, are provided to everyone no matter their employment situation we cannot base pay on what we believe the job is worth if it dips below what people need to survive. I understand the rationale behind paying based on what the job is worth and how well it is done but if people have to worry about their ability to survive either alone or as a family because of their job performance, that's not reasonable motivation. Sometimes we get so caught up in semantics and rationale and details that we forget that the big picture is people will die or not based on how decisions like this play out.
I think Sam’s point was that for it to be considered a “wage” you would have to be employed. Yes a person can be worth 0 to an employer, and be not hired or be fired, but then that’s not a wage, that’s in fact the absence of ANY wage. If we take Matt’s argument to its logical conclusion, if a wage could be worth 0 while you are working for an employer, then that folks is at best indentured servitude, and at worst slavery! But, either way, it’s the American way
the issue isn't arguing what people "deserve" or not, when they can't even define what a living wage is. I hear people saying crazy things like it's a human right to be fed, clothed, given a home, oh and live in california.
Sam Seder is an emotional child, you should ignore him tbh.