Sunday, December 7, 2008

How To Interview Nancy Pelosi

A lot of people wailed and moaned at the passing of Tim Russert, since he was supposedly the last "bulldog" TV journalist who would ask THE HARD QUESTIONS, and not stop asking until the question was answered.
That was a bunch of baloney. Russert was a warm, personable guy. He was smart. And he would ask the hard questions. Twice.

Then he would move on. To the next question.

This guy does it properly.
I've had to hit "pause", get up and walk away for a few minutes, then come back to the computer for a few seconds more. This is painful.
Why doesn't he have a Sunday morning show?

He doesn't even get to the really hard questions about Tuna.


Anonymous said...

Love it.

The minimum wage is such a blatantly stupid law that a 13 year old with just one hour of economics lessons could explain why it does exactly the opposite it claims to do.

Anonymous said...

Pelosi did a terrible job responding to this guy but everyone deserves a living wage. The idea that it should be legal to exploit people desperate people is just wrong. Sure people will work for less. Just look at third world sweatshops. When there are no laws protecting workers they will work for virtually nothing and live miserable lives in filthy slums. They don't have a choice. They take the pittance and work or they die. What kind of choice is that? The difference here is that Pelosi's interns are not desperate poor people just barely hanging on. Her interns aren't choosing between working for her or death. Huge difference.

Anonymous said...

I am happy to say that I pay my workers at my very small business above minimum wage. Everyone makes $6.75/hour or above. However, as John Lennon said, "What went wrong?" If people will work for less an hour, whynot hire them? Bosch says, "When there are no laws protecting workers they will work for virtually nothing," gosh, don't let the people for liberty hear you saying that...they say government is not here to protect us....government is not suppose to serve the place of nanny, daddy or mommie. Guess I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth here, but if people will work for a price then that is thier individual least they are willing to work! However, I believe also in paying people a wage that they can "live on" but then I get caught in ...but what if that persons choice was to cause the births of multiple children.....the cost of living would greatly surpass mimimum wage. Help us out here Libertarians and "freedom lovers."

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Loving Anon,
Agreed. In a free market, no transactions between buyers and sellers won't take place unless both parties think they're getting a deal. It doesn't matter if it's iPods, lawnmowers, or labor. You don't swap what you've got for something else UNLESS you have a greater desire for what the other party has.
There might be a price level where I'll stop buying gasoline. Nobody has tried to sell it to me at that price yet, though.
The price of fast food has already risen to a point where I'm not swapping my lunch money for it as often. (And I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the people I don't buy $6.00 value meals from will still earn a living wage.)

Basically, I agree with what Suzette said below.
People take low skill/low wage jobs to 3rd world countries BECAUSE the people there are willing to work for next to nothing, by our standards.
But guess what? More than one employer tends to show up, in your words, to "exploit" the workers. As long as there isn't a government mandated monopoloy that has rules in place against job-switching, the wage rises as demand for labor increases.
I've seen the prevailing low-end wage in Chinese factories almost double in the last 6 years. Yes, if the Free Market is allowed to run its course, it even improves things in Socialist Shit Holes.

There's no telling how well off the people there would be if they didn't have the blessings of a Socialist government.

I get the feeling you believe they'd be better off if they were "unexploited".

I believe that all workers should try to take as much for their efforts as the market will bear. Let's assume there's a dog groomer who would love to make millions of dollars per year, but would settle for $7.00 per hour.
Let's say that there's a kennel looking for a dog-groomer. They can operate without one, and would prefer to pay nothing (like, for a Pelosian volunteer), but they're willing to pay as much as $7.25 and hour.
In this scenario, the groomer and the kennel can work out a deal for somewhere between $7 and $7.25

But if someone in government arbitrarily raises the minimum to $7.75? Chances are, the job will never exist. The groomer doesn't get any experience.

One other thing....full time adult employees making the minimum wage are less than 1/3 of 1% of the workforce. Reading left-wing propaganda, you'd think that the woods were full of them.
These low-skilled people are almost a non-issue as far as our government is concerned.
But guess what?
Lots and Lots and Lots of union contracts have a stipulation that the wages be paid in multiples of the minimum wage.
Therefore, when the minimum wage is increased, a large part of the Pelosian donor base gets a raise also.

What a bunch of economically illiterate booger eaters.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

One other thing....
If you want to lower the demand for something, relative to everything else?
Arbitrarily raise its price.

Anonymous said...

I understand the minimum wage argument here. That's one giant step forward! However, I don't understand what Pelosi's problem was with just stating the facts. What was she hiding? Just tell what your people make...what's the big deal? This must be one of the Democrat vs. All others issues. I'm sure there is an argument that if the gov't does not stipulate a min. wage then we Americans will discriminate against certain people and pay them less for the same job; therefore gov't must protect the people from discrimination practices and mandate the we pay people a minimum wage.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Please understand that the harshness of my previous comment wasn't directed at you.

About your comment that government needs to stipulate a minimum wage so employers won't discriminate against certain groups.....
Say you and I both run kennels. Say there's a group of dog groomers with 20 years of experience wanting job security. They lobby/bribe their congressperson to put a $20 dollar per hour minimum wage in place for dog groomers.
Who would this harm the most?
If you HAD to pay $20 an hour, would you take a chance on a rookie/trainee from an often discriminated against background?
Or would you play it safe and go for the person with 20 years experience?
This is why the great Thomas Sowell believes that our minimum wage laws are some of the most racist, discriminatory legislation ever created.
When these laws were first put into place, black employment was roughly equal to that of whites.
Now, minority unemployment is a given. Even National Public Radio was griping and moaning about how minorities were the hardest hit during rough times.
(Hit the "Minimum Wage" tab at the bottom to see lengthier explanations.)

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

I love the great Thomas Sowell so much. I remember when you said, after coming to our very first meetup, that all of the pro-Sowell talk told you that you were at the right place.

People should make what they agree to work for. My dad mad spare change basically after he dropped out of school at 12 to help support the family (no minimum wage then)... Through self-education, sheer will and extremely hard work he became a successful business owner.

Off track here, but I'm 100 percent on board with Whited on this issue. Minimum wages hurt those it claims to want to help: Poor, unskilled, young - and helps those who are earning many multiples of the minimum wage (UAW Members, Teamsters, LGWU members, etc. etc.). The Heritage Foundation shows that the average UAW worker costs $70 smackers an hour... Base rate is about $30/hour and the rest is insurance, retirement, etc.

Thank goodness the minimum wage was there to help set the floor - and that the US Taxpayer will help subsidize the Union worker. Oh yeah, part of the bailout will go to pay, what do you know, Union Dues!!

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

And by the way, I LOOOOOOOVE this interviewer. The reason she wouldn't answer his questions, for those who ask, is she knew she was in direct violation of minimum wage laws - or would be at any other entity. She made the weak argument that people who volunteer for 'higher principled organizations' that they'd believe in like the Red Cross or - - the US Congress, they can THEN accept to choose zero or below minimum wage.

However, I believe her interns do the same TYPE of work that a low level employee at, say, a law firm would do. If that employee believed that they really believed in that law firm's cases they took... Say a firm utilized by the Institute of Justice (www dot ij dot org) to help small businesses strong armed by government regulations, THEY couldn't get by on paying them Pelosi's Intern's wages of roughly zero - or they might, well, be strong armed by government regulations... and the circle goes on.