Bernie Sanders Town Hall

In The Young Turks Hour 2 - On Demand by Waldo Peterson32 Comments

Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian & Francesca Fiorentini cover Bernie Sanders’ town hall on CEOs vs. workers.

0 seconds of 32 minutes, 0Volume 90%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
32:00
32:00
 

Comments

  1. OMAIGAH! IT’S @FRANIEFIO!!!! I LOVE HERR!!!! CAN YOU LIKE HIRE HER LIKE FULL TIME?! CUZ SHE FUCKING ROCKS!

  2. The problem with Cenk and progressives is that they still don’t see the real big picture that everyone sees but them:

    The poor and lower middle class in the US are a very very tiny minority, 30% of all Americans, that is dominated by minorities and does not vote.

    Only 13% of all Americans receive food stamps and only 5% of all white people get them compared with nearly 40% of black people.

    Less than 10% of all white people are classified as poor and only 30% can be classified as struggling and most of those live in low tax lost cost states anyway which explains why they keep voting republican.

    Arguing for more redistribution will be easily portrayed as arguing for more welfare to black people which as we know from the 80s and 90s was a guaranteed vote getter for the republicans.

        1. Oh and I got the black % wrong, my bad. It is around 27% now but it was around 40% at the height of the crisis which where I got the first number.

          1. Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American. 12.8% race unknown, 31% of SNAP recipients worked, most SNAP hou
            seholds had children or elderly or disabled

            1. I know. That still translate to 5% of all white people and as we know from election results they vote republican despite that.

      2. Yeah, because you are make a valid point. And if your percentages are right you are opening my mind.

        Where did you get your percentages from? Can you site them somewhere?

    2. Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American. 12.8% race unknown, 31% of SNAP recipients worked, most SNAP hou
      seholds had children or elderly or disabled

    3. What are you going on about? 51% of Americans make $31,000 a year or less. The top .1% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Three people have as much wealth as the bottom 50%. This message can relate to an *overwhelming majority* of Americans.

      1. That’s Jimmy Dore crap that includes the elderly (20% of the population) who get Social Security.

        Read the link above and you will find that the median is around $50k (meaning 50% make more than $50k) per household and based on Census Bureau data that is well above the poverty line for a household.

        As for the incomes and wealth of the people in the higher brackets, so what? This is capitalism. Even in high tax countries like Sweden the divergence between the 1% and the rest has been increasing and Sweden did not apply Reaganomics or reduce taxes. The nature of the economy changed and the governments there responded not by cracking down on wealth but by providing opportunities and making the $ in their native countries go farther:

        https://www.thelocal.se/20170216/swedens-wealth-inequality-exposed-by-new-research

        1. That includes *all workers.* If someone is on Social Security yet they still have to work, that only further proves my point that there is a major problem.

          But let’s accept your premise and say that half of workers make less than $50k. That is still a major problem, and people would still need and want things like Medicare for All, a higher minimum wage, and strong unions. In fact, any [recent] poll you look at will show that the majority of Americans agree with us on all of these issues.

          No, you cannot compare the United States to Sweeden, they are on two different levels.

          https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2016
          https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/embedvideo1266-482-304-turns

          1. A number of good points to discuss here:

            1. My argument is focused on household income since 40% of all women are working and most families are. If you include working families the median is well above the $30k figure above.

            2. The $30k figure above itself is not what it seems to be. It is the median wage earned by the 163 million contributors to SS via the W-2 form. This form includes 10s of millions of expats, seasonal workers and illegal aliens working in the US. It also includes self employed people and other categories. Based on BLS numbers the active 15-64 population in the US is 150 million, the Working age population (same age range) is 206 million, the number of SS contributors is 163 million and the number of labor force participants is 129 million.

            The 163 million includes 33 million who are seasonal employees, part time employees, kids who work in diners and what not, illegal aliens and temporary migrant workers etc. If you take them away from the calculation and focus on the American working population, the 129 million regularly employed people the number is different:

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0257856500A

            This is the median weekly compensation for people in full employment. Please read the explanation below. I hope it will help you.

            2. Yes it can be when the point is that it is nonsensical to claim that high taxation and low corruption as well as government funded election will yield the results you think they will yield.

            1. 1. That really doesn’t make a difference. A single person should not be making less than $30,000 a year, whether they get more money from a spouse or not.

              2. I know this is a Trumpian (stupid) question, but what does the “active population” mean in the following sentence: “Based on BLS numbers the active 15-64 population in the US is 150 million, the Working age population (same age range) is 206 million, the number of SS contributors is 163 million and the number of labor force participants is 129 million.”

              Anyways, you have convinced me that the $30,000 is misleading and $50,000 is more accurate. However, as I said previously, $50,000 is still a low number. People who make less than $50,000 still want tax cuts, higher wages, Medicare for all, the elimination of student debt, and more policies that Bernie supports that would help the working class, and any poll will confirm this.

              3 (You said 2, but I’m assuming you meant 3). As I showed you, if you compare American income inequality to Sweedish income inequality, Sweeden seems communist.

              Anyways, I appreciate that you responded to my criticisms of your point and I hope we can continue to have a civilized debate and keep an open mind, especially since that is what differentiates us from the right wing.

              1. Thanks for your constructive comments. No question is a stupid question when it comes to this subject.

                1. Yes, $30k is too low a number which is why people making it are not taxed federally (well they are but are eligible for enough breaks and rebates to have a negative tax break) or statewide. Unfortunately this is the marketplace demand for their work and there is nothing you can do about it. Raise the incomes and the equilibrium point between general prices and general wages will move up, that is $50k will be the new $30k.

                An interesting idea from the Austrian school championed by Hayek himself is the negative interest rate for a cutoff of the population (as well as universal healthcare which the Austrians later denounced) which basically is a sort of income supplement instead of multiple programs. The justification being that certain classes of income earners. I think that a supplement is a great idea but it is still not enough.

                2. The OECD has a great guide. US definitions follow the OECD standard:

                https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=730
                https://www.census.gov/topics/employment/labor-force/about/glossary.html

                The definitions are a bit contradictory and overlapping but one has to put in mind that the reason is that there is a large school-age population in the stats as well as a large non-active female population.

                3. I know what you are meaning and I partly agree. My point is that there has been a major shift in the modes of production in the economies of the world that forced a wealth inequality despite taxation and government intervention. In the US government policy made things worse while in Sweden the policies slowed the train but neither stopped it nor reverse its direction.

                1. 1. “Unfortunately this is the marketplace demand for their work and there is nothing you can do about it. ”

                  What? There is plenty we can do about it. Raise the minimum wage, make unions great again, increase taxes on the rich, and even possibly having a maximum wage.

                  2. So what is the difference between the “active population” and the number of labor force participants?

                  I did not see you address this point: “Anyways, you have convinced me that the $30,000 is misleading and $50,000 is more accurate. However, as I said previously, $50,000 is still a low number. People who make less than $50,000 still want tax cuts, higher wages, Medicare for all, the elimination of student debt, and more policies that Bernie supports that would help the working class, and any poll will confirm this.” Is that because you agree?

                  3. I get what you are saying, but the point is that Sweeden is vastly better than us, and they may never have to experience the gap we have here in the United States. I am not saying we need to end income inequality (I’m not a communist), we just need to vastly decrease it, which could be done with the policies I have stated before.

    4. Since when is almost 100mil people a “tiny” minority? only 130-140mil voted in the presidential election.
      If you read the stats you quote almost 20% of whites (or ALMOST 47 mil) are either poor or lower middle class (under 200% of poverty). If you add together blacks and hispanics in the same financial strait the number is under 30 mil. Get your figures straight. This is from YOUR source.
      And you are ignoring another stat that almost 60% could not afford an emergency expense over $500.

      1. Since they don’t vote or vote the other way.

        As for my source, I already pointed that out. I said that struggling whites are barely 20% of all whites. The rest are solid middle class especially given the fact that most whites live in low tax states. There is no incentive for them to change their votes. And since most of those poor whites, indeed more whites period, are racists there is even more incentive for them to vote to the party that will not expand on benefits that will help black and brown people. Pew made an interesting study before on race and welfare its results were published in WaPo I think in May.

        Finally, not affording $500 emergencies does not indicate poverty. It indicate lack of access to liquid funds, i.e Americans don’t fucking save. The reality is that number has been like this since it was measured first back in the 50s:

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
        https://www.valuepenguin.com/banking/average-savings-account-balance

  3. One thing Cenk is missing about the max-pay suggestion is that its advocates are pushing for a max-ratio, not an absolute number. Some people advocate ratios like 400:1, so if the lowest pay worker is making 25k a year, then the top paid exec can’t make more than 10 million a year. If the company does exceptionally well and the CEO wants more money, he’d have to raise everyone’s pay. What’s happening now is that the exec squeeze money from the workforce, use cheaper materials and build stuff with lower quality (so squeezing the workforce and screwing the consumer), and then use that to parley for high wages or bonuses from the board/shareholders. Its a race to the bottom.

    Switzerland had this as a ballot initiative but it failed because the proposed ratio was 12:1 which was not practical.

    1. Apparently on Uphill, they said TYT was ALSO out. That their AND TYT’s live feed froze.
      Trying to find it somewhere else now.

    2. It stops & starts a lot, but Uphill does catch some of it.
      They do mention that TYT, who is sponsoring this, can’t even get the stream right!

      Tell me TYT, exactly WHAT did the $20 million buy you?
      Not reporters.
      Not better infrastructure.
      Not more Progressive shows.
      Not anything we can see.

      Exactly WHAT?
      Of course, you will be on pay-to-play YouTube TV, so how much did THAT cost?

      1. It bought them the ability to care even less about the actual members and allow them to push an agenda. In which , they can now use this platform more for political gain rather than being a progressive news source.

        Also remember, 2 of the reporters we raised money for got booted and were not replaced. So thats another 500k we raised for nothing.

      2. chetzmom, in a way, we are shareholders. Maybe there should be an accounting for members. If one’s business model is membership funding and progressive ideas, then there needs to be more transparency for the members.

      3. There are many ways to spend $20 million not least giving your employees a raise (which is ironically what this town hall is all about) and upgrading the infrastructure. The MS Office software package alone for the entire company of 100 PCs costs a fortune to renew every year let alone increasing the bandwidth, buying $100k cameras and proprietary Video editing software.

        Plus there are partners who are bigger than TYT in this town hall and have much more tech savvy teams and still they couldn’t prevent the technical issues and take it from someone who worked with a lot of video-conferences over the years, problems happen, a lot.

  7. If things keep going this way for too much longer, there will be no one left to buy the products these companies are producing. Buying back your own stocks is not sustainable, but these sociopaths just don’t give a shit. Less and less people are able to travel, buy new clothes, buy toys for their kids, go to amusement parks, movies or even out to dinner. We are a failing society and one of the most volatile countries in the world right now. We’re getting dangerously close to a “nothing to lose” situation and when that happens, no amount of money will stop that tidal wave.

Leave a Comment