29 Jan 2014

Peter Schiff on The Daily Show

Economics 83 Comments

On Facebook, I see libertarians are blasting Schiff for walking into an obvious trap. Give me a break, kids: If Samantha Bee wants to interview me tomorrow about private defense agencies, I’m saying “yes.” You don’t turn down the Daily Show.

83 Responses to “Peter Schiff on The Daily Show”

  1. Bogart says:

    It is easy to criticize a dude on the hot seat. To get that 4 min piece they probably took an hour of video at least. But the Today Show is probably more fair and does not edit as much as a network news broadcast.

    I am glad they did not interview me. I would have said that raising the minimum wage makes every one of these people worse off as they are inviting competition for a position the they have already agreed to at the lower wage. And of course those protesting would disagree. I would have also pointed out that aggregate effects are not relevant. The relevant issue is what is happening to marginal workers. Furthermore, it is just a weird form of gambling by these workers that they will be in the subset of those better off after the increase. Would I be better off if my company increased my pay by 30%. Would I still have a job? Would others take that job from me?

    The only item that I am critical about Peter for is that he did not point out that a college degree may not be that valuable and maybe the only work for people with degrees is working at a minimum wage job.

    • Chris P says:

      Schiff said it was 3 hours.

      • Chris P says:

        Actually Stewart was not there. I was interviewed by Samantha Bee. They took over three hours of raw footage. Plenty of content to edit down to a three minute hit piece to make me look as heartless as possible.
        It would be great if we can all contact the daily show and ask them to post the three plus hours of unedited footage they took. It really was some of my best stuff. I really clobbered all of Samantha’s arguments. She was very frustrated. I’m pretty sure i convinced everyone else in the room that the minimum wage should be abolished.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I’m sure he was under the impression it would have been turned into a six-part Peter Schiff special.

        • phil gianikos says:

          Petty Peter, the Pied Piper of Propserity Economics 101.
          Isn’t life grand at 30,000 feet aboive reality: “You’re worth what you’re worth”. You’re so very precious, but you already know that! Please publish the amount you contribute to charitable causes? Let me guess: 0.00!

          • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

            I must have missed when economic concepts were either accepted or rejected based on the charitable giving of those advocating them.

            • icarus_pg says:

              Good point, I was suffering a seizure! Charitable giving is not relevant to minimum wage issue.

              I missed where econominc theories are deemed fact!
              Many prominent economists offer sound theories supporting the view that a nominal bump in minimum wage stimulates growth and spending. The lowest-wage earners (80% of which are adults) have families and also aspire to live a dignified existence, e.g., put a roof over their heads, food on the table, clothes on their kid’s backs, and, when needed buy basic medicines. We’re not talking discretionary spending!

              A minimal increase is not a hand-out; it’s an acknowldgement and reward for their vital hard-work and contribtuions to our economic system and society at large.

              I’d like to bring Walmart and McDoanld’s into the argument, but let’s not mix apple and oranges.

              Peter paints a picture whereby a $1 or $2 raise, would have catastrophic impact on our economy. I’d love to see a mathematical model suporting this prognostication.

              Peter is entitled to his smug, callous statements; particulary offensive: His classic line: ‘retarded people’ or whatever we call them these days (paraphrase), is indefensible! Arrogant, hurtful statements of this order are best whispered behind closed doors.

              Comedy central is presented in jest. I would like to give Peter the benefit of the doubt; however, he is neither fun nor funny, nor the savant he portrays himself to be.

              My dear, Peter, a little compassion, civility, and common sense, goes a long way … even when applied to dismal science, i.e., economics.

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                “The lowest-wage earners have families ”

                Okay. So why are people with no skills and no ability to produce income having children? Seems pretty irresponsible to bring a child into this world. Oh that’s right! Liberals think everyone has a right to have whatever number of children they end up having.. and of course… they are entitled to this regardless of age.

                “A minimal increase is not a hand-out; it’s an acknowldgement and reward for their vital hard-work and contribtuions to our economic system and society at large. ”
                I got a 10 percent raise last year. And when I worked fast food as a skill-less young feller, I got raises and PROMOTIONS, go figure.

                “Peter paints a picture whereby a $1 or $2 raise, would have catastrophic impact on our economy.”
                It is bad, but it won’t cause an apocalypse.

                “My dear, Peter, a little compassion, civility, and common sense, goes a long way”
                Common sense? So rewarding bad behavior increases or decreases the incentive to commit bad behavior?

                You tell me.

              • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

                Indeed. Like the guy in the video who says he has to support his five brothers or whatever.

                We really think it’s reasonable that a minimum wage job DESIGNED for low-skilled teenagers should be enough to support five people?

              • Giovanni P says:

                “minimum wage job DESIGNED for low-skilled teenagers”

                Here in Brazil fast-foods are normal jobs. Old people, householders and people with lots of kids work there and get paid a minimum wage like they would work on a lot of other normal jobs which also pay the minimum wage.

          • Cosmo Kramer says:

            He does donate to charity. I guess that makes you what then?

  2. Daniel Kuehn says:

    One of the interesting things is that that whole issue with $2 wages for people with disabilities is already something that happens. Employers can get exemptions from the minimum wage for disabilities that keep people from being fully productive.

    A lot of people like to blast people who either support the minimum wage or think it doesn’t have discernible employment effects as forgetting that demand curves slope down…. now we can cite the Daily Show diagram at about 2:40 to prove that they really DON’T slope down!

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Phenomenal catch Daniel. I hope you know I just emailed that to my man at Team Schiff.

    • Joe says:

      The fact that he was not aware of the subminimum wage for people with disabilities and for teens during their first 3 months of employment shows he does not know anything about the minimum wage laws.

      Would be good to see this taken into consideration by “experts” who argue raising the minimum wage will hurt teenagers.

      Would also be interesting to see whether raising the minimum wage leads to greater demand for workers who qualify for the subminimum wage.

      Subminimum Wage
      http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/subminimumwage.htm

      • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

        The “subminimum” wage is still in fact a minimum wage though, so the same sort of economic reasoning applies. It’s just a minor dispute over the specific numbers, which isn’t really the point…

      • Bharat says:

        Joe, how do you know he’s unaware of that? It seems like you’re assuming. Making a conjecture from a 5 minute clip is certainly not a “fact.”

        Secondly, it is only 3 months; as such, increases in the minimum wage still hurt teens. (Matt’s point is also relevant here)

      • Dyspeptic says:

        “The fact that he was not aware of the subminimum wage for people with disabilities and for teens during their first 3 months of employment shows he does not know anything about the minimum wage laws.”

        So your position is that since Schiff may not know everything about minimum wage laws he must therefore know nothing about them. This is both silly hyperbole and bad logic.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          You made a spelling error, therefore you have to abandon your entire worldview.

    • khodge says:

      I find it more interesting that she interviews struggling older workers outside of an urban McDonalds where there probably are not many jobs available while the inside shot (about the 4 min mark) has teenage workers learning how to be employees.

  3. Gamble says:

    At 4 minute the lady does point out Walmart purposely hires people who qualify for welfare, pays them just enough and gives them the paperwork to fill out.

    So that problem is about welfare and Walmart, not the minimum wage.

    I wonder what profits would really be for Walmart and other retailers if there was no welfare and no crop floor and no other intervention.

    Walmart probably checks USDA before they make their annual projections.

    Instead Ms. Walton has a terrific art museum. http://crystalbridges.org/

  4. Ken B says:

    This is hilarious. Not the video, it’s lame, full of cheap shots, set ups, crap. No, what’s hilarious is seeing the reactions here . The Daily Show has always been exactly like this: unfair unreliable buffoonish bullshit to make its audience feel smugly superior, taken seriously by idiots only. But now that it’s the Libertarian ox that’s gored …

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      Wasn’t there a leaked memo a few years back from one of the political parties (can’t remember which, but it doesn’t really matter) instructing their members of Congress NOT to go on Stewart/Colbert because they would be made fools of, thus hurting the party’s re-election chances nationwide?

      In any case, Schiff isn’t stupid. He knew they were going to do this. He’s an intentional provocateur, and I applaud him for it! I know the reaction the Daily Show is going for here is for its audience to think: “How could anyone be so dumb or evil as to oppose the minimum wage?” But Schiff’s goal is to get even a handful of watchers to think of it as “How COULD anyone be so dumb or evil as to oppose the minimum wage?” and actually research the reasons for opposition and maybe see the merit in them. It’s a very small fraction of viewers that might do this, but still probably worth his time, and he’s certainly not afraid of being mocked by those who dismiss such ideas…

      • Ken B says:

        The memo is interesting. But my point is simple. Bob and the regulars usually applaud Stewart or Colbert when they attack someone Bob attacks. The chemtrail lady included Colbert video. And never have I seen a defense of the victim. Maybe I missed the post where Bob exposed how unfair Stewart was to Bush.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Ken B wrote:

      This is hilarious. Not the video, it’s lame, full of cheap shots, set ups, crap. No, what’s hilarious is seeing the reactions here .

      And by “here” you mean, “Not on Free Advice” Ken? Because not a single person in the comments, or the OP, has flipped out about this.

      And on FB, nobody was criticizing the Daily Show. They were criticzing Peter Schiff for allowing DS to do what it always does in these interviews.

      So… your knee-jerk criticism of libertarians is 100% wrong.

      Here’s a way to get my point across: Picture in your mind, Ken, your model of how I treat Krugman. That’s exactly how you treat libertarians.

      • Ken B says:

        ” They were criticzing Peter Schiff for allowing DS to do what it always does in these interviews.”
        I rest my case. Because when John Stewart or this lady are making your opponents look bad I never saw a single peep about what unfair slanted crap it was. Quite the reverse. Like I said, whose ox.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          No Ken, this doesn’t work at all.

          • Ken B says:

            http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/09/jon-stewart-is-how-i-honestly-get-my-news-at-this-point.html

            Doesn’t sound like a man much concerned with Stewart’s tactics, does it?

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              Ken,

              I think there’s a bit of a difference between Stewart’s commentary of the news of the day, and his “interview segments.”

              I see where you’re coming from on this, but I see where Bob is coming from too. If Stewart mocks a prominent politician based on an interview he gave somewhere else, that’s probably fair game. But his in-house interviews are specifically designed and edited in order to make his guests look foolish/stupid/corrupt/etc. You can like the former without necessarily approving of the latter.

              • Ken B says:

                That’s a fair distinction Matt, but I can’t recall Bob ever making it, and leaping to the defence of any neocon so treated.

                I’m not averse to mockery –does it show? — I just think one needs to have a little perspective here. Live by the sneaky edit died by the sneaky edit.

  5. Bob Roddis says:

    Jon’s brother, Lawrence Leibowitz has been chief operating officer of NYSE Euronext, Inc. (NYSE parent company) since 2010.

    Compensation for 2011

    Salary $750,000
    Bonus $1,200,000
    Restricted stock awards $2,250,003
    All other compensation $383,382
    Total Compensation $4,583,385

    http://www.forbes.com/profile/lawrence-leibowitz/

  6. AndrewB says:

    What’s the free market opinion of Peter’s claim that raising the minimum wage will have an inflationary effect in that industry? If McDonald’s could have earned more money raising the price of a hamburger why are they waiting for an increase in the minimum wage to do so?

    Secondarily it is a pretty dumb first point to make even if it is true. You think telling The Daily Show viewers that trading more expensive hamburgers for poor people being able to pay rent isn’t a tradeoff they would take every time.

    Also I remember a piece on this blog analyzing the argument that all the welfare programs “subsidize” the low wages of big employers. I think you made a good point that the availability of welfare makes people less willing to accept a low wage.

    • Gamble says:

      The competition will have to pay higher minimum wage, so they will all increase prices simultaneously.

      Everything will cost more, so even the minimum wage people don’t have much more purchasing power when things settle.

      Congress is a ruse…

    • Joe says:

      A simple price hike to pay for a change in the law is not inflation. Inflation refers to compounded growth in prices. If prices go up 1% in January and then stay there for years until the minimum wage is raised again, that is not called inflation.

      So far as higher minimum wage causing inflation, in 2012 there were 1.5 million paid at the minimum wage. The employment level was 143 million. So you’re talking about 1% of the workforce. It’s ridiculous to suggest 1.5 million getting a $2 pay raise is going to impact the rate of inflation. The minimum wage has been raised many times. It should be easy for Schiff to support his claim if it was true.

      http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm

      • AndrewB says:

        Joe: I was referencing Peter’s claim about hamburgers being higher priced, hence “inflationary effect in that industry”. My second statement also clearly shows I’m dubious of that argument.

        Gamble: I don’t think it’s obvious that the fact that McDonald’s competition is also subject to a new higher minimum wage means they can now increase revenues by increasing prices. Customers don’t care what a hamburger costs to make when they’re driving past a McDonald’s, before or after a minimum wage hike.

      • Gamble says:

        Yes but business owners want the same profit margin. So they raise prices more than the actual price of labor increase. Then other business raise prices. Then other employees, at other business demand higher wages. So your methodology of dollar for dollar for dollar does not work out in the real world.

        How do you know what inflation is, anyways? The monetary base graph looks like a rocket.

    • martinK says:

      AndrewB,

      If McDonald’s could have earned more money raising the price of a hamburger why are they waiting for an increase in the minimum wage to do so?

      Suppose McDonald’s makes 50 cents profit on a burger and sells 10 million burgers a day. They make 5 million dollar a day.

      Further suppose that by raising the price of a burger by 10 cents they will sell 25% less burgers. If they raised the price by 10 cents they would make 4.5 million dollar a day, so they wouldn’t do that.

      Now let’s say the cost per burger is 30 cents higher because of the higher minimum wage. If they keep the price of the burger the same they will make 2 million a day. But if they raise the price of a burger by 10 cents they will make 2.25 million a day.

      So in this case it’s profitable to raise the price.

      • AndrewB says:

        I see it now, thank you.
        So is this another legitimate point against the minimum wage we should be making? If indeed prices will rise and profits will fall in the very industries minimum wage earners work and typically consume, it seems to be a very good point against it. Can BM or MF weigh in on this?

    • Rob says:

      The reason McDonalds would raise the price of their burgers is to cover the cost of the wage increase, so they could maintain their profits. Obviously they would prefer the price to stay what it is now. The alternative would be to reduce cost somewhere like hiring fewer workers or using cheaper materials. People bizarrely assume Mcdonalds would just eat the cost rather than pass it on to consumers.

      I can tell you for sure Daily Show viewers wouldn’t pay that cost because they aren’t doing it now. They could easily pay extra when they go to buy a burger but they don’t, because despite their claims of wanting to help poor workers they want the bill for that to go to someone else.

      • Ryan says:

        “People bizarrely assume Mcdonalds would just eat the cost rather than pass it on to consumers.”

        They HAVE to eat the cost, it isn’t even theoretically possible for them to pass the cost on to consumers.

        “Consider: all prices are determined by the interaction of supply, the stock of goods available to be sold, and by the demand schedule for that good. If the government levies a general 20 percent tax on all retail sales, it is true that retailers will now incur an additional 20 percent cost on all sales. But how can they raise prices to cover these costs? Prices, at all times, tend to be set at the maximum net revenue point for each seller. If the sellers can simply pass the 20 percent increase in costs onto the consumers, why did they have to wait until a sales tax to raise prices? Prices are already at highest net income levels for each firm. Any increase in cost, therefore, will have to be absorbed by the firm; it cannot be passed forward to the consumers. Put another way, the levy of a sales tax has not changed the stock already available to the consumers; that stock has already been produced. Demand curves have not changed, and there is no reason for them to do so. Since supply and demand have not changed, neither will price.” http://mises.org/daily/1768

        • martinK says:
          • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

            martin,

            I think your post above doesn’t really contradict Rothbard at all.

            In your scenario, McDonalds was essentially forced, due to government interference in the labor market, to choose between leaving its price where it was (and selling burgers at a loss), or raising it, in which case they sell fewer burgers, and make substantially lower profits than they did before.

            To a certain extent, yes, those who continue to buy burgers are paying more than they did previously, but let’s not forget that McDonalds is making significantly less profit. The new cost of the minimum wage is largely borne by them. I believe when most people claim “they pass the cost on to the consumer” they imply 100%, that the company doesn’t suffer at all, when this is obviously not the case.

            • martinK says:

              I think your post above doesn’t really contradict Rothbard at all.

              Yes it does. Rothbard says prices will not change: “Since supply and demand have not changed, neither will price.”

              leaving its price where it was (and selling burgers at a loss)

              Not at a loss, but at substantially less profit.

              The new cost of the minimum wage is largely borne by them.

              Yes, no disagreement here.

              I believe when most people claim “they pass the cost on to the consumer” they imply 100%, that the company doesn’t suffer at all

              Yes, that’s probably what they mean by that, and in almost all cases that will be wrong, because if the companies could do that, they would have raised the price earlier. (Except if it was possible but the company didn’t know that. Say McDonald’s raises the price 30 cents, expecting a drop in sales but still more profit then when the price stays the same or is raised only 10 cents, and it turns out the drop in sales doesn’t happen.)

        • AcePL says:

          “They HAVE to eat the cost, it isn’t even theoretically possible for them to pass the cost on to consumers.”

          Business NEVER EVER EVER eats any costs. EVERYTHING is ultimately paid by the consumer.
          Price of good comprises of costs and profit. EVERY tax, charge or fee is a cost and is included in the price.
          It has to be so because business is not a charity but a profitable enterprise. If forced to “eat tax” it will either raise prices anyway by some other means or will close business.

  7. Gamble says:

    I don’t like how the lady made it seem like Schiff said *uck the poor, just because he was not for minimum wage.

    7 bucks or 10 bucks, you are still really poor assuming you accept no welfare and no tax credits.

    So minimum wage does not have a lot to do with poor other than it may be making more people more poor because it is so darn low and kills so many jobs. ON the whole. Schiff and libertarians are doing more for the poor than minimum wage ever has, can or will.

    So the entire context and premise of the interview is false.

  8. Dan says:

    How can raising the minimum wage NOT help fast food workers? Basic economics says that employers pass increased labor costs to consumers in the long run. Now, I’d venture to guess that ~30% of McDonald’s and Walmart customers are middle class. So, minimum wage workers get 100% of the increase in wages, while the increased product costs are 30% subsidized by the middle class.

    Sounds like healthy redistribution to me.

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      “Basic economics says that employers pass increased labor costs to consumers in the long run.”

      No it doesn’t. Employers cannot simply “pass on” increased costs through increased prices. If they could, they’d have already increased their prices. Read Rothbard.

      • Ken B says:

        No need to punish the man. He could read any economics book. Be kind: recommend Sowell.

    • Gamble says:

      Why should your 30% middle class pay for minimum wage? Why not take it from bureaucrats or the 1% or somebody else?

      Also to suggest minimum wage workers will not realize higher prices in their day to purchases is just plain silly. I guarantee their cost of living will increase, maybe more so than their increased take home.

      Finally, consumers will just stop buying stuff that utilizes a lot of minimum wage workers. The stuff will become over priced and consumers will organize their life’s differently. I already stopped eating all fast food and restaurant food 5 years ago.

      This stuff is all connected and a healthy economy makes 4T decisions per second. To think congress is smarter, is egomaniacal.

    • James says:

      Basic economics says that apart from some special cases, customers will respond to increases in the price of goods by reducing their consumption of those goods.

      If the patrons of fast food restaurants are not price sensitive, then employers can get them to bear higher labor costs as you suggest. But if fast food patrons were not price sensitive, fast food chains could have also raised their profit by raising prices and keeping wages the same. If there is some level of price increase that the fast food chains can expect their customers to tolerate without a change in behavior, don’t you think the management of those chains would have already taken advantage of the opportunity to increase their own incomes?

    • Cosmo Kramer says:

      You have the ability to pay more for your fast food meal, yet choose not to. Is this an accident? Is there a reason you don’t directly subsidize the cashier’s wage? Another oversight on your part?

      • Ken B says:

        As Landsburg points out, there’s an easy way to do your bit when you go to MacDonalds. There’s a tip jar.

        • AcePL says:

          Unless tip is already price included 😉 Then it is “Go f**k yourself jar”.

  9. Jon says:

    The best part about this video has to be the supply and demand-diagram. They literally turned the whole of economics upside down!

  10. konst says:

    Is the whole 3 hour video available? I’d like to see the whole exchange of arguments.

    • Ken B says:

      Unlikely. Unless Schiff was smart enough to stipulate he gets an unedited copy.

  11. Bob Murphy says:

    I offer this to those of you who may be amused by such observations:

    (1) Samantha Bee mocks Peter Schiff.

    (2) I post the video here, because I think it’s entertaining. I also explain that Schiff was right to do the interview, and that I would do the same.

    (3) Ken B. criticizes my hypocrisy, since normally I say how much I enjoy the Daily Show.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      He who casts the thou are a hypocrite stone will tend to attract spitballs.

    • Ken B says:

      3. No Bob, you *admire* it, as long as the unfair hit piece is on your adversaries. That’s clear from the link I gave.

      2. Really? Then why is your only comment to the effect, you have to accept this kind of distortion to get a chance at that big an audience?
      I detect complaint in there. “A libertarian cant get fair treatment we know.”

      Can you cite one time, just one, in the however many years of dreck Stewart has served up where you objected to his contempt for the truth and fairness to a non libertarian? Because otherwise it looks like a whose ox situation.

      • martinK says:

        Then why is your only comment to the effect, you have to accept this kind of distortion to get a chance at that big an audience?
        I detect complaint in there. “A libertarian cant get fair treatment we know.”

        Is that the comment where he says

        Give me a break, kids: If Samantha Bee wants to interview me tomorrow about private defense agencies, I’m saying “yes.”

        Or where he says:

        You don’t turn down the Daily Show.

        ?

        • Gamble says:

          I thought of a joke. Well it made me chuckle.

          “If you are at Samantha Bees House playing poker and you don’t know who the mark is, you are the mark.”

          • Ken B says:

            Right. An awarerness that the DS has no probitive value together with a history of happily treating it as if it did. Until a libertarian ox is gored.

            • Gamble says:

              An interview with John Stewart or Steven Colbert(Colbert show) would have stood a chance(30%?) but when Samantha Bee interviews you, you had better understand what the result will be.

      • Gamble says:

        I was part of statewide campaign to slash taxes, tax government and beef up property rights. I turned down EVERY interview other than 1 radio interview with a man who has been a limited government guy for 50 years.

        Sometimes it is better to put out your own message rather than give them ammo.

        The liberal news media is scum…

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Ken B. wrote:

        I detect complaint in there.

        Wait, so now I have to defend not just the words I actually wrote, but what you “detect” in them?

        Do you want to know what I detect when I read you?

        • Ken B says:

          Well Bob, you “detected” a charge of hypocrisy when all I said was the reactions were hilarious.

    • Bharat says:

      Ken’s clearly right if he’s talking about other libertarians and other libertarian websites. The point of the Daily Show is not education (although often you can get better news on there than the mainstream media), but comedy. The only people libertarians need to seriously reply to, are not Jon Stewart and the rest of his crew (which, for example, Schiff is taking too seriously), but to the viewers of the Daily Show who take the economic “analysis” of the show too seriously. The Daily Show did their only job, which was to make Schiff look like a fool, extremely well.

  12. Gamble says:

    I would tell Timothy Grimes ( Wise intelligent) it is not just black people the overlords do not want. Stop being so racist.

  13. Cosmo Kramer says:

    “We can not survive on the bare minimum.”

    I agree. That is why when I was minimum wage, I lived with my parents. I realized that to move out, I had to get a better job. Or you have to progress within Mcdonalds. There Is simply no reason for a 30-40 year old to be working as a fry cook at minimum wage…… I was offered the shift leader position at the age of 17!!! In my years working fast food, I never once witnessed a 30+ year old come in and progress up the management chain. These people would come, work for 6 months, and then quit.

    If you can’t survive on minimum wage, then don’t make your situation worse by having children, my god….. and why is it so socially unacceptable to live with a family member or friend?

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      I’ll never forget about a year ago I was at the gas station, and the guy pumping my gas (in Oregon, you’re not allowed to pump your own, a minimum-wage stimulus program if there ever was one) was talking to one of his coworkers. It went something like this.

      Pumper: So, the owner offered to make me an “assistant manager.”
      Other guy: Cool man, congratulations.
      Pumper: They must think I’m stupid or something. It doesn’t pay any more, it’s just more responsibility.
      Other guy: Oh, that sucks.
      Pumper: Yeah, I told them to f*** off, I’m not a sucker. I’m not doing any more work for free!

      It probably goes without saying that the pumper was probably in his late 30s, and the other guy was much younger, early 20s maybe. With that kind of attitude, I’m assuming the pumper is still making minimum wage at the same gas station, or somewhere even worse…

      • Cosmo Kramer says:

        Responsibility is worth a sizable pay increase. It is no wonder that there is so much demand for entry level fast food(or gas pumper) work. When you are off, you are off. All you have to do is launder your clothes and show up on time.

        My employment literally required the same qualifications as a fast food job. Yet, as mentioned above, I make multiples of the minimum wage.

        If you don’t want to be poor, you have to meet the requirements of jobs that pay higher. It is very easy. This is why I get upset at these people. I’ve been poor. I’ve been unemployed. I’ve had to make the hardest transition that exists; military to civilian.

        No one is going to do it for you and a minimum wage hike does nothing to bridge the gap to meaningful employment. To bridge that gap requires dedication. It entails exceeding standards, not just being present.

        • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

          “Responsibility is worth a sizable pay increase. ”

          Indeed, but this guy was in no position to be dictating terms. He was offered a chance to prove he could do more than pump gas, and turned it down. And if all he really wants to do is pump gas, then that’s fine. But a lot of times, these are the same people who complain that they can’t get a “decent” job “because of the economy.”

          Like the guy in the Daily Show video who has the Bachelor’s degree and works at McDonalds. He says “this is the only job I could find because of the economy.” Well that’s interesting, because I have a Bachelor’s degree, and I found a better/higher paying job, yet I exist in the same economy he does. How is that possible?

          • Cosmo Kramer says:

            “Well that’s interesting, because I have a Bachelor’s degree, and I found a better/higher paying job, yet I exist in the same economy he does. How is that possible?”

            You don’t exist. This conversation never took place. It isn’t his fault that you are better than him. It isn’t his fault that you try harder.

  14. zg7666 says:

    OH, this is the show where they end up humiliating them self’s for broadcasting graph that gets you a failing grade in Econ 101 (an upwards sloping demand curve)!

  15. Geoff says:

    I am pretty sure that even if I supported the minimum wage or didn’t care about it, I still would not have found this piece to be the least bit funny. The lady doing the interview for the Daily Show seemed desperate and pathetic. Her acting was bad and some of the things she said didn’t make much sense or were not on point. She was trying to imitate Colbert and she did a good job of it at times. Jon Stewart is actually too good to have this lady on his show. He is actually funny.

  16. zg7666 says:

    Posted by Peter Schiff on 02/01/2014 at 11:21 AM

    After watching “The Daily Show” segment for the first time since it aired, I realized it was an even bigger hit job than I first realized. Jon Stewart’s staff constructed my sentence like Dr. Frankenstein pieced together his monster.

    The segment shows Samantha Bee asking a question or making a statement, but then uses my answer or reaction to a completely different question from an entirely different part of the conversation.

    In fact, my comment about people being “worth what they are worth” was not said in reference to the intellectually disabled. I told Samantha Bee something to the effect of, “If an individual can only deliver $5 per hour of productivity to an employer, but the government mandates a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, an employer would be legally prohibited from hiring that worker. The government cannot force employers to pay workers more than they are worth — YOU ARE WORTH WHAT YOU ARE WORTH — and the only way a worker can earn more money is to increase his value to employers.”

    “The Daily Show” shot close to four hours of footage. During that time I believe I did an excellent job of exposing the minimum wage as perhaps the single most economically destructive law on the books, particularly as it relates to inner city youth. However, instead of accurately presenting my thoughts, “The Daily Show” merely parsed though those four hours of footage to piece together a meticulously edited segment that would portray me in the worst possible light. The finished product in no way resembled the discussion that actually took place. In one case, fragments from several unrelated sentences were pieced together to form what seemed to be a continuous statement that I never actually spoke. Statements, made hours apart, were juxtaposed to create the false impression that they were related.

    On the other hand, the segment with Barry Ritholtz, my supposed opponent in this “debate,” was rehearse and scripted. Rilholtz knew the questions in advance, had time to prepare his answers, and was even given several takes to deliver his lines to Hollywood perfection. In fact, it was Ritholtz who suggested “The Daily Show” book me as his mock opponent after having seen my Wal-Mart video. He didn’t like that video, and saw this as an opportunity to help discredit me for having made it.

    To persuade me to agree to do this interview in the first place, “The Daily Show” assured me that my views would be given a fair representation – that nothing would be taken out of context, or pieced together out of sequence. I was repeatedly assured, both prior to and during the interview, that they had absolutely no intention of making me look bad.

    We now know that they were lying the entire time.

    What bothers me more than “The Daily Show,” which of course is a comedy show, is the reaction in the news media to their segment. Even a local CBS affiliate here in Connecticut quoted the fabricated sentence pieced together by “The Daily Show,” as if I had actually spoken it myself. Not a single news or political web site that covered the segment — and there were dozens — bothered to call me to verify the accuracy of what was presented. They portrayed that comedy skit as if it were legitimate news, and my “debate” with Ritholtz as if it had been fair and balanced. They assumed “The Daily Show” did not alter my words, omit any of my thoughts, or otherwise edit the segment with the specific intent of changing the meaning of my comments.

    “The Daily Show”’s double standard needs to end. It is either pure comedy, with no actual relevance to legitimate political discourse, or it is news — it can’t be both.

Leave a Reply to Daniel Kuehn

Cancel Reply