A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer

Further Discussion @ http://www.politicalyak.com/f13/nick-...

A talk on Income Inequality and the differences in taxation given by Nick Hanauer at a TED conference.
Make sure you visit our website @ - http://www.politicalyak.com -!
Make sure you like us on facebook - http://www.facebook.com/PoliticalYAK -!
& finally follow our somewhat awesome tweets - http://www.twitter.com/politicalyak -!

Enjoy!

• Category

  News & Politics

[Jason J]

What happens when the rich take all of the money (given how insanely rich they have gotten over the last 30 years, thats not unlikely). Are those rich people going to come down and buy your products from your shop? Are they gonna willingly pay for the roads in front of your shop to be repaired? Their Swiss bank accounts say otherwise. They want it for themselves, its just basic human greed and people like you are simple minded to see it.

[GreenPartyNow]

He didn't say businesses "hate hiring people", nor did he imply it. He was stating the FACT that hiring more people, if the demand is not there, is impossible- which is economics 101. Nobody "got rich" by hiring more workers, especially when the public can't afford to buy the product. He's trying to point out how ridiculous it is to hand over money to the rich- especially when a policy adhered to for over 30 years has FAILED. We're richer, yes- but only when talking about those at the top.

[Yulan Lawson]

Very cool.



[GreenPartyNow]

What does he say that's "communist"?

[57worldwide]

Not growing the business =/= going out of business. Your entire counter argument is flawed and based on something that isn't easily implied by what was explicitly stated.

It's a last resort because they won't hire more workers (which would be middle class workers, possibly lower middle class, given the context of the position presented by Hanauer) unless they cannot afford not to (in the pursuit of increasing profits). Your companies-bidding-for-speciali­st hypothetical is a misrepresentation.

[EGarrett01]

You still don't get it. The second person they hire does NOT create profits in a similar way to the first one. That's why they tried to acquire the first one. The company WANTS to hire the first person because of what he has to offer. That's very common. And it won't put them out of business if they don't. And when you WANT to do something for the benefits, and won't die fi you don't...that's not a LAST resort. I'm glad we could establish this, but too bad that it took you this long.

[57worldwide]

And then they offered money to the guy that they ended up hiring. You know, because not hiring someone that can increase profits in a similar way that their first choice would have, would be not adding an asset to the business to make up for not adding an asset to the business.

You're misrepresenting reality -- they only hire him if they need him, and don't hire him TO create jobs. Job creation comes from growing the business, which needs people to buy the product first.

[EGarrett01]

I'm helping YOU understand something, you fucking dumb shithead.

Now that you've acknowledged that both employees are NOT equal, do you now realize that that means that the company offered more to the first person because they WANTED him?

[57worldwide]

How the FUCK can paying more for person that would be a bigger asset mean they are both equal?

Are you retarded?

[EGarrett01]

No no no. They are not EQUAL. They wanted the FIRST guy more than the second. Yes or no?

[57worldwide]

They want the second guy as well (which is why he gets hired if they can't get the first guy), but the first guy is a bigger asset, hence paying more to get them working for you, as that is also preventing him from being the bigger asset for your competition (ie, reducing their ability to compete with you).

Just like the SWAT team isn't going to stop buying guns just because they can't afford to pay for everyone to get the most accurate, reliable, easily serviced guns. You fuckwit.