Rep. Sherman (D-CA) vs. CNBC's Mark Haines

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - Since the federal gov't now mandates a 'minimum wage,' then they should look at capping the 'maximum' wage.Ben and Jerry's started out that way. For about 20 years their CEOs were paid no more than 10 times the annual salary of their hightest paid production worker. B&J's was one of the fastest-growing companies during that time, and they always attracted great talent because of their awesome brand and their committment to 'social responsibility.' But, unfortunately, UniLever owns them now.

filipeflower Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - What do you mean by "right wing"?

WadeBlazingame34 Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - Mark Haines is a bag of loose stool.

Maziyar Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - i dont know why people are tripping. Everything obama is doing is necessary. there needs to be regulation so business wont go out of control. Its not like he's limiting all aspects of business just the ones that are prone to abuse. Get your head out of rush limbaughs ass and realize what the fuck reality is.

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - The minimum wage creates inflationary pressure (increases the prices of goods), drives a wedge between supply and demand (thus pricing out potential employees), causes an increase in unemployment, and hurts the poor the most - to name just a few of the negatives. So, by your logic, since the government engages in one unsound, special interest practice, they should continue to expand the breadth of economically-backward policy decisions they make? Since I drink anyway, I might as well smoke too!

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - kkanya" "The minimum wage...causes an increase in unemployment, and hurts poor people the most"You claim joblessness will rise when min. wages are increased, but we don't see that in cases where the wage is increased. Look at Vermont, for example. It has one of the highest min. wages in USA. It's close to $8! Most jobs pay higher than that anyway, so it didn't really effect any employers.B&J's was one of the fastest-growing businesses in USA for many years despite their max-wage cap.

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - Henry Hazlitt: "The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a 40-hr week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn...in brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment."

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - I've seen the B&G example thrown around a lot in the past, but the truth is that it's irrelevant. If that's what worked for a particular business, so be it. But what they did wasn't mandated, and they were allowed to be creative and malleable in their business model. By increasing gov't regulation and taxation, you decrease dynamism, increase costs, and send jobs overseas. Further, how can a competitive edge be maintained when the most intelligent, productive entities of society are discouraged?

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - kkanya "for a low wage you substitute unemployment." Again, no example of the case you are making. Sure, it's a sound theory, but it isn't realised in the real world.My original point was to advocate for a max wage, and I showed an example of a successful company which capped it's max wage, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. They were hugely successful, and attracted great talent specifically because of their "social responsibility" ethic. But they sold out, and their branding has gone to shit.

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - KKanya: "increasing gov't regulation...increase costs, and send jobs overseas"A maximum wage cap would send jobs overseas? You're making blanket statements which are theory-based and lack the precise 'dynamism' which you seem to seek to promote. The most intelligent people in our society are not all in business. Many are in the academie, some are in government jobs, and some wait tables and bartend and do other service-related jobs because the world doesn't value real intelligence.

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - Yes, in a competitive global market, if the price is not right, the jobs will go overseas - this is part of the market "dynamic". If a CEO's pay is capped by the gov't at 500k with stock options (or whatever), but another country (i.e. China) lacks those regulations and a rival company offers him a greater amount (assuming everything else is in line), he will take the job. To use a technical term - Duh! And I have no idea where you were headed with that last diatribe.

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - kkanya: "By increasing gov't regulation...you decrease dynamism"Actually, the inverse can be reasonably argued. For example, I could say that increasing regulation would actually cause enterprise to become MORE innovative and creative with problem-solving.

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - The quote provided an example, maybe you should read the entire chapter on the min. wage? I understand your original point, and I repudiated it. B&G did whatever the hell they wanted to do, and through paying for Competent Employees they were able to achieve a profit. Maybe the social resp. lured these people into the job; maybe it allowed them to be paid less; maybe it even made them happier - fine! But the point still remains that this was done of their own volition, not by gov't edict.

kkanya Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - And what would you accomplish? The difference is that I use dynamism in a positive manner, not in the sense that businesses will become more dynamic through trying to escape the multitude of shackles placed upon them. Companies moving elsewhere embody this concept. If you would like an example within our borders, take a look at the Rust Belt of the U.S.: Anemic growth, high unemployment, and contempt for the law through the use of eminent domain just to keep factories in the area! (i.e Poletown)

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - Lot's of production goes overseas because of lax environmental standards. Should we lower our environmental standards to compete with China?

moregravyplease Says:

Mar 23, 2009 - kkanya: "And what would you accomplish"If wage caps were tied as a ratio to the pay of the lowest-paid workers, then you have incentives for ALL employees to acheive higher production. You would also improve the relations between management and labor, and labor would certainly feel a much more valued asset to the company.

BBB4and7 Says:

Mar 24, 2009 - How did this Putz Sherman ever get elected.

18bites Says:

Mar 25, 2009 - i don't understand why people like you get riled up when there is a mention of a hypothetical step the gov't could take for the sake of democracy in this case but have no problem with the way the gov't uses our tax dollars which is for real. it's our money. why can't they spend it to improve our lives with our input instead of doling it out to their friends in the corporate world.

Paolo7219 Says:

Mar 26, 2009 - I get the impression that the CNBC guy--when he is not on the air--is licking the boots of AIG execs and their kind. How ANYONE can defend these Wall Street bankers is absolutely beyond me. yet this is the drivel we get from our on air moderators. Yech.

111WLee Says:

Sep 21, 2010 - "THE ANCHORS AT CNBC ARE ILLEGALLY MONITORING MY PERSONAL LIFEI AM NOT CRAZY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN UFOs OR CONSPIRACY THEORIES THIS IS TRULY HAPPENING TO ME. I AM SEEKING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST EVERYONE FOUND GUILTY OF ILLEGALLY MONITORING MY PERSONAL EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.I'M NOT A FAMOUS OR PUBLIC PERSON. I HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM I'VE CALLED THEIR LEGAL STAFF AND THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED AND CIRCUMVENTED AFTER INFORMING ME OF AN "Internal investigation"

teatown Says:

Sep 28, 2010 - Haines blamed Bush and Paulsen for all of our problems today...SEP 28, 2010!!!!This boot-licker needs to go back to the bar and get a cocktail. I am done with CNBC thanks to this sap-sucker. How GE can keep this putz on air is beyond me. Bloomberg and Fox are now gettting my eyes....

coleyman1 Says:

Oct 23, 2010 - What the hedge fund managers and bank CEO's make is not the problem. The problem is, them knowing that if they fail the government will bail them out of their mistakes. Obama and his democrats, as well as the republicans, take big money from the Wall Street bankers and market managers. They just talk this crap to make the "common folks at home" think they are taking care of business!! Just a bunch of crooks!! All of them!! Let's get them out of there and get some "common folks" in!!

thaibu Says:

May 25, 2011 - Heard Haines just died. He will be missed.

tk291100 Says:

May 25, 2011 - Mark Haines R.I.P 

rdrakken Says:

Jul 12, 2011 - Actually if you place them into context, both of them were right.Haines made the point that if there was receivership it would have caused systemic problems which it would have because if the government could have stepped in it would have placed all of that banks financial responsibilities in their lap...thus the tax payers lap.Sherman pointed out the takeover would have been as a stop gap after the fact.So, both were right.