General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWAPO: Fact checks AOC statements on living and minimum wage
The Facts:
We are going to break down her statement into parts.
“I think it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn’t make a living wage.”
The question is whether a “vast majority” of American workers do not make a living wage, as Ocasio-Cortez claims. The answer is not easily found.
The living wage is not really a measure of income but of living costs, before taxes, such as food, child care, housing, transportation and other basic necessities; it does not include meals in restaurants, entertainment or vacations. It is often misreported as an income figure, but it cannot be easily compared to income such as a minimum wage — even though it is.
There are several versions of the Living Wage calculator, which all focus on the costs in a particular locality. There are wide variations, and so a nationwide average does not really capture that.
.......................................................
“I think it’s wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids.”
Ocasio-Cortez is on the mark — and even undersold the number. “A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 135 hours per week, nearly the equivalent of working 24 hours per day for 6 days, to earn a living wage,” according to the MIT calculator.
"I think it’s wrong that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid by the government, essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage.”
Here’s where Ocasio-Cortez starts to go off. Both Walmart and Amazon do pay more than the minimum wage. (Disclosure: Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, owns The Washington Post.)
As of Nov. 1, Amazon pays at least $15 an hour to its hourly workers — even more in other places — and, in fact, supports efforts to raise the minimum wage. When Amazon made the announcement that it was raising wages, it even earned kudos from a longtime critic, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
......................................................
The Pinocchio Test
Ocasio-Cortez deserves credit for using her high profile to bring attention to income inequality. However, she undermines her message when she plays fast and loose with statistics. A lot of Americans do not earn enough for a living wage, but we cannot find evidence that it is the majority. Amazon and Walmart pay well above the minimum wage, contrary to her statement, and it is tendentious to claim those companies get some sort of a wealth transfer from the public when such benefits flow to all low-wage workers in many companies. Overall, she earns Three Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/24/ocasio-cortezs-misfired-facts-living-wage-minimum-wage/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
manor321
(3,344 posts)Link to tweet
If you’re going to be a pedantic bore about her statement, at least don’t be completely wrong about it. She didn’t say “the vast majority of full time workers” and deciding ex post facto that she should have just because Brookings has a study you want to use is ... not ok
Meanwhile, is he joking? What even is this? This is certainly a series of words that were written about Amazon and Walmart, but the idea that any of it is factual is farcical. This is PR and ideology.
“Economic theory generally assumes” is a statement worthy of scrutiny so let’s all be pedantic bores together: economic theory doesn’t assume anything. Economic theorists do. In this case, Kessler linked out to a 2005 paper by a think tank that has -gasp- an ideological agenda
I’m no professional fact checker but if I were Kessler’s editor, I might suggest that he be more specific about his contention that “economic theory” supports his claim, and actually just inform his readers what his source is.
I mean, that would probably require rewriting this sentence to say something like, “According to a 14-year-old paper by an openly anti-labor think tank, Walmart is actually good.” Which might undermine the whole facade that this has anything to do with “facts” in the first place
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Those at WAPO are professional fact checkers.
Calling their findings "bullshit" because one feels protective of someone they fact check really says more about JCW than it does about WAPO.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)why their findings are bullshit the professional status of the "fact checkers" is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I don't hold someone who is a professional fact checker to be as reliable as a team of fact checkers.
They are an authority on fact checking, she, by her own admission is not.
To state that she, who is not as experienced as a team of professional fact checkers is as or more reliable than that team is the "appeal to authority." You want her to be correct, so you give her more credence that's not backed up with experience or expertise.
I read her rebuttal, and don't see it like you do, because I have no overriding emotional response to the WAPO fact check giving three pinnocchios.
Is that clearer?
melman
(7,681 posts)isn't it a good idea to make sure you understand it? Because...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You're welcome.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)doesn't make the fact check more reliable or valid. You seem to think that if they work for WAPO they are infallible I do not. I read the rebuttal and I find the same flaws with the WAPO check as Julia Carrie Wong does, YMMV.
By the way, thank you for the amusing assessment of my emotional state. The arrogance of someone telling you what you think and feel is funny if the arrogant one doesn't have any effect on your life.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)
Not infallible, but far more credible in terms of fact checking than most.
I don't require infallibilty to find a journalist credible.
Nor do I require it, nor believe it possible in politicians...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)her Twitter account is protected? It certainly seems to be visible at this time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is what the rest of the world sees:
Apollyonus
(812 posts)
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)“PPP awards 3 Pinocchios to Glenn Kessler (WaPo) for fact check debacle”
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/24/3p-awards-8-pinocchios-to-glenn-kessler-for-aoc-debacle/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In particular, she and her defenders focused in on Kessler’s link to a 2005 paper by economist Jason Furman which he used to make a point. That paper appeared on a website for the Mackinac Center, which is a free market think tank in Michigan which leans to the right. AOC’s defenders jumped on this arguing it was unfair to cite a paper paid for by a right-leaning think tank which took money from Wal-Mart to defend Wal-Mart. Note, the tweet that AOC was highlighting has been protected as of today, but her tweet reiterating the claim (and mocking Kessler) is still there:
Link to tweet
Kessler argued that the author of the paper had formerly chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, i.e. he’s not a right-winger.
Link to tweet
She then argued that Furman’s Obama admin track record didn’t matter because he could be just another revolving-door lobbyist. Kessler replied with a link to his page on Harvard’s website, pointing out he’s not a lobbyist:
Link to tweet
Last night after the very busy day, Furman himself weighed in and pointed out that a) his paper wasn’t funded by anyone and b) it was actually written for an event hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Link to tweet
Meanwhile, Kessler added a note to his fact-check and pointed out AOC’s false accusations about the paper he linked.
Link to tweet
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426961-wapo-fact-checker-fires-back-at-ocasio-cortez-criticism-over-rating-shes-wrong
AOC jumped on a false claim about a paper cited in a fact-check critical of her. Then she doubled-down suggesting the author might be a revolving-door lobbyist. Then she finally apologized for the insinuation when pressed by someone at the Post. But she’s still claiming victory over Kessler as if none of that mattered.
Interesting that she found this to be so important that she devoted much of Wednesday to it.
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Which is from Matt Bruenig/People's Policy Project.
It's a good article.
Yes I saw the Furman back and forth. The Furman/Walmart stuff is all not relevant to the main point, which is that:
AOC was right and Kessler is wrong.
Some excerpts:
1. (nothing to do with Walmart/Mackinac): Kessler made a bad assumption when he calculated salaries.
1. (nothing to do with Walmart/Mackinac): Kessler was exceptionally pedantic to mischaracterize the point on wage.
But what’s funny here is that Kessler is even arguably wrong to say Amazon pays the statutory minimum wage. The company no doubt pays its statutory employees an amount above the state and federal minimums. But Amazon has a lot of people who work for it in varying ways that are independent contractors and some of them do not make the minimum wage. Most prominently, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk workers do not make the minimum wage. But also some of Amazon’s last-mile delivery drivers work as independent contractors for third-party firms that do not always pay the minimum wage. Amazon logistics contractor XPO seems to get sued for this behavior rather frequently.
So AOC is even right on the most pedantic interpretation of minimum wage.
Etc etc. Article is good.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
She removed the tweet after being shown the reciepts, and then doubled down.
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Yes I saw the Furman back and forth. The Furman/Walmart stuff is all not relevant to the main point, which is that:
AOC was right and Kessler is wrong.
Some excerpts:
1. (nothing to do with Walmart/Mackinac): Kessler made a bad assumption when he calculated salaries.
Kessler’s mistakes go beyond using $16.07 instead of $32.14 though. He also errs in deciding that someone receives a living wage provided they make $16.07 per hour without any regard for how many hours they work. Someone who receives $16.07 per hour or even $32.14 per hour does not make a living wage if they only work 10 hours a week. And of course getting enough hours is a struggle for some people with the rise of just-in-time scheduling practices by employers.
1. (nothing to do with Walmart/Mackinac): Kessler was exceptionally pedantic to mischaracterize the point on wage.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And because if he's right about any of the points he made, then that means that AOC might be wrong about something she said and for many of her admirers, that's not possible, so fact checking is by definition an "attack?" At times it appears that some people believe that to disagree with AOC or find factual discrepancies in her statements is "pendantic" or tantamount to attacking the very ideals of progressive philosophy itself, which is not true. Dualistic/ black-white/ All or Nothing thinking doeson't map well to politicicans, because politicians are human beings.
Here's what is "wrong wrong wrong wrong" with that claim - Kessler does not state nor decide that $16.07 is a "living wage" - quite the opposite. He said that you can't generalize about what rate per hour a living wage is. From the article:
The living wage is not really a measure of income but of living costs, before taxes, such as food, child care, housing, transportation and other basic necessities; it does not include meals in restaurants, entertainment or vacations. It is often misreported as an income figure, but it cannot be easily compared to income such as a minimum wage — even though it is.
There are several versions of the Living Wage calculator, which all focus on the costs in a particular locality. There are wide variations, and so a nationwide average does not really capture that.
"Kessler was exceptionally pedantic to mischaracterize the point on wage."
You seem to have mischaracterized his point on "the wage." You seem to want to equate him pointing out that it's more complex and complicated than blanket statements meant to inspire righteous anger in people are with "nitpicking."
Such objections appear to come from a reflexive, emotional, protective reaction to a journalist pointing out oversimplifications and incorrect usage of terms like "living wage" which has a specific definition in a politician who is making public statements, however inspiring many find those politicians.
That is the job of the free press, for all politicians, not just the ones we don't like. Being fact checked is part of being a public figure - especially a politician. To spend a day in a twitter feud fighting against it isn't productive, especiallly when one responds with tweets that are further fact checked and found to be erroneous.
I certainly hope she and her more fervent fans don't react the same way if she is protrayed on SNL in a way that isn't as flattering as they want.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)is held to a higher credibility standard than the President. I wish she would get her facts straight, but I wish the media would also contrast how a President should know a whole lot more than a freshman in Congress. Especially given all the resources at a President's disposal (not to mention that this particular president is also very rich).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And yes, you can find many, many fact checks on DOTUS on WAPO:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/08/this-president-lies-daily-critics-demand-networks-fact-check-trumps-live-immigration-speech/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/04/fact-checking-trumps-free-wheeling-cabinet-session/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/12/fact-checking-president-trumps-rowdy-powwow-with-pelosi-schumer/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/fact-checking-trump-pelosi-and-schumers-oval-office-showdown/2018/12/12/2eb76f92-be14-4504-bcc1-75d70411b3f4_video.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/23/president-trump-spins-asylum-restrictions-humanitarian-relief/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/its-easy-to-fact-check-trumps-lies-he-tells-the-same-ones-all-the-time/2018/11/15/5effb25c-e874-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claims-on-voter-fraud/2018/11/16/fe557822-e93d-11e8-8449-1ff263609a31_video.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/31/fact-checking-trumps-macho-talk-birthright-citizenship-military-border/
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)sources that fail to hold Trump to the level of freshman Representative. This crap has been going on since he started running for President.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Now anyway.
Yes, during the election there was a false sense that one needed to report on DT and HRC as if they were remotely the same in terms of ethics, smarts and background.
I don't see an issue with Dem reps, especially those who are out there giving interviews and making statements, getting fact checked.
That's going to happen, and if one doesn't want that sort of spotlight on their statements, then they may want to reconsider being in the spotlight so much.
HRC and Obama took the policy of referring media to other more experienced Senators when they first entered the Senate, as not to appear to be pushing a celebrity, rather than a legislator.
It served them both well.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)And when someone is publicly fact-checked and proven wrong, that could have the effect of damaging the entire party. It makes other truthful (but extraordinary) claims come into question. People will doubt EVERYTHING that Democrats say. I'll be interested in hearing if the Justice Democrats group has any comments about this.
All I'm trying to say is that being factual and accurate is just as important as being honest and truthful.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)Walmart pays less than it takes to live. The difference comes from public assistance. Walmart should pay enough that no public assistance is needed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)
So wages would be largely unaffected if taxes went up or public assistance went up. And the worker would still get paid the same, even if they had to carry the burden of new taxes or received enhanced benefits.
The point is: Pay the worker more. All talk of tax burdens and benefits is a smokescreen to cover the part that Walmart relies on public money to make up for the insufficient wages.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's not a statement that WAPO finds to be problematic.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)The fact that they are not the only ones does not negate the fact that they do, indeed, "get some sort of wealth transfer from the public". The public has to pick up the slack between what those companies pay and what it actually takes to live.
Company A pays worker B 75% of what it takes to live, while reaping 100% of the value of the labor. Country C pays the 25% shortfall. It is effectively a transfer of wealth from C to A.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)The pushback is sounding more like what I am used to with Trump supporters who argue about WaPo's fact checks on Trump.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)Apollyonus
(812 posts)Like I said in the post you responded to
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I thought it was the job of the free press to do such fact checking and hold politicians accountable for their statements.
Is AOC exempt?
She acknowledged the minimum wage mistake - why do you think that she did that, if the author has no credibility?
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. I am arguing that the author's idea that there is no transfer of wealth from public coffers to these companies that are paying less than a living wage is incorrect.
Minimum wage is not the same as living wage. Tax burdens are tangential to the argument. Benefits reduce the amount necessary to become a living wage.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The person who wrote up the findings of the team can be reached at:
glenn.kessler@washpost.com
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,364 posts)It appears neither of us has convinced the other.
I appreciate the civility of your debate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I've heard this kind of reaction against fact checking among Trump supporters.
Sad that it's here now.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)4 pinocchios!
Apollyonus
(812 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Unless you want to say "single parents of multiple children shouldn't have jobs", you're always going to have workers on public assistance.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Fact checking works both ways, and we have to acknowledge that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Ocasio should be sticking to THE TRUTH to support liberal positions, which goodness knows it does.
Misleading the people is antithetical to democracy.
The Republican Party, which is becoming increasingly anti-democratic, uses deliberate untruths to deceive people because the truth won't work for them. And complicit media then use fake equalization tactics to deceive voters into thinking both parties lie like rugs, i.e., that there is no good choice.
Trump (as did Sanders) leads a populist movement, and this tactic is typically used extensively by populist movements bent on taking down governments by misleading people.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Hortensis
(58,785 posts)One of the right's most effective tactics is to confuse voters, most of whom want to do good, into not knowing how. But more are catching on, especially young people.
I was recently surprised to find that our lovely DIL, whose natural bent is to like and trust everyone and believe everything will come good through some cosmic order, is now routinely fact-checking what she hears and reads.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's always been my belief that people should be prepared, especially those who are in the public eye or in positions of authority and leadership. That's one of the benefits I have of being "old".
All I'm saying is, that in spite of the obvious drawbacks that come with age... there are also some valuable benefits, such as maturity, insight, wisdom... and there's a great deal to be said in favor of those things.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)she's probably made a few inadvertent flubs earlier, I do not believe these recent "inaccuracies" arise from ignorance or from lack of competent staff to get her properly prepped, but rather from her and her staff's choice to bypass intellect to activate peoples' emotions as a main tactic.
That was, after all, a major tactic employed by the Bernie Sanders campaign, where Ocasio got her feet wet in big-time politics.
I hope time will show she's growing and leaving these unethical, and destructive, tactics behind, but the first signs I'm looking for will be partings from the Justice Democrats she brought to DC with her. How can she learn to respect and learn from from her colleagues when her office is filled with hostile men who believe congress needs to be purged of all those whom we ordinary Democrats, in our collective foolishness, have elected.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)instead give emotions a major biochemical kick is such a winning tactic that it has become a new grave danger to democracy, which unlike other forms of government depends on enough responsible voters to work. These tactics have become very sophisticated. Scary.
Our future depends less on people refusing to be manipulated this way than on ethical politicians who fight to protect democracy, and at very least on those politicians who are tempted to use this tactic coming to realize the fire they're playing with. If it gets out of control, the hard right will win. They're far better at it and conservative voters overall far more inflammable, also many resentful left-wing populists.
Scary! 
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)
The choice is to appeal to emotion and some set talking points. Some efforts in this regard are not adding up — a pattern now. 🤔
K & R
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)from someone else, who hasn't learned that it doesn't work for DT... and doesn't work for those on the left either.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)isn't going to bode well for any politician. Especially one that seeks the spotlight.
With that spotlight comes scrutiny on one's statements.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)understand the need to check facts much more than earlier generations, a comforting thought.
I love seeing the international movements of young people demanding action to stop climate change. And those are kids who've never seen a normal spring in full bloom, as we once did. If Ocasio wants to become a leader for them here, and, even though she didn't run on climate issues she clearly now recognizes this wave that can be be harnessed, she needs to talk straight to them. This generation won't be fooled the way trumpsters are.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I figured I might as well cut to the chase
Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2019, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)kinds of problems in this article, and maybe that should be your focus.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 09:04 AM - Edit history (2)
I wish people could be more honest about why the very IDEA of this particular fact check enrages them.
Especially when a politician devotes most of an entire day this week to a back and forth about it.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11731173
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Silence.
So why is the article so bad then? And this person's answer is he's just citing some basic economics? That's weak sauce, given the gaping holes and misrepresentations going on in this man's piece.
And this is Furman.
https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2006/walmart.pdf
His biases are pretty fucking clear. Wow, now that has some bullshit it in it. He seriously claims that Walmart would be in favor of, rather than advocating against a welfare state if it was benefiting as we claim, from these welfare programs. That's fucking ridiculous. What they are fighting against is having their own profits taxed to pay for those benefits. They certainly don't care that their employees have to dip into government funds to survive. Nor would it hurt them if the safety net were removed, because that would just set a different baseline where people still had no option but to work for Walmart, and then yeah, they wouldn't even have to compete with welfare. That would be even better for them, but the system in place is just fine for them now.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Is that clearer?
Perhaps you could link to where you "laid out your actual problems" since this is a very crowded thread now.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And still do.
It did ramble quite a bit, and clearly you spent a lot of time on it, but no, I don't get how it relates to WAPO or the fact check.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)easier for you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And still claimed that she won the day long back and forth?
Because her claim about one of the authors cited being a shill for Walmart - and when that was debunked, she called him a lobbyist... and then that was debunked.
When she had nothing else to rebut the fact check, she went on the attack via twitter citing Jacobin, of all sources.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'm losing track. There are several in play being disputed...
Try harder to be clearer, even if this is very emotional.
And you still haven't told us what WAPO should "be honest about" since their fact check has held up.
In particular, she and her defenders focused in on Kessler’s link to a 2005 paper by economist Jason Furman which he used to make a point. That paper appeared on a website for the Mackinac Center, which is a free market think tank in Michigan which leans to the right. AOC’s defenders jumped on this arguing it was unfair to cite a paper paid for by a right-leaning think tank which took money from Wal-Mart to defend Wal-Mart. Note, the tweet that AOC was highlighting has been protected as of today, but her tweet reiterating the claim (and mocking Kessler) is still there:
Link to tweet
Kessler argued that the author of the paper had formerly chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, i.e. he’s not a right-winger.
Link to tweet
She then argued that Furman’s Obama admin track record didn’t matter because he could be just another revolving-door lobbyist. Kessler replied with a link to his page on Harvard’s website, pointing out he’s not a lobbyist:
Link to tweet
Last night after the very busy day, Furman himself weighed in and pointed out that a) his paper wasn’t funded by anyone and b) it was actually written for an event hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Link to tweet
Meanwhile, Kessler added a note to his fact-check and pointed out AOC’s false accusations about the paper he linked.
Link to tweet
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426961-wapo-fact-checker-fires-back-at-ocasio-cortez-criticism-over-rating-shes-wrong
AOC jumped on a false claim about a paper cited in a fact-check critical of her. Then she doubled-down suggesting the author might be a revolving-door lobbyist. Then she finally apologized for the insinuation when pressed by someone at the Post. But she’s still claiming victory over Kessler as if none of that mattered.
Interesting that she found this to be so important that she devoted much of Wednesday to it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)article. If you are confusing things, I don't feel the need to take responsibility for that, though I will certainly clarify where necessary. As for their fact-checking holding up, according to who? According to what? Oh you? Well you won't even weigh in on my complaints about the article.
I fully accept that I may be off on some points. They are my initial reaction to the article based upon aspects of it that seem off and schewed. I am fully capable of amending my current position should better information come along to refute it. But where is that? Just repeating that all is good here, nothing to see, is not going to move this converation along, and unless you're saying it for your own personal support group, I don't know what its value is to you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In case you missed this before:
In particular, she and her defenders focused in on Kessler’s link to a 2005 paper by economist Jason Furman which he used to make a point. That paper appeared on a website for the Mackinac Center, which is a free market think tank in Michigan which leans to the right. AOC’s defenders jumped on this arguing it was unfair to cite a paper paid for by a right-leaning think tank which took money from Wal-Mart to defend Wal-Mart. Note, the tweet that AOC was highlighting has been protected as of today, but her tweet reiterating the claim (and mocking Kessler) is still there:
Link to tweet
Kessler argued that the author of the paper had formerly chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, i.e. he’s not a right-winger.
Link to tweet
She then argued that Furman’s Obama admin track record didn’t matter because he could be just another revolving-door lobbyist. Kessler replied with a link to his page on Harvard’s website, pointing out he’s not a lobbyist:
Link to tweet
Last night after the very busy day, Furman himself weighed in and pointed out that a) his paper wasn’t funded by anyone and b) it was actually written for an event hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Link to tweet
Meanwhile, Kessler added a note to his fact-check and pointed out AOC’s false accusations about the paper he linked.
Link to tweet
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426961-wapo-fact-checker-fires-back-at-ocasio-cortez-criticism-over-rating-shes-wrong
AOC jumped on a false claim about a paper cited in a fact-check critical of her. Then she doubled-down suggesting the author might be a revolving-door lobbyist. Then she finally apologized for the insinuation when pressed by someone at the Post. But she’s still claiming victory over Kessler as if none of that mattered.
Interesting that she found this to be so important that she devoted much of Wednesday to it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ocasio-cortez-washington-post_us_5c4bfcd9e4b0e1872d43d85f
JCanete
(5,272 posts)had a field day with them, rather than continue to talk around them and pretend like you're making your case.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But's that's not my problem, is it?
My posts are there and speak for themselves, and if people want to be obtuse that's their problem.
AOC jumped on a false claim about a paper cited in a fact-check critical of her. Then she doubled-down suggesting the author might be a revolving-door lobbyist. Then she finally apologized for the insinuation when pressed by someone at the Post. But she’s still claiming victory over Kessler as if none of that mattered.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)article has somehow, by on high, been exonerated as factual. I have all kinds of issues with it that you will not address. You instead come back to try to declare that somehow I'm missing it because some battle was apparently won in the domain of twitter, according to you, by the WAPO author. What of your own opinion on the article and my issues with it? Is it too much to ask that you use your own critical lens to look at the article you posted, and tell me why my issues with it are unfounded? That's just far more effective at a smack-down wouldn't you think? Actually addressing my arguments? Wouldn't that be the best way to prove to me I'm out in left field? If you don't want to do that...if you don't want to engage on the issues and either learn or teach...then I am still really confused about what you are getting out of this exchange at all.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but I think it would make you defensive.
dsc
(52,164 posts)I would assume she meant to say living wage (as the rest of what she was talking about referred to that) so she deserves some version of a pinocchio for that. The economic theory part of his fact check is just plain wrong. NC actually recently provided proof of that. We cut unemployment benefits and taxes substantially and there was no subsequent increase in wages. If this fact check were correct there should have been an increase. I do think that vast majority is wrong on her part and even majority would be problematic possibly but the fact is living costs vary and that isn't taken into account by this fact check (the median wage includes wages from high cost areas). In short, this seems a less than stellar fact check.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No politician is exempt from fact checking, no matter how many feels one has about them.
If one invites the spotlight, then one needs to be mindful of what shows under that light. AOC appears unhappy that she is being fact checked at all, which is part of being in the spotlight.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Ever. Her word must always be taken, Her pronouncements must be enshrined by the Democratic Party (and everyone else).
Jeez. Implying that she cannot be wrong, or fact-checked, isn't helpful to Democrats, or even to her. Even if she doesn't realize it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) the very definition of straw man.
Because nobody has said anything remotely like that. As you undoubtedly know.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Maybe I should have used the 
But I didn't think it was necessary. Evidently, it is. Mea culpa. O! Mea maxima culpa!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)Too many WalMart and Amazon workers are "part time" or "contract" workers. They may pay the contractors the $15 and hour, but I guarantee the contractor pays their employee a lot less. So I'd give Walmart and Amazon a bunch of Pinocchios. Let's have a breakdown of how many temp, contract, and farmed out workers they have.
trev
(1,480 posts)they offered me $12 an hour.
That's not a living wage where I live.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)See my earlier thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211736599
That is why they don't make a living wage from one job.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)Disputing facts is what Trumpanzees do every day.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their own facts."
If one is new at a job, it is even more important to do one's homework before releasing inaccurate statements that will be checked.
Can you imagine a doctor fresh out of medical school doing that on a patient?
The statistics she threw out can be researched in order to issue a correct statement. No point in blaming the media.
But then again, the motivation matters -- if the motive is only to get media attention and throw red meat for worshipers, it is perfectly fine. However, one should not then complain that one is getting the wrong attention.
She could become a great congresswoman if she did her homework diligently. So far, she has not.
Response to ehrnst (Original post)
elocs This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...two for one!! 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)My understanding is that no politician is exempt from fact checks.
It appears that one is...
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...riding herd on AOC isn't something I come to DU for.
Obviously it floats quite a few boats here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or just a chosen few?
With the spotlight comes increased scrutiny.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...don't tell me.
You're holding AOC's feet to the fire!
You found a way to defend Amazon, and slam AOC. Bravo.
This is not what I come to this Democratic board for.
I understand it's sport, though, for quite a few here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think that would be quite evident.
Perhaps you don't consider her a Democratic polician?
The false equivalence of "defending Amazon and Walmart" with fact checking her statements on them is a bit much, don't you think?
Do you think she should be exempt from fact checking?
bigtree
(85,999 posts)Objectively, this @GlennKesslerWP fact check from yesterday should simply be retracted. It's just flat out wrong, even before you get to the question of the paper he cited titled "Walmart: A Progressive Success Story." https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/24/3p-awards-8-pinocchios-to-glenn-kessler-for-aoc-debacle/ …
Link to tweet
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)over Marty Baron's WAPO team, which feels an obligation to be neutral?
If one has a very emotional reaction to a particular public personality, one might view any dissent from what that public personality says is equally emotional in basis.
But that's just not accurate. When one has a bias, one assumes that anyone who disagrees is just as biased.
Objectively speaking.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...unlike the ideological one you bear against the Intercept.
Read the tweets.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's not an idealogical issue I have with the Intercept and YT, it's a journalistic one.
WAPO is far more neutral, and lacks the bias that the Intercept and YT have.
It's the same reason I trust WAPO over FoxNews. I'll say the same thing I say to those who promote FoxNews as news: Just because something doesn't share your bias doesn't mean that it's equally biased in another direction. That's mistaking your own bias as "neutral."
Is that clearer?
That's not to say that FoxNews or the Intercept can't report a fact like the sun coming up in the east, but when FoxNew/Intercept/YT and WAPO disagree on factchecking, especially in politics, I'll go with WAPO as the far more journalistically reliable and unbiased source. Marty Baron is known for staring down powerful enemies to get the facts out. Google him, if you don't know who he is.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Or else, acknowledge them as a potential problem for your own facts...or else, and this is a hard one I know, abandon your previous position. Also, what is the obligation of a paper literally owned by the owner of the company they are writing about, to be objectively neutral? That's not even a real thing. There's no legal responsibility to that. There's only credibility, which is what journalistic bodies like Wapo rely on when that is their stock and trade, but when they are owned by a company with a far bigger stake than that, what ultimately is going to win out?
And honestly, it doesn't look like the article is trying too hard to hit marks on credibility.
You seem particularly unhappy today.
Is it because Nancy Pelosi crushed it?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)There are a whole lot of posts like that, to be sure, but relatively few names are attached to them.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)strategy to derail...? This was a fact check, and it’s done all the time. A vocal critic is often fact checked, and it should be expected.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)southpaw
@nycsouthpaw
·
40m
I really wonder if anyone at WaPo knows how bad it is.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)do they pay more only if they can't find employees? Around here, unemployment is low. Very low and every business in town is having a hard time finding employees. I notice the sign at Walmart went up a few bucks just in the past year from 12 to 14. I can't see them giving that much voluntarily.
That is why I wonder if it is an across the board starting wage or if it is by location and the unemployment numbers. Anyone know offhand?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)They raise the starting wage only when they absolutely have to, either because the law requires it, or if they can't attract enough employees.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)GemDigger
(4,305 posts)
UpInArms
(51,284 posts)Walmart is the beneficiary of billions of dollars per year in federal subsidies, according to a new report [PDF] from the non-partisan, progressive group Americans for Tax Fairness.
The report estimates that Walmart and the Walton family—which co-founded the company and still owns a majority share—collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks.
“This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded.
The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.
Walmart spokesperson Randy Hargrove described the report as “not accurate,” citing a detailed response to its main points on Forbes.com. The author of the response, columnist Tim Worstall, described the report as “fantastical nonsense” and took issue with the claim that welfare acts as an effective subsidy for Walmart.
“The existence of these welfare payments means that the reservation wage rises. That is, an employer needs to pay people more to come into work because they get an income (however low that is) whether they work or not,” Worstall wrote.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ridiculous sweet-heart deals that they do not deserve so that they can set up shop in localities, and in the case of Amazon, help to nationally erode competition, and in the case of Walmart, locally destroy competition. And Amazon's pr decision to raise wages has only come now, in the last couple of months, as if it can't be pointed out that shit was only yesterday very different and that Sanders was literally using his platform to call them out on this matter. The article's fluff...oh that's right, who owns Wapo....is pretty transparent.
How is it that the article fails miserably to account for those public dollars that these companies are depriving the American citizen when it does its accounting? All of those tax loopholes....Amazon's abilitiy to skirt sales tax liablity for years and years giving them a massive advantage on their competition regarding product pricing, just as one egregious example...
Nor do I have any idea where that 11 dollar figure for Walmart employees comes from. Is that a flat number that is a national rate, assuming Walmart does not have a varying scale depending on cost of living indices, in which case that would be below minimum in some places(obviously they have to pay minimum), or is it an average, in which case, places with higher minimum wage would raise the national average and make this number bogus? Its certainly not accurate to simply state that that is what they pay to every starting employee. Some piece of this puzzle is being omitted, because otherwise, it would mean that in all high cost of living areas Walmart is doing no better, and actually worse than minimum wage. Why is this article so effing bad? I mean, I know the reason, but jesus.
And some employees would certainly choose part time...the issue is that companies like Walmart do and have designed their staffing intentionally around part time, and prefer it to paying full time benefits.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24
And what exactly is misleading? Because the companies say that this is misleading? Why am I hearing about what they "say" in a fact-check article? Shouldn't the article be fact-checking rather than handing out pinochios because the companies are saying something else? How about the article fact-checks the companies and tells us how many pinochios they should get?
And how would Sanders proposal not raise wages? The tax he proposed would literally be contingent upon whether or not employees need and get government assistance, which means that while companies may simply pony up to the government, which sure, wouldn't directly put more money into employee pockets, they may instead, it looks better anyway, simply offer more full-time work and pay more of their employees in a way that reduces the company's tax liability. If they choose not to, this is still an infusion into the commons that will cover what these companies are basically milking out of our system now.
I have no idea how the article could attempt to make the case that given that dependency built into Sanders proposed legislation, that taxes simply get paid and employees are the ones who pony up for those higher corporate taxes in their own reduced wages. That literally makes no sense here, nor frankly, ever. That's such a Republican talking point to suggest that higher taxes results in lower wages.
And literally in their article, the author admits that companies are able to capture 20-30 percent of benefits of eitc and medicare and food stamps...THEN says that's not a significant ammount. According to who? 20-30 percent isn't a significant amount? They started at 0 and then had to admit that was incorrect, but now 20-30 is still no real leeching benefit? I fully admit that I'm struggling with what the article is saying here, and maybe I misunderstand this, so if you have some insight here I'd love to read your take.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)leave out or misrepresent everything I just posted that you felt compelled to reply "and.." to?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If one is angry that a politician that one adores is fact checked by a reputable journalistic source, that doesn't show much confidence in that politician, does it? I have said as much to those who are angry when DOTUS is fact checked, and gotten similar blowback.
I think Marty Baron has proved that he's more interested in facts than coddling those in power.
I think you should take your complaint to WAPO. The email for the author of the summary is at the link in the OP.
Do let us know what response you get.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)care about over there.
If you have a specific issue with my issues with the article, I suggest you put some skin in the game and don't just hide behind a "venerated" paper saying something. If my complaints don't warrant rejection of the material, why don't you tell me why? Otherwise, why are we doing this?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Hence the post about fact checking.
Apparently this isn't universal.
I have no idea why you are doing this, perhaps you can clarify?
However, I think that your motives are very clear.
George II
(67,782 posts)...higher than the Federal minimum wage.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)
betsuni
(25,552 posts)Seattle and San Francisco and Mountainview, California voted for a $15 minimum wage in 2014 and L.A.; Pittsburgh; Emeryville, California; Missoula, Montana; Syracuse, N.Y. in 2015, other cities later. (From a quick check, if this is incorrect someone please correct me.) Local organized labor groups have been working on this for many years.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to 15, but I do think it is slated over the next 3-4 years. There are cities that have a 15 dollar minimum, yes.
George II
(67,782 posts)...it was just raising the Federal minimum wage (which is $7.25). As you point out, some states are moving to raise their minimum, and most states are already higher than the Federal minimum wage (so raising the Federal minimum wage is moot). Even the oft maligned Amazon, as noted in the OP, is already up to $15.
melman
(7,681 posts)No it's not.
George II
(67,782 posts)"....most states are already higher than the Federal minimum wage (so raising the Federal minimum wage is moot)."
In those states the minimum wage is already higher, so raising the Federal minimum wage in those states is moot. I should have added those three words.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a handful of cities and one or two states. And again, Amazon, literally just did this. They just made this change in response to negative pressure they have been receiving.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)be your focus?
George II
(67,782 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,205 posts)when the standard in the retail industry is about 1/3 and 3/4 of those part timers would prefer full time. Walmart's average pay for full time hourly workers is $13.50 an hour but only get an average of 34 hours a week. That difference of 6 hours a week equates to $80 a week, and when you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's that kind of money that makes a car payment, pays for groceries or a decent apartment.
While it might not be fair to single out Walmart, since pay in the retail industry is uniformly terrible, with 1.4 Million employees just in the US, they set the standard. When the standard is low, everyone suffers. Since those genetic lottery winners, the Walton heirs, still own 51% of all Walmart stock, what they say goes.
With around $500 Billion in sales just in the US every year, they could raise their prices 2% and generate $10 Billion to pay their employees a living wage, while raising the cost of $100 cart of groceries $2, which no one would even notice. I realize Walmart doesn't HAVE to pay its workers better. I just don't understand why they don't want to.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Few freshman members of Congress cause as much of a stir as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has. Articles about her are consistently the best-performing on right-wing news sites. The charismatic 29-year-old Bronx native has seriously ruffled the feathers of conservatives, unused to debating a Democrat with a genuinely progressive agenda. Her proposals include Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free state college tuition, a 70 percent income tax on the wealthiest Americans and federal legalization of marijuana.
Fox News: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Voice of an Ignorant Generation
Fox.com (1/14/19): “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of economics and foreign affairs typifies her generation.”
She is certainly keeping conservative writers busy; a search for “Alexandria Ocasio Cortez” produces 592 pieces on FoxNews.com, and 2,590 on the Daily Caller. The response from right-wing media has been little short of hysterical, with Fox News leading the charge against her and her ideas. The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles described her on Fox.com (1/14/19) as the “voice of an ignorant generation”—a miseducated millennial who has “substituted ideology for scholarship.” (Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University with a degree in international relations and economics.)
On the subject of the 70 per cent top marginal tax rate, Laura Ingraham (1/17/19) claimed, “Now, all of you [who] are doing better in the Trump economy, you should know this: They plan to take your money away and redistribute it to you know, wherever their pet causes are.” Dan Bongino (1/17/19) demanded that Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) donate 70 per cent of her salary to the government, claiming she “relies on a lot of economic ignorance to get you to believe what’s not true…her entire basis—the economic basis—for this is nonsense is based on garbage talking points.” The standard $174,000 congressional salary falls well short of her proposed top tax rate, reserved for those making over $10 million per year—a fact which raises the question of whom Ingraham is speaking for when she says “all of you” are doing better, and AOC will take away “your” money.
Other conservative outlets have been equally spooked by the self-identified socialist. The Washington Examiner (1/11/19) wrote that she “hates the rich” and thinks they “must be punished severely,” while the Daily Wire (1/16/19) quoted one individual who claims she speaks in the “vernacular of felons.” Breitbart (1/7/19) christened her a “Care Bear Commie” who planned to “impose watermelon tyranny on the US.”
https://fair.org/home/ocasio-cortez-rattles-pundits-across-the-corporate-media-spectrum/?awt_l=NSymG&awt_m=fvTXvWMSC2R._TQ
The future of the party will resemble her not the elders.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Are you saying that she should not be fact checked?
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts) BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I am ehrnst.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you have an issue with WAPO, then I suggest you take it up with Marty Baron, or the person who wrote the article that communicated the findings of the WAPO fact check team.
The person who wrote up the findings of the team can be reached at:
glenn.kessler@washpost.com
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)The issues I have with it are addressed, that is why I posted it. Its all good.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If you want it to keep it just between yourselves, perhaps you should send a private message to the OP.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)I know how this works.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)see it?
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)where they can't benefit from your analysis.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)Stone arrested.
Happy Friday.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What percentage of those workers are fulltime?
What percentage receive benefits?
How much does the typical Amazon warehouse extract from a local community in tax rebates and other welfare?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Glassdoor.com is a good place for research on that information:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Amazon-EI_IE6036.11,17.htm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Amazon exploits the taxpayers and externalizes its costs.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)AOC tried very hard on twitter to derail, change the topic and attack the citations. It didn't go well.
Her claims were debunked - to the point of her actually deleting one of the tweets with one of the claims, but not acknowledging that she was wrong.
More on that here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11733705
Doubling down or going on the attack instead of acknowledging, learning the lesson and moving along rather than getting into an all day twitter battle this week of all weeks, won't serve her well in the public eye.
When one seeks out the spotlight, one should not complain about the scrutiny the spotlight brings.
We could talk all day long about Amazon and Walmart, and the problems therein, however this is about what AOC said specifically on the topic. That is the focus of the fact check. One can't just say - "Well Walmart and Amazon are abusive, so any criticism or critical statements of them are morally correct and should not be scrutinized because they are immoral so if you question any of her statements about them you are their shill and are just as immoral, and you just hate her and want her to fail." Which is pretty much what her supporters said on twitter...
It's like when your relative posts that RW meme on FB about heroic Irena Sendler being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Al Gore and Obama got the prize instead for stupid stuff, and you point out the meme is full of misleading or false statements along with the praise of her, and that she could never be eligible for the Nobel prize, and your relative says, "Well I think she's a hero, so why are you trying to discredit her work - she SHOULD have gotten the Nobel Prize! Why are you being so negative about her?"
And you just bang your head on your desk...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In particular, she and her defenders focused in on Kessler’s link to a 2005 paper by economist Jason Furman which he used to make a point. That paper appeared on a website for the Mackinac Center, which is a free market think tank in Michigan which leans to the right. AOC’s defenders jumped on this arguing it was unfair to cite a paper paid for by a right-leaning think tank which took money from Wal-Mart to defend Wal-Mart. Note, the tweet that AOC was highlighting has been protected as of today, but her tweet reiterating the claim (and mocking Kessler) is still there:
Link to tweet
Kessler argued that the author of the paper had formerly chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, i.e. he’s not a right-winger.
Link to tweet
She then argued that Furman’s Obama admin track record didn’t matter because he could be just another revolving-door lobbyist. Kessler replied with a link to his page on Harvard’s website, pointing out he’s not a lobbyist:
Link to tweet
Last night after the very busy day, Furman himself weighed in and pointed out that a) his paper wasn’t funded by anyone and b) it was actually written for an event hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Link to tweet
Meanwhile, Kessler added a note to his fact-check and pointed out AOC’s false accusations about the paper he linked.
Link to tweet
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426961-wapo-fact-checker-fires-back-at-ocasio-cortez-criticism-over-rating-shes-wrong
AOC jumped on a false claim about a paper cited in a fact-check critical of her. Then she doubled-down suggesting the author might be a revolving-door lobbyist. Then she finally apologized for the insinuation when pressed by someone at the Post. But she’s still claiming victory over Kessler as if none of that mattered.
Interesting that she found this to be so important that she devoted much of Wednesday to it.
Denzil_DC
(7,246 posts)These are strange times indeed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)To b honest - I feel the same about the Intercept, YoungTurks and RT.
It's lending credibility to a right-wing site (and its take on personalities and events) that's been among the more revolting wingnut outlets over the years on Democratic Underground that bothers me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)However, the whole thing is on twitter. So I've revised the post to show the day long twitter trail.
Denzil_DC
(7,246 posts)If you weren't aware of Hot Air's history, that's gobsmacking in anyone who's paid attention to politics since at least the mid-2000s.
From its Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Air
If you were aware and nevertheless quoted and linked it, then you've found odd allies.
As for your "day-long twitter trail", I'm envious that this seems to be the most pressing political issue that you've found to preoccupy yourself with since Thursday in the current climate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)from the looks of twitter, that's for sure.
If one is aware of that, and nevertheless criticizes anyone who calls attention to it, one has some odd loyalties.
And again - I feel the same about the Intercept, Jacobin and YoungTurks links posted on DU, and are approved.
See you in church...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ocasio-cortez-washington-post_us_5c4bfcd9e4b0e1872d43d85f
George II
(67,782 posts)...the hot air link.
Facts are facts, no matter from where they come.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It seems as if FoxNews has an odd ally.
melman
(7,681 posts)But only when it's convenient. 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Brought you out of the woodworrk in a hurry, didn't it? Or are you stalking now?
When someone decides to go off on a tangent about how conservative news sources are suspect, as is ANYONE who links to them for ANY reason, one might want to think beforehand about the full implications of tarring with such a broad brush.
Shouldn't one? I didn't go down that road first...
From the Wikipedia entry for the cable news network where Jeff Weaver is a contributor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
melman
(7,681 posts) How is it stalking to reply on a message board? People post, other people respond. That's how it works.
But you still tried to say it's okay for you to post links to Michelle Malkin's right-wing garbage site....because a guy you don't like goes on Fox. Makes perfect sense.
That is textbook whataboutism. As you certainly know.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Perhaps you missed my post where I said that I acknowledged that the link was to a right wing site, removed the link and posted the actual day long twitter battle - including the reference to the tweet that AOC deleted after the accusation was clearly debunked.
So, i didn't defend. However, I pointed out a classic double standard, and Denzil has yet to reply.
Here's the definition double standard:
dou·ble stand·ardDictionary result for double standard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/Submit
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
Is that clearer?
Denzil_DC
(7,246 posts)They were a heck of a lot more productive than reading you going off on this tangent.
I could ask who the hell Jeff Weaver is, why I should care, and how the heck Fox News got mixed in with my pointing out your quoting and linking a right-wing site rather than just alerting on it, but I won't, because in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) Denzil_DC
(7,246 posts)I had no idea who Jeff Weaver is, nor why it should be significant that he appeared on Fox News, until I Googled him just now. That's a minute of my time I won't get back.
You seem intent on ascribing motivations to people that say a lot more about you than anyone else. You seem to like to imply that people's objections are because they're a "Berniebro" or whatever. I'm not, FWIW.
If I'd linked to and quoted Fox News approvingly and was a fan of Jeff Weaver, your comparison might have some value.
I didn't, I'm not, and it doesn't.
It's sheer deflection, along with a transparent attempt to keep bumping this tired old post of yours, and this is the last time I'll play along with that tactic, no matter how many inane replies you make nor how many snide emojis you post, since your replies to others here indicate that serious discussion is the last thing on your mind.
I expressed alarm and bemusement at Hot Air being quoted and linked as a "reputable" source on DU.
I could have simply immediately alerted on the grounds of "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources".
If I see such activity again, since you're not at all contrite nor grateful that I chose not to take that route, I'll simply alert in future.
Now kindly quit cluttering up my "My Posts" tab.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and forgot your numerous posts following it.
Denzil_DC
(7,246 posts)Reading poorly expressed attempted rebuttals of a plain matter of fact interspersed with mysterious insinuations and asinine emojis isn't an interesting way to spend work downtime.
Now, as I courteously requested, quit cluttering up my "My Posts" tab. This is the last time I'll respond to you here, so stop wasting both our time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Attempting to blame anyone else for one's choices is not a courteous or productive way to spend time and energy, is it?
melman
(7,681 posts)R B Garr
(16,955 posts)talking point couldn’t hold up under some simple scrutiny.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And neither does doubling down.
Interesting that was taking up so much time on Wednesday.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)time consuming with little to show for it.
Gothmog
(145,374 posts)
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I’m kind of agnostic on AOC. Could not get elected in most Democratic Districts but probably represents hers well. Don’t really know.
Many of the points she makes are sound and would resonate with many Americans.
But when it is set up with an obviously false statement that a vast majority of Americans don’t make a living wage, all other points are suspect. Even if they are totally valid.
This is why we do not have many 29 year olds in Congress. Not upset we have some. Kind of glad about it.
But how many of us learned when younger to weigh our words the hard way. After we had our asses handed to us. I know I did.
Hopefully she learns. Cause she made some good factual points. Which are pretty much meaningless when set up with a hyperbolic falsehood.
The fact is, way too many people don’t make a living wage. And even comfortable people like me cayhave it all taken away with one bad injury or illness. All Americans are concerned with this.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)judgement calls outside of the national spotlight, so when you are in the national spotlight, you have better judgement, and make better calls on your statements.
Many people express their interest in serving the public by running for a city wide or county position. This doesn't give one a big an audience as a national office would, but if one is interested in serving the public, local office truly does make a difference for one's neighbors.
I found Cynthia Nixon's first foray into politics being the Governor's mansion, rather than toiling at city hall very indicative of what she viewed was the purpose of political office - to be in the media, talking about your ideas as much as making them a reality.
Certainly sitting through town halls and listening to someone who shows up at your district office isn't as exciting as getting the attention of those at Sundance, but it shows that you are there for your constituents.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)All good though, feel free to take her down and support amazon and walmart. I'm sure itll help in the long run
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I fail to see how a fact check "takes down" an honest politician. Do you believe that she can't endure having her statements fact checked like other politicians?
I hope this clears things up for you - you're welcome.
Elizabeth Warren:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/11/elizabeth-warrens-claim-minimum-wage-supported-her-family-s/
Kamala Harris:
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/01/harris-campaign-kickoff-claims/
Bernie Sanders:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/16/tapper-fact-check-medicare-for-all-sanders-ocasio-cortez-orig.cnn
Beto O'rourke:
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/may/03/beto-orourke/beto-orourke-zero-terrorists-harm-Americans-Mexico/
Stacey Abrams:
https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2018/feb/21/stacey-abrams/majority-georgians-jail-locked-being-too-poor-pay-/
Andrew Gillum:
https://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2018/oct/21/fact-checking-andrew-gillum-ron-desantis-florida-g/
lapfog_1
(29,213 posts)last November for $12 an hour.
she also did not get 40 hours a week there... usually only 20 and never over 30.
Not a living wage here in California.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2019, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)
If her wages for any time worked after November 1 were less than $15 an hour, that is very newsworthy because it refutes Amazon's press releases, and would be of great interest to the Post. They might also be interested in doing a story on it.
She can email glenn.kessler@washpost.com to correct him on that.
WAPO, unlike some of the people they fact check, post retractions and corrections.
And if your niece doesn't trust WAPO, then the NYT would certainly be interested - karen.weise@nytimes.com
Karen Weise is a technology correspondent for NYT based in Seattle, covering Amazon, Microsoft, and the region's tech scene.
Let us know how they respond to your niece.
However, Kessler never stated what a living wage was or wasn't in California, or that Amazon paid a living wage all over the country. In fact, they said you can't make nationwide generalizations about what a living wage is, in terms of a specific hourly wage, whether it is $15 and hour or more.
From the OP:
The living wage is not really a measure of income but of living costs, before taxes, such as food, child care, housing, transportation and other basic necessities; it does not include meals in restaurants, entertainment or vacations. It is often misreported as an income figure, but it cannot be easily compared to income such as a minimum wage — even though it is.
There are several versions of the Living Wage calculator, which all focus on the costs in a particular locality. There are wide variations, and so a nationwide average does not really capture that.
lapfog_1
(29,213 posts)she was a probationary part time... meaning that after 3 months IF SHE PASSED their sorting and storing standards with 0 or almost 0 mistakes... she could be full time.
Of course, she was in a hiring class of nearly a hundred people (I believe they have this once a month at the facility where she worked).
She didn't pass (too many objects fell out of her robots AND she couldn't make the rate they wanted). so she was let go after 3 months (but that was during the holiday sales period).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Again - this is something very newsworthy - you yourself said "uh.. fact check"
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/653597466/amazon-sets-15-minimum-wage-for-u-s-employees-including-temps
What your niece said, as you relate it, is that this isn't true, and she was NOT paid that rate for any hours worked after November 1.
If she wants back pay, she could get it, and for everyone else in her position by making it public. Her paystubs are proof, and if she still doesn't have them, she can get them from Amazon.
Let us know if she decides to do something about it.
