# The Great Un-Fork Hillary Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458 "2015-04-12T00:17:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/301 "2015-04-23T22:34:51Z")
Sorry for the triple post. The same source from the post above shows that you’re probably right about GMOs. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/302 "2015-04-24T02:39:10Z")
Just because I posed the questions doesn’t mean I’m positive I’d get them all right. Sometimes the scientific consensus changes. On the minimum wage question though, I’d note that I phrased the question very simply. As an economic principle, raising the price of anything reduces demand for it. And I’d argue that while knowing current events is important, so is knowing about important, relevant issues where things don’t change much. It doesn’t help to know all the details of the minimum wage debate if one doesn’t remember their high school level economics. And I’d argue that anyone who doesn’t know things like what the three branches of government are and what’s in the 1st amendment should probably save democracy by educating themselves or staying home. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/303 "2015-04-24T03:25:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Just because I posed the questions doesn’t mean I’m positive I’d get them all right. Sometimes the scientific consensus changes. On the minimum wage question though, I’d note that I phrased the question very simply. As an economic principle, raising the price of anything reduces demand for it. … Actually as a matter of _economic principles_, not necessarily. It depends on the elasticity (or inelasticity) of demand for the good or service. And for some goods and services (generally status items) there is even a paradoxical _reverse curve_ in which demand increases as price goes up (up to a point). Economists are aware the demand has varying levels of elasticity/inelasticity and therefore debate what the degree of elasticity is at the low end of the wage/job structure. IF employers are using lower wage employees to the degree they _need_ to use them then the demand is very inelastic at least at the low end of the curve and no jobs would be lost with a modest raise in minimum wage. Economists would then also consider the secondary effects of raised minimum wage … Would it cause a “trickle up”? That is would lower wage employees now with more money actually consume more and stimulate more hiring? The actual answer would likely be different for different markets at different points in time. The straightforward _most simple_ answer is that most economists would not endorse the unqualified statement that “raising minimum wage causes job loss.” Most GOP voters and politicians however would believe that they would. Sometimes someone thinking they know something that they don’t really understand is worse than someone knowing that they don’t know it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/304 "2015-04-24T03:58:09Z")
I really shouldn’t use a phrase like “[trickle up](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571894-president-proposes-hefty-increase-minimum-wage-trickle-up-economics)” without referencing more about it. > [@The Economist 2/16/13](#): > > Raising the minimum wage > Trickle-up economics … > > … The economic consequences are hard to predict. Economists historically frowned on minimum wages as distortionary price fixing that reduced demand for workers affected by the wage. But that assumption has come under fire from a growing body of research. The introduction of Britain’s minimum wage in 1999 had no notable impact on jobs, for example. In America, the White House approvingly cites research by Arindrajit Dube, William Lester and Michael Reich that compared counties where the minimum wage rate rose to neighbouring counties in states where it didn’t and found no negative effect on employment. The theory is that higher wages reduce costly turnover, reducing the incentive to lay workers off. > > Some minimum-wage proponents go even further, arguing that a higher minimum boosts jobs by shifting income towards people who consume more of what they earn. The EPI, for example, last year claimed a minimum wage of $9.80 per hour would create 100,000 jobs. … ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/305 "2015-04-24T04:18:21Z")
Demand for cheap labor is not inelastic though. Cheap labor is the most vulnerable type of labor to automation or other efficiencies. Minimum wage laws have positive effects, but job growth for unskilled labor is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/306 "2015-04-24T05:51:56Z")
Well the impact of automation on employment was the subject of [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=754185) … In point of fact however many of the country’s current lowest wage (unskilled) jobs are not as subject to automation or outsourcing out of country. They are harder and more expensive to automate, home health aides, janitorial, working at the counter dealing with customers and with whatever odds and ends need being done be it at a fast food place or Target … it’s the middle to lower middle that is most being hollowed out by automation. A modest increase in minimum wage does not make automating the jobs that have not been already automated attractive enough. And what could be exported has been. The lowest level is pretty inelastic to a moderate increase. I am not convinced that modestly increased minimum wage would increase job growth, but it is, as a point of fact, not true that “most” economists agree that raising it is necessarily a job killer. The actual evidence seems to be that such modest raises have no real impact on employment rates. The evidence is referenced above. [The Dept of Labor concurs](http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm): “A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment.” [The Center for Economic and Policy Research](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/2014-job-creation-in-states-that-raised-the-minimum-wage) states: > [@](#): > > As CEPR noted in March and April posts, economists at Goldman Sachs conducted a simple evaluation of the impact of these state minimum-wage increases. GS compared the employment change between December and January in the 13 states where the minimum wage increased with the changes in the remainder of the states. The GS analysis found that the states where the minimum wage went up had faster employment growth than the states where the minimum wage remained at its 2013 level. > > When we updated the GS analysis using additional employment data from the BLS, we saw the same pattern: employment growth was higher in states where the minimum wage went up. Again, the claim you have made is simply simplistically wrong. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/307 "2015-04-24T06:25:38Z")
That’s because an economy is a complex thing and things like economic growth can hide the effect of an increase. Unemployment went up during the stimulus, yet the CBO said the stimulus created jobs according to their model. Because the idea that injecting $800 billion into the economy wouldn’t create jobs would be ludicrous. Another example is the climate. The fact that CO2 stores heat is about as well established in science as anything can get. Yet despite the fact that CO2 in our atmosphere goes up every year, some years are colder than previous years because other factors can overcome the CO2 increase. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/308 "2015-04-24T06:27:49Z")
The CBO also confirmed that the proposed minimum wage increase would actually cost some jobs on net. > **[CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/)** > > Non-partisan report said raising the federal minimum wage could cost 500,000 jobs. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/309 "2015-04-24T07:13:25Z")
More articles in mainstream press about the nexus between donations to the Clinton Foundation and policymaking, plus this little tidbit: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/23/hillary-clintons-baggage-problem/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/23/hillary-clintons-baggage-problem/) > [@](#): > > Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. It’s interesting that there’s no outrage that she broke her word to President Obama. Which results in this: > [@](#): > > Check out the new Quinnipiac University national poll. More than six in ten (62 percent) of voters said Clinton has “strong leadership qualities.” In that same sample, however, less than four in ten (38 percent) said that Clinton was honest and trustworthy. A majority (54 percent) said she’s not honest and trustworthy, including 61 percent of independents. It’s hard to debate when people don’t even agree on basic facts. I hope at this point we can stop debating whether or not Clinton is honest. The evidence shows she’s not and the public is firmly on the side of not. Anyone who attempts to argue that she is is living in a liberal bubble. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/310 "2015-04-24T11:11:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s hard to debate when people don’t even agree on basic facts. I hope at this point we can stop debating whether or not Clinton is honest. The evidence shows she’s not and the public is firmly on the side of not. Anyone who attempts to argue that she is is living in a liberal bubble. “Honest” isn’t a binary thing. Is she more or less honest than most politicians? If you think she’s less, present some evidence – compare her honesty to other politicians. Or let me do it for you – [Hillary](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/) is significantly less dishonest than [Marco Rubio](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/), [Mitt Romney](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/), [John McCain](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-mccain/), [John Boehner](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-boehner/), and [Mitch McConnell](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitch-mcconnell/). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/311 "2015-04-24T11:19:22Z")
Politifact doesn’t measure honesty. Instead, why don’t we compare how Clinton handles her scandals vs. how John McCain handled his one? He handled it by total transparency and full cooperation with the Keating investigation and admitted he’d made a mistake. John Mccain is a heck of a lot more honest than Hillary Clinton. As for Romney, that’s who she’s rightly being compared to. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/312 "2015-04-24T11:23:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Politifact doesn’t measure honesty. It measures accuracy and honesty. It measures “who tells the truth more often, and who tells falsehoods more often”. Hillary tells the truth more and tells a lot fewer falsehoods than all of those Republicans. > [@](#): > > Instead, why don’t we compare how Clinton handles her scandals vs. how John McCain handled his one? He handled it by total transparency and full cooperation with the Keating investigation and admitted he’d made a mistake. John Mccain is a heck of a lot more honest than Hillary Clinton. According to Politifact, McCain tells the truth a lot less than Hillary, and tells a lot more falsehoods. Whether or not his falsehoods are knowing or not doesn’t matter much to me. I don’t believe you that McCain is more honest. > [@](#): > > As for Romney, that’s who she’s rightly being compared to. She tells a lot fewer falsehoods than Romney. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/313 "2015-04-24T11:37:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It measures accuracy and honesty. It measures “who tells the truth more often, and who tells falsehoods more often”. Hillary tells the truth more and tells a lot fewer falsehoods than all of those Republicans. It more accurately measures the quality of a politician’s staff work, and “Pants on fire” ratings often mean just “badly wrong” rather than a lie. Whereas a half truth can deceive a lot more effectively and often can be said with deceptive intention. > [@](#): > > According to Politifact, McCain tells the truth a lot less than Hillary, and tells a lot more falsehoods. Whether or not his falsehoods are knowing or not doesn’t matter much to me. I don’t believe you that McCain is more honest. A reputation going back 40 years trumps a few years of Politifact ratings. McCain is virtually scandal-free and his one scandal was a model of transparency and repentance. Clinton’s reaction to every scandal is to clam up. She has yet to even attempt to answer questions about the Clinton Foundation and her email press conference was filled with lies. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/314 "2015-04-24T11:42:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It more accurately measures the quality of a politician’s staff work, and “Pants on fire” ratings often mean just “badly wrong” rather than a lie. Whereas a half truth can deceive a lot more effectively and often can be said with deceptive intention. And it measures honesty. It points out when politicians lie, in addition to when they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > A reputation going back 40 years trumps a few years of Politifact ratings. McCain is virtually scandal-free and his one scandal was a model of transparency and repentance. Clinton’s reaction to every scandal is to clam up. She has yet to even attempt to answer questions about the Clinton Foundation and her email press conference was filled with lies. I don’t accept your evaluation of McCain’s history and reputation (or Hillary’s) as truth. I trust Politifact a lot more than you. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/315 "2015-04-24T11:42:42Z")
And Politifact says what about Keating vs. the email and foundation scandals? On the email scandal, they say this: > **[Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules?](https://www.politifact.com/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/)** > > Throughout the controversy regarding her exclusive use of private email while secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has sa > [@](#): > > Let’s cut to the chase: We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she “complied” with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend. And, as is typical: > [@](#): > > We sent multiple requests for comment to Clinton’s staff, but they didn’t get back to us for this story. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/316 "2015-04-24T11:50:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And Politifact says what about Keating vs. the email and foundation scandals? > > On the email scandal, they say this: > > [PolitiFact | Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules?](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/) > > And, as is typical: That’s one thing. Overall, Politifact rates Hillary as significantly honest, trustworthy, and accurate than McCain. I trust their evaluation more than yours. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/317 "2015-04-24T11:56:25Z")
You mistake their compilation of ratings for an “evaluation”. Politifact makes no such claim that any one politician is more honest than another. So Hillary Clinton said, “America invented the community college” and got a “true” point. Her honesty and transparency are something to be envied, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/318 "2015-04-24T12:07:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You mistake their compilation of ratings for an “evaluation”. Politifact makes no such claim that any one politician is more honest than another. Okay, then I’ll say Politifact’s compilation of data indicates Hillary is a lot more honest, trustworthy, and accurate than McCain. > [@](#): > > So Hillary Clinton said, “America invented the community college” and got a “true” point. Her honesty and transparency are something to be envied, indeed. Transparency is a separate issue, but compared to McCain, Hillary’s honesty absolutely is to be envied, according to the data. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/319 "2015-04-24T12:18:37Z")
If the data measured statements by their significance, the data would be better, but that’s left up to the reader. What the difference in statements between McCain and Clinton actually indicates is that McCain is more likely to speak off the cuff. When Clinton speaks off the cuff, she’s actually pretty embarassing. McCain has never said anything as dumb as “landing under sniper fire” or “We were dead broke”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/320 "2015-04-24T12:20:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > McCain has never said anything as dumb as “landing under sniper fire” or “We were dead broke”. He said “yes” to VP candidate Palin. That’s way, way dumber than anything Hillary said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=17)