Reason TV's Anthony Fisher Talking Wal-Mart and Minimum Wage on RT Today at 4p ET/1p PT

I will be appearing on RT today at 4p ET/1p PT as part of a panel discussion on Walmart and the ongoing minimum wage controversy in Washington, DC. 

Check your local listings or view online here.

Comments

[PapayaSF]

Everyone who talks about the minimum wage should bring up the fact that Progressives originally pushed it as a eugenics measure. By artificially raising wages they hoped to do several things: price white women out of the workforce, so they would stay home and have babies instead, and disadvantage racial minorities and the handicapped, so that they would be less able to afford having children.

[highnumber]

I can't decide whether this is the sort of comment that is best ignored or whether engagement with the commenter could provide value to anyone. On the one hand, this is so ridiculous a statement. It's an irrelevant bit of historical trivia at best. Clearly the current discussion of the minimum wage has nothing to do with eugenics or the early 20th century Progressive movement. Assuming the best of this commenter, he's fascinated by the odd dark little corners of history and wants to share this information with everyone. That he prescribes that everyone discussing the topic should bring that up, though, suggests something darker about him. He is trying to change the conversation into something it is not. He is attempting to create a distraction. Why? So, to engage or not to engage? My thought is not to engage. Addressing this odd comment beyond what I've already invested right here seems fruitless.

[PapayaSF]

Get your nose out of the air. I've been around here for far longer than you have.

It's not a distraction, it's rather crucial, because the original proponents of the minimum wage knew it would reduce employment. That was the point. The current proponents deny that raising the minimum wage will have any such effect. Pointing out that their ideological forefathers had bad intentions is perfectly valid intellectual judo.

[highnumber]

How long do you think I've been around here? Pretty sure you could find my comments here going back to 2003 or 2004 though I'm not sure how that makes your comment any more or less relevant. The intentions of early 20th century Progressives really aren't relevant to today. There's all sorts of legitimate ways you could argue against minimum wage, I am sure, but that is not one of them.

[PapayaSF]

If a product was invented 100 years ago as a means of removing unwanted hair, would it be legitimate to point out that the same product is now being hawked as shampoo? I think so.

[highnumber]

http://youtu.be/ciIUAZqQysw
Wait for the money quote. That's you.

How long you been around here, son?

[PapayaSF]

At least 10 years, asshole.

[Azathoth!!]

I can't decide whether this is the sort of comment that is best ignored or whether engagement with the commenter could provide value to anyone. On the one hand, this is so ridiculous a statement. It ignores what's being said in favor of purportedly questioning the validity of even posting it at all. Clearly the current discussion of the minimum wage is better when informed of it's purpose as set forth by it's creators-- the early 20th century Progressive movement. Assuming the best of this commenter, he's undermined by this odd dark little corner of history and desperately wants to obscure this information from everyone. That he suggests that everyone discussing the topic should ignore this, though, suggests something darker about him. He seeks to suppress the investigation of the historical context. He is attempting to create a distraction. Why?

Because long-windedly suggesting that PapayaSF is a troll is far easier than defending the roots of the minimum wage.

[highnumber]

More fun.

Seriously, you all have to make an effort to believe that this has any relevance to the minimum wage today.