The video title is misleading. Friedman does not oppose equal pay for equal work; he opposes the LAW that mandates equal pay for equal work. Huge distinction.
EXACTLY!!! He's against government control and promotes a FREE MARKET, with all its imperfections. He consistently holds his ground on this BECAUSE the alternative is FORCED SOCIALISM and there's little freedom there. Freedom MUST trump equality. And the free market promotes individual freedom.
free markeyt = rule by the oligarchy as there is plentiful proof of nowadays. Big shitty corporations dpo what they want without any penalties and no one is never responsible. If people die using their products nothing happens just a small fine. no one get the death penalty which should go to the ceo, the board and those in cgharge of the product they knew where faulty but still sold anyway like the Ford pinto or vioxx
And you think that is the fault of the companies, and not the fault of the government that enabled the behaviour by protecting them in the first place, I assume.
+The True Fizz yeah it's great if you are already on his side, but it's also a pitty the guy had zero tact :/ I would bet that woman didn't walk out of that room a libertarian...
***** I should add that I am a liberal (probably like the girl) and I wasn't "already on his side". I'd never even heard of him before I watched this video, but I can't deny his reasoning on this issue.
While I certainly love the answers Mr. Friedman gives to these questions, I also like watching these videos in part because it shows that there indeed was a time where people who disagreed on issues could do so politely and respectfully, and ask questions (sometimes very good questions) without being jackasses about it. I only wish we had that type of civility today.
Let me try to explain what he's saying. Under equal pay, if a business management is sexist and prejudiced against women then they will always hire men. Because it costs the same. On the other hand if there is no equal pay and hiring men costs more yet the productivity of male vs female is exactly the same then a rational, unbiased business will always hire a woman. The sexist business management would still hire men, but at a higher cost as they will be paying more than they would have if they hired a woman. You know, I had never looked at this problem in this manner. Milton was an economic genius.
I think the reason why so many leftists don't get this is because they believe that government can force people to "do good"; in this case, that government stipulations will force any sexists out there to not be sexist.
It's the same argument against minimum wage, where people with lower skills or abilities can't offer a lower price to compete against higher-skilled workers. There are other areas where this happens. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but over here, certain professions, like translators and notaries, are grouped in associations which set a minimum price for their members' services. Basically, they're cartels enforced by law. It's illegal for people in those professions to charge less. I've had some of them offer me lower prices in secret, sort of like a black market for legitimate services, because of those ridiculous rules.
@Ishallnotsubmit, your entire argument rests on the claim that under equal pay laws sexist employers will always employ men over equally qualified women because there's no financial incentive to employing the woman. But that's only true if the equal pay law is worded in a way that is obviously defective and defeats its purpose. Obviously any remotely competent legislator would draft an equality law that not only guarantees equal pay for equal work, but that also prohibits employers from sex discrimination in their hiring and firing practices too. So the straw-man scenario you describe wouldn't arise.
David Loveday okay, you are suggesting that the law can be worded in such a way that would: allow for women to be paid equally as men, without taking away their option to compete. Can you please enlighten us as to how such law should be written? When I was in the job market only half a decade ago, I realised it’s impossible to compete with existing employees when there’s a minimum wage imposed. Mandatory wages policies like these are merely appealing to current work forces. They benefit from the law change, allowing for higher wages and punish those who are temporary out of the work force or entering the work force. You are taking the right of one group and give it to another. My sister who was pregnant, struggle to come back to work because the law mandated companies to pay her more disallowing her to compete with younger women without children. Is that fair to her?
OolTube02 you do realise it was the government that instated the laws that blacks MUST be paid less than whites... they ‘fixed’ a problem they initially created with an uneconomical ‘solution’. P.s. what do you mean by ‘you people’? ;)
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will get neither equality nor liberty. But a society that aims for liberty before equality will get the highest degree of both"--Milton Friedman
@@samdrow8268 The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists prominent around the 1970s and 1980s, the majority of whom were educated at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its affiliate in the economics department at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. After they finished their studies and returned to Latin America, they adopted positions in numerous South American governments including, prominently, the military dictatorship of Chile (1973-1990), as economic advisors.
@@wehwalte I still don't get what Friedman has to do with it. You previously wrote that "he went to work for Pinochet", although your next comment says that Friedman, in fact, wasn't directly involved in advising the Chilean government. Therefore, he should not be held responsible for the actions of a government for which he didn't work.
@@wehwalte Distortion, to say the least. What you didn't acknowledge is that he also gave advice (is that "worked for"?) to communist dictators as well, telling them they should liberalize. He spoke to Pinochet for a bit during his lectures in Chile after being invited by a private foundation, but he never took a penny from Pinochet and rejected honorary degrees from Chiles public universities specifically because he didn't want to endorse their regime
She clearly knows what she is doing and had not genuine response to his answer. What she was trying to do was find gaps in what Friedman was saying. The girl in that video and her fellow generation of socialists are the people today that control media and government.
she was actually reffering to when he said "all male jobs, all female jobs or all white jobs, all black jobs" she was just trying to bring blacks into the question
@@Hungabrigoo jordan peterson is overrated by a WIDE margin. He never says anything you couldn't surmise from the least amount of time spent thinking about the subject with what information you have available - excluding internet sources. In other words, EVERYTHING jordan peterson ever says is something anyone could have come up with if they just spent time thinking about the idea rather than having someone else think for them. Jordan Peterson thinks for himself, and people who refuse to do the same pay for his thoughts. Edit: This was a gross oversimplification.
@Skeptical Slim Why? Because they didn't suck the dick of any person everyone gropes towards because it's widely assumed what they say matters? That sounds idiotic to me.
@@mitonrocha3351 Give us two examples of socialism where the country is thriving? Nordic countries aren't socialist, they rank very highly in the economic freedom index.
@@kirapoodle The strong peoples nation of Korea of course 💪 Our great leader Kim Jong Un reigns supreme above all. Our nation thrives better than any across all of past, present and future. Our leader invented the hamburger, je discovered electricity and he was the first man on the Moon!
I'm really interested if there has been a breakdown of the value of wages to workers with work lapses vs non work lapses... and which gender has more absences. I've never thought about how that can affect pay, but I did observe the surprisingly high number of women that never returned to work after maternity leave while working at a large company. Even with a law that mandates their job be there when they return at the same pay, an overwhelming number did not return. In the years following, I wonder what kind of a paycut that inadvertantly causes (especially considering inflation/cost of living even if the pay is the same after a 2 year work absense)
Brilliant in what way? If you were black and Milton Friedman was dressed in a KKK outfit and hood, and said to you "I'm on your side, but you're not", would you still think what he said was brilliant? My question was just rhetorical; of course you would....
@Dan Tom , Milton Friedman died some time ago, so he doesn't do standup now (Unless he's like Tupac, who keeps releasing albums). However, his standup routines can be found in every video posted on TH-cam where he tells poor people they shouldn't want the minimum wage, Social Security or Medicare, on this video where he actually tells women they should Refuse equal pay even if offered it, then when the women laugh incredulously, follows that by saying "I'm on your side, but you're not". On another video he also argues with a straight face that car companies should be required to pass No safety standards, and that the best way to regulate the car companies is by suing them in court After your loved one dies in a car crash caused by a defective car. What a cutup that guy was.....
@@CHRISDABAHIA , or I could have understood both, and disagreed with both, for my own reasons, which you didn't understand. Milton Friedman was a paid shill by corporations who sold out his profession for cash. He was the one who invented the con of Trickle Down economics, which he was smart enough to know was a con and an excuse to transfer wealth from the middle class to the richest in the form of enormous tax cuts for the richest, which Reagan implemented. Reagan actually recorded a record in the 1950s where he argued that the passing of Medicare would mean the end of all freedom in our country. Friedman argued for the ending of Medicare, Social Security and minimum wage, as well as ending all safety regulations on vehicles of any kind (he was a highly paid consultant for auto manufacturers). This was not a benevolent or honest figure, by any definition. He delighted in selling dishonest arguments to the poor, to women and to minorities which would harm them if they adopted them. What enjoyment he got out of it, only he knew.
My dad came to the US, back in the 70's, LEGALLY from Honduras via Job Corp. Yes, they paid below the average wage as a carpenter. It's been over 30 years since then. What did that do for him? Well, initially, he sacrificed, but employers wanted equilibrium for pay/quality of work. Companies paid him lower than the average but he was learning a skill set. Within 5 years he bought his first home because his skill set demanded a higher wage. He now owns 7 homes (owns... not paying a mortgage) and has over quarter of million in the bank. He still works 70-80 hours a week and has a net worth over million dollars. My dad may not know the intricacies or the mathematical theoretical framework of capitalism, but he knows far better than any SJW or liberal, he rather have capitalism everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Friedman is objective truth. To any minority, don't drink the liberal Kool-Aid.
Just one thing to note. Freidman did class himself as a classical liberal, and he was one. It's wrong to call the people who oppose real liberalism liberals; they are either Marxists or "progressives" etc.
No one suggests that the economic and labour market model you are advocating doesn't have its winners. Your father is clearly one of them. From what you say, he has made sacrifices and also worked hard in order to become a winner within that system. And that kind of dedication and effort is admirable. I think what most critics of this economic and labour model are concerned about is really two things. First, that for every worker who ends up a winner like your father, there are many many workers, many of whom will work very hard too, and who will also make sacrifices, who do not reap anything like the same economic rewards. Second, that people (and your father is clearly not one of them) can come out on top in this system without actually having to work particularly hard, make comparable sacrifices, or really contribute anything of objectively equal social or economic value. Critics of the system you describe are often searching for improvements that would mean that more people are rewarded, fewer are left behind, and that an entitled few are not allowed to gain financial rewards from the system which are disproportionate to the economic and social good that they actually contribute. The system you describe and advocate is not perfect. It is therefore legitimate to identify grounds on which it can be criticised. Criticism of the system and the model does not have to entail any criticism whatsoever of your father or the sacrifices that he and many decent people like him make over their life in order to do the best they can for themselves and their families in the system that they happen to find themselves in.
@@davidloveday8473 Wrong! Every persons lot in life becomes better. Even the person who's not successful can feed their family and put a roof over their head. The successful businessman/woman will hire these people and more people will have a job to go to. Now, the outcome for every individual will be different, but everyone will be better off. The only difference is that the rich can buy more expensive toys than the less fortunate. But who cares? I don't care if some people buy a Ferrari even if I only can afford a Pinto.
@@edodt4220 "You cannot legislate, tax or centrally plan away the consequences of being alive." First, I've never advocated central planning of entire economies. Second, I've never suggested that regulation solves all problems. What i'm suggesting is that good regulation indisputably makes life better for humans. With regulation, you CAN legislate or tax away many of the undesirable consequences of being alive in a totally unregulated world. What would it like to be alive in a totally unregulated world? There would be no criminal law whatsoever. No taxes. No courts. No police. No prisons. No rules of warfare. No public authorities to protect people from dangerous and unscrupulous behaviour by others. No agreed limits on how humans conduct themselves. I don't accept that such a state of affairs is an inevitable consequence of being alive and human. It seems self-evident to me that regulation is a necessary part of the existence that we humans have evolved to enjoy. Without it, we could not have reached our current stage of evolution. So with respect, your assertion to the effect that human life is necessarily unfair, this we just have to live with unfairness, is simply not true. The existence of unfairness is something humanity should continue to strive collectively to reduce, not something we should passively accept and acquiesce in. I hope you will continue to think about this and that one day you will realize I am right.
@@edodt4220 I would recommend that you go back and read both my comments here again. Because you are guilty of seriously misreading me, attributing points to me that I simply haven't made, and failing to address my central point.
I got my first job as a dishwasher for 75c an hour, paid under the table. I was 12 years old and probably worth that much. If my employer was forced to pay higher wages, he would have hired someone who was worth what he was paying, and I'd have been unemployed.
Used? I sure was - for 75c an hour! At the end of the week, I had $20 - $30 that I otherwise wouldn't have. Plus, I got work experience. When I became old enough to work legally, I already had a resume. In my entire life, I have never, ever had trouble getting hired.
ROGER2095 That is a good thing. Still the truth is you where used. The owner did profit more on your work than you earn by working for him. That dose not mean it is not good that things worked fine for you. Most workers are used. They deserve more. The system is maid in a way that workers can be exploded and the truth is. The condition you where in where such that making the company use you is the best thing you can do in your position.
Yes, that's true. I was paid less than the value I produced, but there's nothing sinister about that. If I was paid equal to or more than the value I produced, then there would be no point in the owner spending the money. Financially, he'd be just as well off keeping his money, or buying someone elses services where he thought he could get a bargain. The only way that makes sense for someone to spend money is if they think they're better off spending it than not spending it. A TV star might get paid a million dollars a week, but that's only because the person paying him is making more than a million dollars a week using the TV star. In my case, me being a bargain at 75c an hour, the employer is better off spending the money than not spending it. If you ask me, I was using him!
ROGER2095 So do you now spot the problem with his argument. It is ok to earn money by having a worker. Butt there is a moral limit how far you can go in exploding the worker. That is what laws about limits how small your payment can be. It is to limit how much the person you work for can explode you as a worker. Friedman did not want you to have any protection. The company should be allowed to be as bad as it thinks it can get a way with.
I have to agree with him on learning skills at a lower rate of pay. I was an office temp for a while, and that's where I learned all the computer skills that I now use in a much higher paying job. And I'd add that it's because of those skills that I'm ahead of some of my peers, who technologically are not as advanced because they never got an opportunity (for lower pay) to learn those things.
For Childless never married Men and Childless Never Married women the gap is often reversed abcnews.go.com/WN/reverse-gender-gap-study-young-childless-women-earn/story?id=11538401 But when feminist talk about the wage gap they compare Married Women with Children to everyone else, knowing damn well that Married Women with children have to balance work life with Motherhood.
@Cas Perry "why an equal male temp gets paid more if the productivity is the same?" If their productivity was the same the company would hire only women temps because that would be cheaper for the same amount of work. Perhaps men temps were providing more value for the company after all...
Thank you - Friedmann himself and every "i got only paid xx as i did not know a thing and i was happy for it" did not get this very, very important point.
If you hire a person for a certain job (a job that is already established in your company) then this person has the equal work or the equal job like all the other employees. That doesn't mean, the newly hired person has the same skills or the same perfomance at all. You'll find out, whether the person is as good or not. If their performance is the same, they will be paid equally. The law "equal job - equal pay" is not to measure the outcome of work but to measure it along the title of the job. And in this case: same work (employment) mustn't be neccessarily the same work (skills and therefor performance). Don't confuse the words, even if it's easy to do so.
I think what he means by “work” is occupation and the responsibilities that pertain to it. For instance, a bagger at a grocery store may be extremely good at his job; meanwhile, another, on the same wage, doesn’t even bother to leave the eggs separate. (This, by personal experience, is a very realistic scenario). The “work” (occupation) is the same but the quality is not, yet they are paid at the same rate per hour.
No, it doesn't. Nice try tho. IF "equal work" means those compared ARE "equally qualified", why then were employers not paying equally before this legislation was brought in? Either there were variances in "those compared", or the employer was prejudiced. What else could it be? If it is prejudice, what was it like when the workforce was almost entirely white males? Were they all paid equally for equal work? Interestingly, wages for the same work varied WIDELY, even then. Workers in the same exact jobs can have wildly varied qualifications, not to mention skill level, experience, natural capacity and so on. What's more, the more skill, education or experience a job requires, the more differences you will find. Anyone who has ever worked a day in their life, or had to hire people, can attest to this basic fact. The only way "equal work" would equate to "equal skill" is if you were hiring identical robots, but you don't have to even pay them. Competition in wages were one of the chief weapons that groups excluded by prejudice had, and that's gone now. It may be a largely moot point in the West today, but he was right in his time, as the example of South Africa showed.
@@jej3451 YES YES YES!!! and how about alimony "You pay me for all those years I chose not to work." How about the free housing, food, etc you received during that time? If anything women should pay MEN alimony for all the money spent on them.
Nobody deserves anything = what a bullshit statement; completely strips humanity of the very things we've said we all deserve. See magna carta, bill of rights, human rights charter etc... Those with everything like to oversimplify economics as an individual game when it really isn't about you. It's about your family, your culture, your city, your teachers, your laws, your neighborhood, your schools, your safety, and so on. These things are secondary factors in determining HOW your primary factors (age, sex, race ...) are interpreted ESPECIALLY in economics. The answer to inequality isn't more inequality so the manager can save more money. Absolutely asinine.
It's NOT equal pay for equal work. It's equal pay for equal position; regardless of production. He makes an excellent point though. Why would an employer higher a man when a woman could be hired for LESS?
***** "It is immoral to force employers to pay workers equally when they are not equally as productive" It is immoral to force employers to pay workers equally when they ARE equally as productive!
Artur Markowski Artur Markowski yeah, i love this idea, but i don’t understand why an employer wouldn’t hire a woman that offers the same productivity for less salary. I mean, wouldn’t you giving him what he wants?
2020: with everyday that passes by and we see our world tumbling down, it becomes clear to me that a leader with Mr. Friedman’s ideas is much needed. 🙏🏼
@@ali.mass1 Yeah, but even Mr. Friedman himself was aware classic liberal ideas can't be perfectly put into practice due to human nature of corruption. Politicians will always try to have control over economic policies. Interventionism is inevitable no matter if it's the left or the right who's governing.
@@BorreLira At a certain point that becomes a no true Scotsman fallacy. You’re claim was, if only leaders were more open to his ideas. His ideas are accepted and celebrated with open arms in western mainstream politics left and right alike. If there are inherent practical limitations to the ideas themselves that’s a different story. It seems like we either have to be generally very content with the way things are going or be at least very skeptical of Friedman’s approach.
Honestly when I saw the title of the video I thought “No way could I possibly end up agreeing with this view”. But I clicked on it anyways because maybe I can learn something. Once again, Milton Friedman has proved to me that I still have a lot to learn. Well said Mr. Friedman
That has always been the strongest argument against Friedman. If the market is left unchecked, people will continually underbid one another until they have created an unlivable wage for themselves. Equal Pay for Equal Work and minimum wage laws must exist to protect people from themselves. Funny how the government loves to do that. In practice it does not cause an inexorable slide to the bottom (as long as federal unemployment stipends aren't a factor) because companies cannot afford to (Cont.)
He's not wrong. It's not pretty, but you eliminate prejudice by letting people considered traditionally worse to come in and give it a go - something a capital organization is only incentivized to do if they undercut wage rates. Then, as they prove their work is just as good, managers see the evident truth: Their worth is equal. Then the wages catch up. Advancing the time scale seems fair but can result in unintended consequences.
It very difficult to express the truth to a closed minded dummy without getting upset and come across as a ranting fool. Milton does it with a smile, very calmly, he does not talk down to dumb stupid ass people, and he enlightens those willing to open up their small closed minded pea size brain without insulting or belittling them. He really made this world a better place.
+Edindro Whitehall it didn't exist for people with the same work experiences, but there were less single women on the workforce so that's why you think it existed, but it didn't.
Also women in industries like IT are for the most part women who are just coming in. And if you're be offered your first salaried position in your field that is essentially worth more to you and your future than you currently are to the company it is probably smarter to choose not to negotiate that salary. So it's probably too simple to just say women are less assertive
What Milton understood that perhaps you do not is that if you demand equal wages for jobs, you take away the employers ability to discriminate for economic reasons. It sounds good, but you are then requiring them to choose their workers based on non-economic reasons, such as sex or race. That is why Milton is really on her side but she isn't. Also, if women were truly paid less for equal work then companies that only hired women could undersell their competition and dominate the market. No?
@Sp3nd Coin identity politics is by nature a zero sum game. For one group to rise, it must come at the expense of another. If a person is a member of the group that will lose, he would be irrational to support that which would strip his group of power. No one fears the social status of another if it's earned on the basis of merit or some other discernible rationale, but special privileges based on race are nothing to be applauded. Recipients of such privilege (affirmative action) tarnish the reputation of the institutions and professions they enter once they begin to display their lack of expertise and qualification. This is harmful to everyone in the end.
Sp3nd Coin you aren’t being lifted up, you’re being given something for less work, not only is it discriminating it also makes the hard work other minorities who actually deserve the spot irrelevant. All affirmative action does is make schools dumber and inflate a statistic
Not really much of an argument. In one second, he says people don't get what they deserve but then makes a statement that people will get paid appropriately and deservedly for their work, which is not true always and what these laws were trying to target. Then he compares South Africa and Apartheid to the U.S. as if they are at all immediately comparable. I'm no historian of South Africa, but I'm pretty sure equal pay law happened at the end of apartheid? Maybe the laws had something to do with ending apartheid rather than upholding it. At least I won't pretend I know for sure. Lastly, this is misrepresenting the equal pay for equal work laws which specifically state that people must exert equal effort and have equal skill. It's not about paying a less skilled worker the same as a more skilled one just because they are a woman or whatever. This is just propaganda. Unsurprising to find it on a Libertarian channel. At the very least, find some actual, substantial criticism.
How is she a feminist? She asked a question that everyone should have had in their mind from the way Milton worded his argument. Just because someone is a woman asking questions about economics does not imply they have feminist ideals.
He seems so confident in his ideas. However, they don't match up to reality. Legally blocking discrimination does not--history has proven this--hurt the people who would otherwise be discriminated against, no matter how cleverly you try to pretend it does. He says there is no cost to hiring men instead of women, but with non-discrimination laws, there is absolutely a cost if you're actively excluding women (or Catholics or African Americans, etc.) who are qualified for a job. Discrimination lawsuits are very costly, and having to pay the fines for breaking the laws is also costly. He also seems to be pretending that anti-discrimination laws somehow force employers to hire less than qualified employees, which isn't the case. It's perfectly legal to not hire someone lacking certain skills or experience, or to pay someone who isn't as good as someone else less for the same type of work. Equal pay for equal work means paying the same for everyone who is doing the same amount and quality of work, but it doesn't exclude basic employment factors like company loyalty, years of experience, and seniority, which still legally account for a lot of salary differences. His concept is based on a misrepresentation of what he's arguing against. In rhetoric, we call this a "straw man."
Well conservatives will eternally be forced to say that phrase because emotionally unintelligent liberals will eternally make ridiculous and false claims of bigotry. "So what you're saying is that women are inferior and deserve less" - the female questioner in this video.
Well, they're both inclined towards classic liberalism, uphold individual liberty and small government and vigorously oppose government mandates. Both are eloquent speakers, and formidable debaters (with Friedman > Peterson imo ). They're similar in a lot of ways!
To all the people arguing about how Friedman is sexist and whatnot: he's just simply stating that Equal Pay for Equal Work Laws don't provide the incentive that they promise towards sexist employers. That is, employers who hire men over women - even if their skills are identical - will continue to do so even if they are required by law to pay men and women equally. He doesn't exactly provide an alternative solution but he's certainly not ON THE SIDE OF the sexist employers.
He claimed Apartheid was the result of equal pay laws, not racism or anything. No matter how logical you are after that, you can never live this down. You are a parody at that point.
milton friedman is a joke, the only thing he's advocating here is to keep wages low. the goal of liberal economics is to create poverty and demoralize the workforce so they're willing to work for less. The less the boss has to pay their workers the more they get to put in their pockets. This is just a propaganda video trying to stop any attempt at improving the lives of working people. neoliberals like friedman have such a chauvinistic privileged view of history, after he talks about how we should be willing to accept inadequate pay in order build our way up the *non-existent* ladder, I'm not sure any working person would take him seriously.
@@jamesz2246 yeah and how's that turned out? The richest countries I. The world are the most economically liberal ones, the poorest are the most socialist/ state interventionists ones
@@Bolognabeef you have a poor understanding of imperialism. Capitalist Imperialism is what those rich countries are, and they got their wealth through looting those poor countries. The USA stole its wealth from Latin America and Africa, The UK got their wealth through imperialism in China, Africa, and nearly everywhere else. The rest of Europe looted Africa and Latin America as well. Those countries are only rich because other countries are poor.
I think you’ve missed the point.. to summarise more clearly, if you’re not as skilled as another worker, why would you get equal pay to that person? That would shut you out of the market! Remember, just because the proposed law was called Equal Pay for Equal Work, doesn’t mean that this will be the outcome. As Milton says, the sexist pig who wants to hire only men - if the law were imposed to him, his sexism would come at no cost.
@@AinsleyHarriott1 his first words are "equal pay for equal work laws" so he's not just talking about one specific bill in America, his statement can be generalised to any such law in any setting. Thank you for your summary but I understand what he's saying. I just see it as a straw man argument because he is not talking about 'equal work', he's talking about equal pay for two groups that produce unequal work. If the work of the two groups truly is equal, his entire point is irrelevant
@@AinsleyHarriott1 The cost for the sexist pig would be loosing out on half the available talents on the market. Try that with any other scarce ressource and your company will fail in the long run as people make your business. And yes: Fiedmann really did not talk about equal pay for equal work (fair) but equal pay for unequal work/ hiring less qualified workers for the same cost as more qualified workers (unfair).
Thank you for noticing that. As Truman once said about Nixon, "He's the only son of a bitch I know who can talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and lie with both of them!"
He isn't talking about unequal work, he is talking about unequal skill to do the same work. His point is even if you don't have the same skill that the next guy that want to do the same work as you, you should be able to compete for that same job on the base of accepting less for that job.
While Milton Friedman's arguments may seem logical, they have significant flaws: First, his claim that apartheid in South Africa stemmed from equal pay policies is historically inaccurate. Apartheid was driven by racial discrimination and white supremacy, not labor laws. Second, without equal pay laws, employers could pay workers less, regardless of productivity. This drives down wages for everyone (creating a race to the bottom) and reinforces discriminatory practices. Third, Friedman's perspective tolerates discrimination by suggesting that market forces alone can address bias, ignoring power dynamics and structural inequalities. Historically, markets have not corrected these issues without legal intervention. Markets are not "self-correcting", there is no such thing as "perfect competition" and "general equilibrium" in economic theory often does not hold up in practice.
Ordinarily I agree with Dr. Friedman on just about everything. But the reason there is/was apartheid in South Africa has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with powerful men wanting dominance over weaker men. Color. That's the reason.
Minority in the work force. Usually women do housewife chores, take maternity leave, or retire earlier than men. Most men don't do housewife chores and get pregnant.
@@davingt1485 This interview is from 1978... Women aren't a minority in the workforce anymore, and have been proven just as capable as men in most cases, thanks to equal policies against sex discrimination regarding wages.
This is assumes a closed system with no secondary incentives that maintain a status quo. It suggests that those with power need only be burdened by expense to remedy imbalances that preserve their power, ignoring their ability to generate profit in excess of the burden from the imbalances. It’s the same simplistic view that lead Greenspan to saying his model was good, he just didn’t expect people to behave the way they did.
@Nuby Exactly. You have to prove your worth to earn the better wage. People try to take competition out of the equation in the name of helping others and in the end only hurt people because they become less viable options for employment later since they didn't learn or earn the skills they really needed. We still do this method, it's called internships. Our government loves them and uses them regularly.
yes, but have we eradicted those secondary incentives with minimal wage and equal base pay rates? Absolutely not! Those in managerial positions; are still free to hire a friend, give them raises or unequal bonuses, etc. Has minimal wage helped workers climb? Hardly, since its very clear that, in similar fashion to welfare and other social programs, laws like these do an extraordinarily good job at keeping people right where there are---rare and minscule ups and the poitential for down increases.
(Cont.) create employee bases who do not have the buying power to be customers. With federal aid, big businesses can afford to pay their employees (men or women) jack sh*t because they will resort to unemployment to maintain their standard of living. Short: The market will always self-correct because businesses can only profit from the poverty they create in the SHORT-TERM. In the long-term, unequal payment or crap wages are self-destructive to the company. A Friedman lesson we're still learning
Interestingly enough, the equal pay act was passed in 1963, and we didnt see his prediction occur. And before the equal pay act, his assessment was not occurring either. The reason for this is that most businesses do not want to be explicitly sexist and will still hire female workers even though they might be a little sexist, also, there are other reasons to hire women when youre a sexist male. What this law aimed to do was prevent the exploitation of women from employers that realized that the they are able to pay women less than their male counterparts for the same work. They aren't able to pay all of their employers less, because they would eventually lose their workers and would not be able to hire new ones. However they are able to pay the women less, because they knew that other employers did the same thing and its much easier for an employee to continue their job at a company than to leave to try and find a new one. This act successfully accomplished what it set out to do, prevented employers from taking advantage of the fact that women were paid less than men for the same work. Point is, while his argument makes sense logically in a vacuum, the real world shows, and already did show, that his argument was invalid and both of his predictions did not hold true.
Absolutely correct. The more you watch Friedman and the other libertarians, the more you'll realize the same pattern all the time. Their logic is theoretically correct, especially if there's some math equations to support it, and they do make a lot of sense. The arguments are simple and to the point. However, when you check carefully whether their predictions match up with what we observe in reality, an enormous gap suggests that their logic in the first place was based on incomplete factors - which they perhaps ignore wittingly. Their discussion of the minimum wage would be a striking example.
@@DocOck Take a look at labor-force participation rate, by gender, over the years in the US. This act was enacted into law in 1963, diversity quotas came after this act was passed yet there is no significant change in the trend line. Looking at the data it makes much more sense to come to the conclusion that diversity quotas are to fix some other societal issue and not to counter act the imagined negative effects of this act. Edit: I couldn't really find when exactly the first diversity quotas based on male female hiring were enacted, but if they were before or during 1963 then Friedman in his initial argument is choosing to ignore the obvious solution to his imagined problem that already exists. If they sprung up afterwards, then the years in between 1963 and whenever it first showed up show that his prediction was incorrect.
I've since figured the bit out - it costs more to be sexist and hire men over women, and if it is the same work, men will ultimately need to charge less, or women become high demand enough because of their low rate that they end up with a higher one. But I don't see how your response applies to the gender aspect.
This is the so-called economist who started the pillaging of the American middle class by proclaiming back in the 70s the only job of corporate leaders was to maximize shareholder value which, when followed over the next 30 plus years decimated all stakeholders including workers, suppliers, and even the environment. Now, he wants to confuse you by twisting the idea that it's work, rather than gender (or race) that's at risk. The purpose of the EWFEP proposed legislation is to insure that a woman, assuming she's the most qualified person for a job, receives the same pay as a man would if he was the most qualified. Question everything and everyone...
While he might have had stupid opinions on other topics, that doesn't mean his argument here is invalid. The purpose of the legislation is what you say it is, but his argument wasn't about it's purpose but it's effect. Could you point out where his argument falters, or cite data that contradicts his conclusion? I'm genuinely curious as I had not previously considered that equal pay laws could be bad before, and his argument seems plausible to me.
@@Achelebachele People would only go so far down as to where they considered the deal to still be better than not taking the deal, and if another company offered better wages, it would be better to work there. So there would be a race to the bottom amongst potential employees while a race to the top amongst potential employers. These two forces would at some point reach an equilibrium. This only works if there are multiple companies competing for the same employees, which is one of the reasons why monopolies or other reductions of available options are antithetical to a well functioning market.
@@MrNikeNicke there are several places the argument falls flat. Very typically of a neo-liberal, Friedman constructs a theoretical reality in his head and makes arguments based on that, which don't take into account the wider reality. What we see repeatedly is that employers often give preferential treatment to workers not based on their productivity, but on implicit biases they carry. An example of this would be experiments conducted with hiring rates where the same CV was submitted to employers, once with an "ethnic" name and once with a "White" name. Repeatedly these experiments have shown those with White names are more likely to get employed. Are we really going to say that this is a rational decision based on productivity? Similar studies have been made for gender. Study after study shows that women are paid less for the same work as men, that women are more likely to be passed over for promotion than men, and that women are less likely to be offered the same opportunities as men. Perhaps every employer is just a "racist, sexist pig", as Friedman insinuates, and we're just waiting to be saved from racism and sexism by a "good guy with a job"; or perhaps everybody carries implicit bias, and these implicit biases mean that a free market does not offer equal opportunities for everybody based on their work, even if we don't take into account explicit bigots in positions of power. Moreover, Friedman is ignoring the fact that those who start out poor generally stay poor, and the more money you have the better your opportunities are. White men have benefited from historical and current advantages in a way that minorities haven't, which are hardly the result of a free market handing out according to merit, and that perhaps in order for this idealised free market of Friedman's imagination to be realised, the government needs to take active measures to redress these historic inequalities. This is the problem with divorcing economics from the other social sciences, you tend to see things purely from the perspective of economic models, which don't give you a full and accurate picture of society. Whether Friedman genuinely believed in what he was saying or whether it was just a grift I can't say, but the policies he espoused have been devastating for many people around the world because they are designed to work in the mind castle of folks who don't consider other social sciences important, and they don't work in real life.
@@kapitankapital6580 Thank you for addressing my question. It is true as you say that people's pay doesn't necessarily correlate properly with productivity, but Friedman addresses this point in a way that seems to me to work regardless of whether this is because of overt bigotry or implicit bias. He isn't saying it's not a problem, he is saying that the equal pay legislation worsen the problem. You are also correct in that richer and otherwise privileged groups are afforded more opportunities than those less fortunate, but Friedman's point here is that by taking away the possibility of competing by accepting lower wages, you are also taking away the opportunity for those traditionally excluded to get their foot in the door. If no one is willing to hire me at the minimum rate they are legally allowed to offer, then I'll be jobless.
Fools chatter, but the wise man listens. Most people chatter. Friedman was clearly respected, but this civil discourse would not be possible at most universities now I'm afraid because of angry, violent and loud mobs ruining any chance of dialog.
If Friedman were honest (which he was incapable of), he'd reply "Not at all! They have the very important domestic function of keeping the house clean, making dinner, and keeping her husband satisfied in every way he demands! Until he trades her in for a younger model, of course! Oops, did I say that out loud??"
@@maskedmarvyl4774 My god. You do realize that his wife helped him with a tremendous amount of the research he did, right? And Friedman has never advocated that women be assigned to any designated role, domestic or otherwise. His entire political philosophy can be bottled down to two words: individual freedom. If a man wants to be a prick, let him. If a woman wants to be a domestic wife and nothing more, then let her. If she wants to go pursue astrophysics, then nobody should get to tell her or otherwise restrain her otherwise. He's never once suggested anyone do anything other than what that individual wants. Stop demonizing his views.
Friedman is wow! I'm watching all this videos and he says something incredibly wise and incredibly "simple" every 10 seconds. Plus he's one of the best orator ever! Too bad he's gone... some ppl should live 200y! We could use a Friedman here in Italy to explain to italians what capitalism, free market, freedom is all about, 'cos they dont have clue.
In Germany there doesnt exist a minimum wage law. I can not see any race to the bottom. On the contrary: germany has the lowest unemployment rate in europe. More impoprtnat the youth unemployment is also low. Milton Friedman is 100% rigth
The problem is there will always be cheaper slaves, and this system is sureshot gateway to slavery. First the women will be cheaper, then children will be seen more cheap labour, later maybe some colony in africa. His policies depend on giving free hand to capitalists. If the capitalists are forced to hire all genders, equal pay for equal work will infact be a good policy.
1. Because women did less work, they were paid less by companies. So women demanded "equal pay". 2. Because companies had to pay men and women the same, they hired more men because men worked more. So women demanded "gender quotas". 3. Now companies pay women and men equally, and have to hire equal numbers of men and women. I wonder what women will demand next? I think what comes next is "equal respect/recognition". In the past, when an employee was a good worker, companies would respect them more, and companies would show them their appreciation by giving the worker more authority and/or more pay. Today companies automatically give women more authority and more pay then they are worth (or face discrimination charges), so women have an inflated sense of self worth. Because they are given more authority and more pay, they think that this entitles them to more respect from their peers, but this is not how this works. Women are skipping the part before hard where they prove themselves and get people respect/recognition, so this is something that women today are lacking in the workforce. Any money that the next thing women will demand from companies is "equal respect/recognition" for inferior productivity.
+Gabriel Lewicki I agree with what you are saying if its related to "men's job" Such as Construction labor, i totally agree with the "Equal pay for equal work thing" what i dont agree is when people judge men more intelligent or prepared for higher positions in a company. I believe thats what women is fighting for. ;)
Priscila Riscado *I agree with what you are saying if its related to "men's job" Such as Construction labor, i totally agree with the "Equal pay for equal work thing" what i dont agree is when people judge men more intelligent or prepared for higher positions in a company. I believe thats what women is fighting for. ;)* No. Women are doing the exact opposite. They are pushing for more affirmative action, pushing for higher female quotas, and pushing for women to be promoted faster than men so that there is male/female parity in the higher up positions. Now when a woman gets a job or gets a promotion, people have to wonder whether she got this because she was just as "intelligent" as the men, or whether she got this just because she has a vagina. Whereas in the past, when a woman secured a job or received a promotion, everyone knew this was because she earned it.
+Priscila Riscado maybe these men that are being viewed as more intelligent are more intelligent? maybe they are seen as better prepared because they are better prepared it's a proven fact males significantly outnumber females when it comes to people with high iq's if you think people put gender over profits you are deluded
There are professions where women excell over men and Friedman would argue exactly the same towards men entering those professions. I guess I'm trying to say, don't be so condescending. Moreover, working moms have it double as hard. Consider these issues too, there's no gender pay gap, there's a parenting pay gap
It's pretty simple: if women are worth 72 cents on the dollar, then which idiot will pay men $1 when they can hire women for 72 cents?! I'd have the be the dumbest idiot out there, not to hire women only! Clearly that's not the case and by all measures, women do earn as much as men when you account for career choice, education, experience, hours worked, seniority, and so forth.
The Friendman clip was from...when? 1975? It sure wasn't uncommon back then that women did get paid less then men for the exact same job, hand while having the same qualifications.. Please let us not deny that there was gap in payment in the past. Fortunately this has changed, but Friedman's logic here is too easy. Unequal pay simply did happen, penalties for prejudice or not. I really admire Friedman, don't get me wrong, in particular his fast reasoning. But there are also things going on on this planet that make no sense, or do make sense but should not happen because it is unfair. You can throw all the logic in the world at it, but it simply doesn't make it go away. "Oh, well. if this problem exists thennn...I am sure it is because of a valid reason, After all, I just delivered you a sound piece of logic showing us that under normal circumstances it cannot exist." On the drawing board it looks amazing though.
"It sure wasn't uncommon back then that women did get paid less then men for the exact same job, hand while having the same qualifications..." Citation needed, please.
That was my whole point. Govt. creat poverty but makes it appear that businesses are responsible. This drives the stigma against capitalism and the push for socialism.
He's describing a "race to the bottom" in wages. Of course, employers LOVE it. Competition isn't always "good" or "benevolent"...not for workers. In his model workers are competing to work for LESS. Yes it's Free Market theory, but it's a form of self-imposed wage slavery.
You’re not looking at the big picture. If the entire economy observes those market-oriented conditions of wage competition, then the companies who pay their workers the least will also be better able to afford to sell their products cheaper. Which merely means that the entire economy will have a stronger currency all around. Would you rather get paid $100 that buys 1 loaf of bread, or $1 that buys 100 loaves of bread?
@@tomspaghetti Seriously? In a truly free market environment, that’s pretty much one of the main things that companies DO have to do in order to remain competitive with each other. All else being equal (product quality, relative fungibility, etc.), what else should a company do in order to remain competitive? Race its competitors to Washington for subsidies? No, eventually there is a “lowest acceptable margin” that investors would be willing to risk their capital for, so if and once that level were hypothetically reached, the market would sort out which businesses stay and which either merge, cease, or reorganize. The analogy to labor falls apart, though, because in exchange for relatively low compensation (wages), the workers get paid REGARDLESS of whether the company turns a profit or a loss. The fact that Marxists keep trying to make false analogies between wages and returns on investment shows how either A) ignorant, or B) stubborn they are.
If women are paid less for equal work, why isn't our office staffed solely by women? We could save a tremendous amount and out compete others in our space.
Yet, a half century later, that girl (someone like her) is now the Labor Secretary or a Lawmaker voting for a mandatory government enforced $15 minimum wage. Friedman will be proven correct again: to those who already 'got theirs' which in this case is to say they already attained the skills and experience, they are now guaranteed the job with no competition from those who did not YET get theirs. Example: Outback Steaks has a 22 year old waitress apply for the one position. She already has 4 years experience, she knows everything from the computer system, the terminology, how to work fast, when, she knows it all. She knows that because at 18 she got her first waitressing job knowing nothing and was terrible but the employer could take her on for 7 dollars and hour. The other applicant is another 18 year old girl with no experience. Outback Steak now has, by government enforced mandates, NO REASON to even consider hiring her. Why the hell would they? They have to pay 15 by law to anyone so, of course they will ONLY hire the one who's already 'got theirs' which in this case are valuable skills. IF you are a 17 year old then when you turn 18 you get in line. There will be a totally unskilled 19 year old behind an unskilled 20 year old and none are attaining any skills because Outback Steaks only hires experience-only people as it will have since the mandatory minimum wage law came in. Friedman has absolutely summed it up: For you who think you're helping the working poor by demanding a mandatory minimum $15 per hour wage? "I'm on your side - but you aren't!"
Milton's argument is correct as far as it goes, but also incomplete. True, where a man and a woman (or a white and a black, or an X and a Y) are equally qualified, businesses who hire a man (or a white, or an X) for, say, $10 per hour pay a cost of $1 per hour when a woman (or a black, or a Y) is willing to work for $9 per hour. True, and insightful. But what he leaves out is even more important. Where the employer's discrimination isn't quite worth $1 an hour to them, they will hire the woman, or the black, or the Y. But this means that the worker is the party that bears the cost of the employer's discrimination because they are taking home $1 per hour less than they would have had there been an equal pay law. It also means that the employer gets the "advantage" of paying a certain group less due to discrimination (probably systemic) against them. Add these facts in, and I think Friedman's argument crumbles rather quickly.
The South Africa example of White Labor Unions passing minimum wage laws is what Friedman should have brought up, it’s very simple and very easy to grasp even for people who don’t understand what he was saying here.
I'd suggest viewers, when wondering who is around these days who can still explain like Friedman, I'd suggest checking out Thomas Sowell. One smart dude.
Import note for: Let me try to explain what he's saying. Under equal pay, if a business management is sexist and prejudiced against women then they will always hire men. Because it costs the same. On the other hand if there is no equal pay and hiring men costs more yet the productivity of male vs female is exactly the same then a rational, unbiased business will always hire a woman. The sexist business management would still hire men, but at a higher cost as they will be paying more than they would have if they hired a woman. You know, I had never looked at this problem in this manner. Milton was an economic genius. ~~~ The most important part is that the rational unbiased business will undercut the sexist business management and thus the sexist business management will be forced to either hire women or go bankrupt. A rational consumer will purchase the cheaper product made by the more rational business. If irrational consumers purchase product from irrational businesses, you can ignore them, they do no harm to you.
They are. You just didn't take economics classes 😂. Or if you did, then they just didn't decide to teach you this specific aspect of what some economists think. You will often read about arguments against gov't involvement in the market from right-wing economists.
Because it's bullshit and based on the lie that equal pay is bad for you, and equal rights are bad for you. I have no doubt that if Milton Friedman were in the KKK wearing a Klan robe and hood, he'd say to a black crowd, "I'm on your side, even if you're not!"
@@maskedmarvyl4774 let us know when Milton mentions equal rights are bad for you. He also explained why equal pay was bad, it means someone that could have competed with their lower wage to get the job, now cant get the job, so then end up on unemployment benefits which the taxpayer has to foot the bill on.
What a shameless troll Friedman was. This was a mean-spirited little weasel on every level. I think he took joy in convincing people that any improvement in their lives that cost the rich a penny was in fact bad for them. Here he makes the case that women who demand the same pay for the same work as a man are guilty of sexism against themselves, and should turn down a pay raise on principle. I have a feeling Friedman despised intelligent women. I'm sure that somewhere Friedman made the same argument that if black workers demanded equal pay for equal work, they were guilty of racism against themselves, and should turn down an offer of equal pay "on principle". If Friedman was married, I have nothing but pity for his wife....
I started out as a dishwasher in a restaurant making minimum wage. I kicked butt and when thing were slow with dishes they put me on the line. I got good at that they promoted me to the line and my wages went up. I got so good at that they made me run the line on some nights and my wages went up. Minimum wage was nothing but with 4 roommates and no kids I was able to get by . I learned skills and moved up. Wages are what two people agree to -whether we feel it is right or wrong.
I loved the face expression of that girl, she clearly had her own ideas and at the same time you can appreciate her open mindness to hear what Friedman had to say. She was willing to listen at him and learn, even if that implied to destroy her bases on feminism. Nowadays, when you think different, you get yelled at by the biggest ignorants on the planet.
I for one so sick and tired of everyone thinking everything has to be fair... and the way we achieved this utopian equal fairness is REGULATE everything and everyone to death. This country was set up so that each individual as the opportunity to seek out they’re own happiness, all this government for the people is supposed to do is to stay out of that goal, not put up road blocks . When people work hard and are determined to achieve.. they achieve.
Most of his argument is based on jobs where being a man or a woman is in some way advantageous to doing the job. On building sites or in lap-dancing clubs that may be the case, but I'm pretty sure that in most jobs there is no reason to think being a man or a woman makes somebody better-suited to doing that job. He is approving of having no legal protection for a woman being intentionally underpaid for a job she does every bit as well as a man, on the basis that there are a small number of jobs in other fields where being a man or a woman is advantageous or essential. He should address the issue for women being underpaid in jobs where there is *no* advantage to having a man doing that job, because that is the *norm*. Talking about the exception instead is simply misdirection. He is being highly misleading. Regarding his first point of the main source of apartheid being unions demanding equal pay is appalling. The source was white supremacists. That should have been stamped out with laws. It should not have been down to black people having to work for lower pay until they managed to earn equality with white people. That's repulsive.
The argument is kind of ok, but he is just plain wrong, wage gaps is created because of pregnancy; saying in another words because economics factors and a culture which sees the mother as the only caregiver. Thus, companies try to promote men over woman and eventually hire more also.
@@noahdouble07 except that even when person works more the pay doesn't reflect that he is making the case for keeping your mouth shut and putting up with and it's bs
Even now the effect of equal pay laws have on the disabled, mentally ill, and ex convicts deny them the freedom to rebuild there lives. I have a history of mental health issues and now hold a full time job. After being "exploited" by current employer who offered me an unpaid work experience placement. He was so keen to have me back he gave me first refusal on my current job before he even advertised it.
Nice Strawman. The argument is not about pay based on experience. It is about paying different people with the same experience different amounts for prejudice reasons.
Lets assume that a company is ruled by sexist employers. Assume 2 types. Employer A is a sexist who will hire women but for low pay. Employer B is a sexist who will not hire women at all. If the Employer A type describes the market in general because of widespread prejudice, the woman does not have many options other than to accept low pay for the same type of work. In addition she must be able to negotiate her salary and that can happen only if: a) she has an idea of the salary potential of the employer or how much he is paying a male for the same job b)there is enough labor demand or low labor supply to be able to negotiate (i.e in high unemployment periods there is diminished negotiating power for the worker). In that case the sexist employer A will potentially benefit by exploiting low pay labor. He will not pay any price. Lets take Employer B. He will not necessarily pay the price for not employing women either. There are many skillful men to employ besides women and since men have had a head start compared to women in the work force, depending in the industry he may actually have an even larger crowd to pick a skillful male employee from. Employer B is not paying the cost either. He still has skillful employees. This is why it is important to at least have worker rights in the constitution that allow a worker, if there is evidence of real discrimination to raise litigation procedures.
Sad as it may be, communism failed economically was because they went against this very trait of human nature and eliminated the incentive for the most productive in society to work harder and generate more value first for themselves but also for society as a whole. The truth of the matter is that Gordon Gekko, the villain of Wall Street was correct when he said that "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!".
The video title is misleading. Friedman does not oppose equal pay for equal work; he opposes the LAW that mandates equal pay for equal work. Huge distinction.
EXACTLY!!! He's against government control and promotes a FREE MARKET, with all its imperfections. He consistently holds his ground on this BECAUSE the alternative is FORCED SOCIALISM and there's little freedom there. Freedom MUST trump equality. And the free market promotes individual freedom.
+bweazel You clearly don't understand what Earej was saying, he was talking about the TITLE
Earej exactly!!
free markeyt = rule by the oligarchy as there is plentiful proof of nowadays. Big shitty corporations dpo what they want without any penalties and no one is never responsible. If people die using their products nothing happens just a small fine. no one get the death penalty which should go to the ceo, the board and those in cgharge of the product they knew where faulty but still sold anyway like the Ford pinto or vioxx
And you think that is the fault of the companies, and not the fault of the government that enabled the behaviour by protecting them in the first place, I assume.
"I'm on your side, but you're not!" Lol classic
The True Fizz Milton was a national treasure.
+The True Fizz yeah it's great if you are already on his side, but it's also a pitty the guy had zero tact :/ I would bet that woman didn't walk out of that room a libertarian...
***** I thought he was quite polite and not tactless at all. He just explained his viewpoint
***** I should add that I am a liberal (probably like the girl) and I wasn't "already on his side". I'd never even heard of him before I watched this video, but I can't deny his reasoning on this issue.
+The True Fizz Yeah, I too think he was very polite and charismatic actually, but I can see some people not taking some of his expressions very well.
"thank God we don't get what we deserve" lmao
Like Jordan Peterson before Jordan Peterson.
While I certainly love the answers Mr. Friedman gives to these questions, I also like watching these videos in part because it shows that there indeed was a time where people who disagreed on issues could do so politely and respectfully, and ask questions (sometimes very good questions) without being jackasses about it.
I only wish we had that type of civility today.
Yes, it's so refreshing to see.
So true
How did this change come about in our society? Is it how children are raised these days? Or is it something people pick up in school?
Back then, Liberals were only stupid, but now they're stupid and violent.
@@americopedroni6837 People were angry at Obama and people are angry at trump. That's the reason
Let me try to explain what he's saying.
Under equal pay, if a business management is sexist and prejudiced against women then they will always hire men. Because it costs the same.
On the other hand if there is no equal pay and hiring men costs more yet the productivity of male vs female is exactly the same then a rational, unbiased business will always hire a woman. The sexist business management would still hire men, but at a higher cost as they will be paying more than they would have if they hired a woman.
You know, I had never looked at this problem in this manner. Milton was an economic genius.
I think the reason why so many leftists don't get this is because they believe that government can force people to "do good"; in this case, that government stipulations will force any sexists out there to not be sexist.
This logic works in a vacuum but as we know the economy is not in such a condition.
It's the same argument against minimum wage, where people with lower skills or abilities can't offer a lower price to compete against higher-skilled workers. There are other areas where this happens. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but over here, certain professions, like translators and notaries, are grouped in associations which set a minimum price for their members' services. Basically, they're cartels enforced by law. It's illegal for people in those professions to charge less. I've had some of them offer me lower prices in secret, sort of like a black market for legitimate services, because of those ridiculous rules.
@Ishallnotsubmit, your entire argument rests on the claim that under equal pay laws sexist employers will always employ men over equally qualified women because there's no financial incentive to employing the woman. But that's only true if the equal pay law is worded in a way that is obviously defective and defeats its purpose. Obviously any remotely competent legislator would draft an equality law that not only guarantees equal pay for equal work, but that also prohibits employers from sex discrimination in their hiring and firing practices too. So the straw-man scenario you describe wouldn't arise.
David Loveday okay, you are suggesting that the law can be worded in such a way that would: allow for women to be paid equally as men, without taking away their option to compete. Can you please enlighten us as to how such law should be written? When I was in the job market only half a decade ago, I realised it’s impossible to compete with existing employees when there’s a minimum wage imposed. Mandatory wages policies like these are merely appealing to current work forces. They benefit from the law change, allowing for higher wages and punish those who are temporary out of the work force or entering the work force. You are taking the right of one group and give it to another. My sister who was pregnant, struggle to come back to work because the law mandated companies to pay her more disallowing her to compete with younger women without children. Is that fair to her?
"Nobody deserves anything." *every statist's head explodes* lol
He's based as fuck! The guy is a genius!
Well, the black people under Apartheid certainly didn't deserve anything. Damn equal pay laws!
Seriously, you people...!
OolTube02 you do realise it was the government that instated the laws that blacks MUST be paid less than whites... they ‘fixed’ a problem they initially created with an uneconomical ‘solution’.
P.s. what do you mean by ‘you people’? ;)
That is not true. Every person deserves dignity and basic human rights. He wants you to believe you are worthless.
@@qwikvr6gti To be fair, you are worthless unless you have accomplished something.
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will get neither equality nor liberty. But a society that aims for liberty before equality will get the highest degree of both"--Milton Friedman
And after saying this he went to work for Augusto Pinochet lol
@@wehwalte it has nothing to do with Friedman's point. And if you look at the 'Chicago Boys' list, you won't find him there.
@@samdrow8268 The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists prominent around the 1970s and 1980s, the majority of whom were educated at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its affiliate in the economics department at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. After they finished their studies and returned to Latin America, they adopted positions in numerous South American governments including, prominently, the military dictatorship of Chile (1973-1990), as economic advisors.
@@wehwalte I still don't get what Friedman has to do with it. You previously wrote that "he went to work for Pinochet", although your next comment says that Friedman, in fact, wasn't directly involved in advising the Chilean government. Therefore, he should not be held responsible for the actions of a government for which he didn't work.
@@wehwalte Distortion, to say the least. What you didn't acknowledge is that he also gave advice (is that "worked for"?) to communist dictators as well, telling them they should liberalize. He spoke to Pinochet for a bit during his lectures in Chile after being invited by a private foundation, but he never took a penny from Pinochet and rejected honorary degrees from Chiles public universities specifically because he didn't want to endorse their regime
The woman asking him a question is referring to women as a minority... What the actual fuck does minority mean anymore?
Is like women nowadays referring themselves to be victim all the time! It is to get sympathy and support!
She clearly knows what she is doing and had not genuine response to his answer. What she was trying to do was find gaps in what Friedman was saying.
The girl in that video and her fellow generation of socialists are the people today that control media and government.
she was actually reffering to when he said "all male jobs, all female jobs or all white jobs, all black jobs" she was just trying to bring blacks into the question
I´m a real minority, I´m a "Lesbian" trapped in a men body,,,
"im not saying that at all"
JORDAN PETERSON ENTERS THE ROOM
Of course, this 2 people should have in the same era! with niche and Jung!
Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot
@@sethwilliams8625 You really should not speak like that about your betters...
@@Hungabrigoo jordan peterson is overrated by a WIDE margin. He never says anything you couldn't surmise from the least amount of time spent thinking about the subject with what information you have available - excluding internet sources.
In other words, EVERYTHING jordan peterson ever says is something anyone could have come up with if they just spent time thinking about the idea rather than having someone else think for them.
Jordan Peterson thinks for himself, and people who refuse to do the same pay for his thoughts.
Edit: This was a gross oversimplification.
@Skeptical Slim Why? Because they didn't suck the dick of any person everyone gropes towards because it's widely assumed what they say matters?
That sounds idiotic to me.
This guy saved my country from communist and socialist economy. Thanks Milton from Chile 💘
wow just wow
Chile was thriving under socialist Allende. Check your facts man
@@mitonrocha3351 thriving in poverty you mean, wtf
@@mitonrocha3351 Give us two examples of socialism where the country is thriving? Nordic countries aren't socialist, they rank very highly in the economic freedom index.
@@kirapoodle The strong peoples nation of Korea of course 💪 Our great leader Kim Jong Un reigns supreme above all. Our nation thrives better than any across all of past, present and future. Our leader invented the hamburger, je discovered electricity and he was the first man on the Moon!
“Thank God we don’t get what we deserve!” Such wise words. Indeed thanks be to Him.
"I'm on your side, but you're not." Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I'm really interested if there has been a breakdown of the value of wages to workers with work lapses vs non work lapses... and which gender has more absences.
I've never thought about how that can affect pay, but I did observe the surprisingly high number of women that never returned to work after maternity leave while working at a large company. Even with a law that mandates their job be there when they return at the same pay, an overwhelming number did not return. In the years following, I wonder what kind of a paycut that inadvertantly causes (especially considering inflation/cost of living even if the pay is the same after a 2 year work absense)
Brilliant in what way? If you were black and Milton Friedman was dressed in a KKK outfit and hood, and said to you "I'm on your side, but you're not", would you still think what he said was brilliant?
My question was just rhetorical; of course you would....
@Dan Tom , Milton Friedman died some time ago, so he doesn't do standup now (Unless he's like Tupac, who keeps releasing albums).
However, his standup routines can be found in every video posted on TH-cam where he tells poor people they shouldn't want the minimum wage, Social Security or Medicare, on this video where he actually tells women they should Refuse equal pay even if offered it, then when the women laugh incredulously, follows that by saying "I'm on your side, but you're not". On another video he also argues with a straight face that car companies should be required to pass No safety standards, and that the best way to regulate the car companies is by suing them in court After your loved one dies in a car crash caused by a defective car.
What a cutup that guy was.....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Looks as if you didn’t understand either Milton’s remark, or the response, above.
@@CHRISDABAHIA , or I could have understood both, and disagreed with both, for my own reasons, which you didn't understand.
Milton Friedman was a paid shill by corporations who sold out his profession for cash. He was the one who invented the con of Trickle Down economics, which he was smart enough to know was a con and an excuse to transfer wealth from the middle class to the richest in the form of enormous tax cuts for the richest, which Reagan implemented. Reagan actually recorded a record in the 1950s where he argued that the passing of Medicare would mean the end of all freedom in our country.
Friedman argued for the ending of Medicare, Social Security and minimum wage, as well as ending all safety regulations on vehicles of any kind (he was a highly paid consultant for auto manufacturers).
This was not a benevolent or honest figure, by any definition. He delighted in selling dishonest arguments to the poor, to women and to minorities which would harm them if they adopted them. What enjoyment he got out of it, only he knew.
My dad came to the US, back in the 70's, LEGALLY from Honduras via Job Corp. Yes, they paid below the average wage as a carpenter. It's been over 30 years since then. What did that do for him? Well, initially, he sacrificed, but employers wanted equilibrium for pay/quality of work. Companies paid him lower than the average but he was learning a skill set. Within 5 years he bought his first home because his skill set demanded a higher wage. He now owns 7 homes (owns... not paying a mortgage) and has over quarter of million in the bank. He still works 70-80 hours a week and has a net worth over million dollars. My dad may not know the intricacies or the mathematical theoretical framework of capitalism, but he knows far better than any SJW or liberal, he rather have capitalism everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Friedman is objective truth. To any minority, don't drink the liberal Kool-Aid.
Just one thing to note. Freidman did class himself as a classical liberal, and he was one. It's wrong to call the people who oppose real liberalism liberals; they are either Marxists or "progressives" etc.
No one suggests that the economic and labour market model you are advocating doesn't have its winners. Your father is clearly one of them. From what you say, he has made sacrifices and also worked hard in order to become a winner within that system. And that kind of dedication and effort is admirable.
I think what most critics of this economic and labour model are concerned about is really two things. First, that for every worker who ends up a winner like your father, there are many many workers, many of whom will work very hard too, and who will also make sacrifices, who do not reap anything like the same economic rewards. Second, that people (and your father is clearly not one of them) can come out on top in this system without actually having to work particularly hard, make comparable sacrifices, or really contribute anything of objectively equal social or economic value. Critics of the system you describe are often searching for improvements that would mean that more people are rewarded, fewer are left behind, and that an entitled few are not allowed to gain financial rewards from the system which are disproportionate to the economic and social good that they actually contribute.
The system you describe and advocate is not perfect. It is therefore legitimate to identify grounds on which it can be criticised. Criticism of the system and the model does not have to entail any criticism whatsoever of your father or the sacrifices that he and many decent people like him make over their life in order to do the best they can for themselves and their families in the system that they happen to find themselves in.
@@davidloveday8473 Wrong! Every persons lot in life becomes better. Even the person who's not successful can feed their family and put a roof over their head. The successful businessman/woman will hire these people and more people will have a job to go to. Now, the outcome for every individual will be different, but everyone will be better off. The only difference is that the rich can buy more expensive toys than the less fortunate. But who cares? I don't care if some people buy a Ferrari even if I only can afford a Pinto.
@@edodt4220 "You cannot legislate, tax or centrally plan away the consequences of being alive." First, I've never advocated central planning of entire economies. Second, I've never suggested that regulation solves all problems. What i'm suggesting is that good regulation indisputably makes life better for humans. With regulation, you CAN legislate or tax away many of the undesirable consequences of being alive in a totally unregulated world. What would it like to be alive in a totally unregulated world? There would be no criminal law whatsoever. No taxes. No courts. No police. No prisons. No rules of warfare. No public authorities to protect people from dangerous and unscrupulous behaviour by others. No agreed limits on how humans conduct themselves. I don't accept that such a state of affairs is an inevitable consequence of being alive and human. It seems self-evident to me that regulation is a necessary part of the existence that we humans have evolved to enjoy. Without it, we could not have reached our current stage of evolution. So with respect, your assertion to the effect that human life is necessarily unfair, this we just have to live with unfairness, is simply not true. The existence of unfairness is something humanity should continue to strive collectively to reduce, not something we should passively accept and acquiesce in. I hope you will continue to think about this and that one day you will realize I am right.
@@edodt4220 I would recommend that you go back and read both my comments here again. Because you are guilty of seriously misreading me, attributing points to me that I simply haven't made, and failing to address my central point.
I got my first job as a dishwasher for 75c an hour, paid under the table. I was 12 years old and probably worth that much. If my employer was forced to pay higher wages, he would have hired someone who was worth what he was paying, and I'd have been unemployed.
+ROGER2095 I promise you. You where being used.
Used? I sure was - for 75c an hour! At the end of the week, I had $20 - $30 that I otherwise wouldn't have.
Plus, I got work experience. When I became old enough to work legally, I already had a resume. In my entire life, I have never, ever had trouble getting hired.
ROGER2095 That is a good thing. Still the truth is you where used. The owner did profit more on your work than you earn by working for him. That dose not mean it is not good that things worked fine for you. Most workers are used. They deserve more. The system is maid in a way that workers can be exploded and the truth is. The condition you where in where such that making the company use you is the best thing you can do in your position.
Yes, that's true. I was paid less than the value I produced, but there's nothing sinister about that. If I was paid equal to or more than the value I produced, then there would be no point in the owner spending the money. Financially, he'd be just as well off keeping his money, or buying someone elses services where he thought he could get a bargain.
The only way that makes sense for someone to spend money is if they think they're better off spending it than not spending it. A TV star might get paid a million dollars a week, but that's only because the person paying him is making more than a million dollars a week using the TV star.
In my case, me being a bargain at 75c an hour, the employer is better off spending the money than not spending it. If you ask me, I was using him!
ROGER2095 So do you now spot the problem with his argument. It is ok to earn money by having a worker. Butt there is a moral limit how far you can go in exploding the worker. That is what laws about limits how small your payment can be. It is to limit how much the person you work for can explode you as a worker. Friedman did not want you to have any protection. The company should be allowed to be as bad as it thinks it can get a way with.
I have to agree with him on learning skills at a lower rate of pay. I was an office temp for a while, and that's where I learned all the computer skills that I now use in a much higher paying job. And I'd add that it's because of those skills that I'm ahead of some of my peers, who technologically are not as advanced because they never got an opportunity (for lower pay) to learn those things.
Cas Perry Source needed
For Childless never married Men and Childless Never Married women the gap is often reversed
abcnews.go.com/WN/reverse-gender-gap-study-young-childless-women-earn/story?id=11538401
But when feminist talk about the wage gap they compare Married Women with Children to everyone else, knowing damn well that Married Women with children have to balance work life with Motherhood.
@Cas Perry "why an equal male temp gets paid more if the productivity is the same?" If their productivity was the same the company would hire only women temps because that would be cheaper for the same amount of work.
Perhaps men temps were providing more value for the company after all...
There is an age gap!!! Women live 4 years longer than men!!!!😡😡😡
A classic problem for engineers who only know (kinda) the theory.
Except "equal work" by definition asserts that those compared are equally qualified.
Thank you - Friedmann himself and every "i got only paid xx as i did not know a thing and i was happy for it" did not get this very, very important point.
If you hire a person for a certain job (a job that is already established in your company) then this person has the equal work or the equal job like all the other employees. That doesn't mean, the newly hired person has the same skills or the same perfomance at all. You'll find out, whether the person is as good or not. If their performance is the same, they will be paid equally. The law "equal job - equal pay" is not to measure the outcome of work but to measure it along the title of the job. And in this case: same work (employment) mustn't be neccessarily the same work (skills and therefor performance). Don't confuse the words, even if it's easy to do so.
I think what he means by “work” is occupation and the responsibilities that pertain to it. For instance, a bagger at a grocery store may be extremely good at his job; meanwhile, another, on the same wage, doesn’t even bother to leave the eggs separate. (This, by personal experience, is a very realistic scenario). The “work” (occupation) is the same but the quality is not, yet they are paid at the same rate per hour.
No, it doesn't. Nice try tho.
IF "equal work" means those compared ARE "equally qualified", why then were employers not paying equally before this legislation was brought in? Either there were variances in "those compared", or the employer was prejudiced. What else could it be?
If it is prejudice, what was it like when the workforce was almost entirely white males? Were they all paid equally for equal work? Interestingly, wages for the same work varied WIDELY, even then.
Workers in the same exact jobs can have wildly varied qualifications, not to mention skill level, experience, natural capacity and so on. What's more, the more skill, education or experience a job requires, the more differences you will find.
Anyone who has ever worked a day in their life, or had to hire people, can attest to this basic fact. The only way "equal work" would equate to "equal skill" is if you were hiring identical robots, but you don't have to even pay them.
Competition in wages were one of the chief weapons that groups excluded by prejudice had, and that's gone now. It may be a largely moot point in the West today, but he was right in his time, as the example of South Africa showed.
@@raiklaub975 Perfect explanation
"Women and other minority's" :P
There are fewer women in the workforce than men.
Only because they have the option of not working, thanks to men.
jej3451 Yes, I agree. I wasn't arguing that they are suffering as a result.
*minorities
@@jej3451 YES YES YES!!! and how about alimony "You pay me for all those years I chose not to work."
How about the free housing, food, etc you received during that time? If anything women should pay MEN alimony for all the money spent on them.
Nobody deserves anything = what a bullshit statement; completely strips humanity of the very things we've said we all deserve. See magna carta, bill of rights, human rights charter etc...
Those with everything like to oversimplify economics as an individual game when it really isn't about you. It's about your family, your culture, your city, your teachers, your laws, your neighborhood, your schools, your safety, and so on. These things are secondary factors in determining HOW your primary factors (age, sex, race ...) are interpreted ESPECIALLY in economics. The answer to inequality isn't more inequality so the manager can save more money. Absolutely asinine.
It's NOT equal pay for equal work. It's equal pay for equal position; regardless of production.
He makes an excellent point though. Why would an employer higher a man when a woman could be hired for LESS?
***** "It is immoral to force employers to pay workers equally when they are not equally as productive"
It is immoral to force employers to pay workers equally when they ARE equally as productive!
It’s equal pay for equal work, and by that production.
Artur Markowski Artur Markowski yeah, i love this idea, but i don’t understand why an employer wouldn’t hire a woman that offers the same productivity for less salary. I mean, wouldn’t you giving him what he wants?
2020: with everyday that passes by and we see our world tumbling down, it becomes clear to me that a leader with Mr. Friedman’s ideas is much needed. 🙏🏼
Him and the philosophy of Thomas Sowell!
Most leaders in the West have followed his thinking. West is largely neo-liberal in economic policy.
@@ali.mass1 Yeah, but even Mr. Friedman himself was aware classic liberal ideas can't be perfectly put into practice due to human nature of corruption. Politicians will always try to have control over economic policies. Interventionism is inevitable no matter if it's the left or the right who's governing.
@@BorreLira At a certain point that becomes a no true Scotsman fallacy. You’re claim was, if only leaders were more open to his ideas. His ideas are accepted and celebrated with open arms in western mainstream politics left and right alike. If there are inherent practical limitations to the ideas themselves that’s a different story. It seems like we either have to be generally very content with the way things are going or be at least very skeptical of Friedman’s approach.
2:41 "Nobody deserves anything. Thank God we don't get what we deserve." Exactly.
Honestly when I saw the title of the video I thought “No way could I possibly end up agreeing with this view”. But I clicked on it anyways because maybe I can learn something. Once again, Milton Friedman has proved to me that I still have a lot to learn. Well said Mr. Friedman
I came here with the same thought, im for sure reading this guy
That has always been the strongest argument against Friedman. If the market is left unchecked, people will continually underbid one another until they have created an unlivable wage for themselves. Equal Pay for Equal Work and minimum wage laws must exist to protect people from themselves. Funny how the government loves to do that. In practice it does not cause an inexorable slide to the bottom (as long as federal unemployment stipends aren't a factor) because companies cannot afford to (Cont.)
"I would like to see a cost imposed on [people discriminating for irrelevant reasons]."
This feminist reminds me of Cathy Newman. So what you're saying is......
He's not wrong. It's not pretty, but you eliminate prejudice by letting people considered traditionally worse to come in and give it a go - something a capital organization is only incentivized to do if they undercut wage rates. Then, as they prove their work is just as good, managers see the evident truth: Their worth is equal. Then the wages catch up.
Advancing the time scale seems fair but can result in unintended consequences.
I love how Milton Friedman never gets offended or upset when expressing his truth to stupid libs in the audience.
That's what makes his arguments more compelling in my opinion. I have to learn that ability cause sometimes I lose my mind talking to libs
mannylora, agree.
LOL stupid libs? what a moron you must be
drumandfuckingbass, just stating a fact.
It very difficult to express the truth to a closed minded dummy without getting upset and come across as a ranting fool. Milton does it with a smile, very calmly, he does not talk down to dumb stupid ass people, and he enlightens those willing to open up their small closed minded pea size brain without insulting or belittling them. He really made this world a better place.
He could have saved a lot of time by just saying we don't need equal pay for equal work laws because the wage gap doesn't exist.
Jeff D. The wage gap does exist. Just not necessarily for the reasons they say they do. At the time of that taping though...it certainly existed.
Jeff D. - Excellent.....
+Edindro Whitehall it didn't exist for people with the same work experiences, but there were less single women on the workforce so that's why you think it existed, but it didn't.
Also women in industries like IT are for the most part women who are just coming in. And if you're be offered your first salaried position in your field that is essentially worth more to you and your future than you currently are to the company it is probably smarter to choose not to negotiate that salary. So it's probably too simple to just say women are less assertive
+Marcus Dubious Yeah and salary negotiations are one of those reasons.
What Milton understood that perhaps you do not is that if you demand equal wages for jobs, you take away the employers ability to discriminate for economic reasons. It sounds good, but you are then requiring them to choose their workers based on non-economic reasons, such as sex or race. That is why Milton is really on her side but she isn't. Also, if women were truly paid less for equal work then companies that only hired women could undersell their competition and dominate the market. No?
End discrimination.........Stop affirmative action.
@Sp3nd Coin affirmative action is discrimination just saying.
@Sp3nd Coin i don't hate myself, watch some videos from Stossel and see it from another perspective but that's my opinion and you can disagree.
@Sp3nd Coin because the governent "lifting up" native Americans has worked so well.
@Sp3nd Coin identity politics is by nature a zero sum game. For one group to rise, it must come at the expense of another. If a person is a member of the group that will lose, he would be irrational to support that which would strip his group of power. No one fears the social status of another if it's earned on the basis of merit or some other discernible rationale, but special privileges based on race are nothing to be applauded. Recipients of such privilege (affirmative action) tarnish the reputation of the institutions and professions they enter once they begin to display their lack of expertise and qualification. This is harmful to everyone in the end.
Sp3nd Coin you aren’t being lifted up, you’re being given something for less work, not only is it discriminating it also makes the hard work other minorities who actually deserve the spot irrelevant. All affirmative action does is make schools dumber and inflate a statistic
Not really much of an argument. In one second, he says people don't get what they deserve but then makes a statement that people will get paid appropriately and deservedly for their work, which is not true always and what these laws were trying to target. Then he compares South Africa and Apartheid to the U.S. as if they are at all immediately comparable. I'm no historian of South Africa, but I'm pretty sure equal pay law happened at the end of apartheid? Maybe the laws had something to do with ending apartheid rather than upholding it. At least I won't pretend I know for sure. Lastly, this is misrepresenting the equal pay for equal work laws which specifically state that people must exert equal effort and have equal skill. It's not about paying a less skilled worker the same as a more skilled one just because they are a woman or whatever.
This is just propaganda. Unsurprising to find it on a Libertarian channel. At the very least, find some actual, substantial criticism.
Damn, the feminists were well behaved back in the day. Or at least these ones.
WTF happened?
We forgot how to raise children in the west is what happened. Telling your child they’re special etc is not based in reality.
Today he would be accused of mansplaining simply for answering the question she asked him. 😑
I can feel my house flooding with all the tears you are dropping while writing this
How is she a feminist? She asked a question that everyone should have had in their mind from the way Milton worded his argument. Just because someone is a woman asking questions about economics does not imply they have feminist ideals.
The feminists were right back then
He seems so confident in his ideas. However, they don't match up to reality. Legally blocking discrimination does not--history has proven this--hurt the people who would otherwise be discriminated against, no matter how cleverly you try to pretend it does. He says there is no cost to hiring men instead of women, but with non-discrimination laws, there is absolutely a cost if you're actively excluding women (or Catholics or African Americans, etc.) who are qualified for a job. Discrimination lawsuits are very costly, and having to pay the fines for breaking the laws is also costly. He also seems to be pretending that anti-discrimination laws somehow force employers to hire less than qualified employees, which isn't the case. It's perfectly legal to not hire someone lacking certain skills or experience, or to pay someone who isn't as good as someone else less for the same type of work. Equal pay for equal work means paying the same for everyone who is doing the same amount and quality of work, but it doesn't exclude basic employment factors like company loyalty, years of experience, and seniority, which still legally account for a lot of salary differences. His concept is based on a misrepresentation of what he's arguing against. In rhetoric, we call this a "straw man."
This “I’m not saying that at all” sounds like Jordan Peterson
2:49
th-cam.com/video/Ez-X7_Vds6U/w-d-xo.html
yeah I was about to say that.
Well conservatives will eternally be forced to say that phrase because emotionally unintelligent liberals will eternally make ridiculous and false claims of bigotry. "So what you're saying is that women are inferior and deserve less" - the female questioner in this video.
TheRAINMan059 Peterson takes it to another level
Well, they're both inclined towards classic liberalism, uphold individual liberty and small government and vigorously oppose government mandates. Both are eloquent speakers, and formidable debaters (with Friedman > Peterson imo ). They're similar in a lot of ways!
To all the people arguing about how Friedman is sexist and whatnot: he's just simply stating that Equal Pay for Equal Work Laws don't provide the incentive that they promise towards sexist employers. That is, employers who hire men over women - even if their skills are identical - will continue to do so even if they are required by law to pay men and women equally. He doesn't exactly provide an alternative solution but he's certainly not ON THE SIDE OF the sexist employers.
He claimed Apartheid was the result of equal pay laws, not racism or anything. No matter how logical you are after that, you can never live this down. You are a parody at that point.
Then those women could work for non-sexist employers and over time, we might gain a better idea of which ideology is superior.
milton friedman is a joke, the only thing he's advocating here is to keep wages low. the goal of liberal economics is to create poverty and demoralize the workforce so they're willing to work for less. The less the boss has to pay their workers the more they get to put in their pockets. This is just a propaganda video trying to stop any attempt at improving the lives of working people. neoliberals like friedman have such a chauvinistic privileged view of history, after he talks about how we should be willing to accept inadequate pay in order build our way up the *non-existent* ladder, I'm not sure any working person would take him seriously.
@@jamesz2246 yeah and how's that turned out? The richest countries I. The world are the most economically liberal ones, the poorest are the most socialist/ state interventionists ones
@@Bolognabeef you have a poor understanding of imperialism. Capitalist Imperialism is what those rich countries are, and they got their wealth through looting those poor countries. The USA stole its wealth from Latin America and Africa, The UK got their wealth through imperialism in China, Africa, and nearly everywhere else. The rest of Europe looted Africa and Latin America as well. Those countries are only rich because other countries are poor.
He says "equal pay for equal work" and then literally talks about unequal work.
I think you’ve missed the point.. to summarise more clearly, if you’re not as skilled as another worker, why would you get equal pay to that person? That would shut you out of the market!
Remember, just because the proposed law was called Equal Pay for Equal Work, doesn’t mean that this will be the outcome. As Milton says, the sexist pig who wants to hire only men - if the law were imposed to him, his sexism would come at no cost.
@@AinsleyHarriott1 his first words are "equal pay for equal work laws" so he's not just talking about one specific bill in America, his statement can be generalised to any such law in any setting. Thank you for your summary but I understand what he's saying. I just see it as a straw man argument because he is not talking about 'equal work', he's talking about equal pay for two groups that produce unequal work. If the work of the two groups truly is equal, his entire point is irrelevant
@@AinsleyHarriott1 The cost for the sexist pig would be loosing out on half the available talents on the market. Try that with any other scarce ressource and your company will fail in the long run as people make your business. And yes: Fiedmann really did not talk about equal pay for equal work (fair) but equal pay for unequal work/ hiring less qualified workers for the same cost as more qualified workers (unfair).
Thank you for noticing that. As Truman once said about Nixon, "He's the only son of a bitch I know who can talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and lie with both of them!"
He isn't talking about unequal work, he is talking about unequal skill to do the same work. His point is even if you don't have the same skill that the next guy that want to do the same work as you, you should be able to compete for that same job on the base of accepting less for that job.
He's definitely one of the best economists ever.
really smart and clever, US needs more great people like him.
The time he was created in has passed. There can't be more men like him.
@@SaveYourselfGents We should all aim to be. We are privileged to have seen him led such an exemplary life.
@@許國讚 I aim to be like my grandfather. So far I have failed. Pray for me.
That actually makes a lot of sense...
Wow throwback to the times when civil conversations could actually occur without violence
today he would be cancelled for saying woman are less productive
" thank god, we dont get what we deserve "
That is very true, and i can relate myself.
If i get what i deserve.....i got nothing :v
Ya get what ya fucking deserve.
While Milton Friedman's arguments may seem logical, they have significant flaws:
First, his claim that apartheid in South Africa stemmed from equal pay policies is historically inaccurate. Apartheid was driven by racial discrimination and white supremacy, not labor laws.
Second, without equal pay laws, employers could pay workers less, regardless of productivity. This drives down wages for everyone (creating a race to the bottom) and reinforces discriminatory practices.
Third, Friedman's perspective tolerates discrimination by suggesting that market forces alone can address bias, ignoring power dynamics and structural inequalities. Historically, markets have not corrected these issues without legal intervention. Markets are not "self-correcting", there is no such thing as "perfect competition" and "general equilibrium" in economic theory often does not hold up in practice.
For such an emotive subject, can you imagine the screaming that would be going on nowadays from the audience!
Nobody deserves anything and if you're offended it doesn't mean that you're right.
Ordinarily I agree with Dr. Friedman on just about everything. But the reason there is/was apartheid in South Africa has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with powerful men wanting dominance over weaker men. Color. That's the reason.
2:20
Women are a minority?
Minority in the work force. Usually women do housewife chores, take maternity leave, or retire earlier than men. Most men don't do housewife chores and get pregnant.
@@davingt1485 This interview is from 1978... Women aren't a minority in the workforce anymore, and have been proven just as capable as men in most cases, thanks to equal policies against sex discrimination regarding wages.
This is assumes a closed system with no secondary incentives that maintain a status quo. It suggests that those with power need only be burdened by expense to remedy imbalances that preserve their power, ignoring their ability to generate profit in excess of the burden from the imbalances. It’s the same simplistic view that lead Greenspan to saying his model was good, he just didn’t expect people to behave the way they did.
@Nuby Exactly. You have to prove your worth to earn the better wage. People try to take competition out of the equation in the name of helping others and in the end only hurt people because they become less viable options for employment later since they didn't learn or earn the skills they really needed. We still do this method, it's called internships. Our government loves them and uses them regularly.
Ceteris Paribus - Economics' physics envy! Its a shame, even physics moved past its newtonian mechanic shackles - yet we have not
yes, but have we eradicted those secondary incentives with minimal wage and equal base pay rates? Absolutely not! Those in managerial positions; are still free to hire a friend, give them raises or unequal bonuses, etc. Has minimal wage helped workers climb? Hardly, since its very clear that, in similar fashion to welfare and other social programs, laws like these do an extraordinarily good job at keeping people right where there are---rare and minscule ups and the poitential for down increases.
(Cont.) create employee bases who do not have the buying power to be customers. With federal aid, big businesses can afford to pay their employees (men or women) jack sh*t because they will resort to unemployment to maintain their standard of living. Short: The market will always self-correct because businesses can only profit from the poverty they create in the SHORT-TERM. In the long-term, unequal payment or crap wages are self-destructive to the company. A Friedman lesson we're still learning
Interestingly enough, the equal pay act was passed in 1963, and we didnt see his prediction occur. And before the equal pay act, his assessment was not occurring either. The reason for this is that most businesses do not want to be explicitly sexist and will still hire female workers even though they might be a little sexist, also, there are other reasons to hire women when youre a sexist male. What this law aimed to do was prevent the exploitation of women from employers that realized that the they are able to pay women less than their male counterparts for the same work. They aren't able to pay all of their employers less, because they would eventually lose their workers and would not be able to hire new ones. However they are able to pay the women less, because they knew that other employers did the same thing and its much easier for an employee to continue their job at a company than to leave to try and find a new one. This act successfully accomplished what it set out to do, prevented employers from taking advantage of the fact that women were paid less than men for the same work. Point is, while his argument makes sense logically in a vacuum, the real world shows, and already did show, that his argument was invalid and both of his predictions did not hold true.
But he said the line and I hate the state....I'm big brainded
Well argued.
Absolutely correct. The more you watch Friedman and the other libertarians, the more you'll realize the same pattern all the time. Their logic is theoretically correct, especially if there's some math equations to support it, and they do make a lot of sense. The arguments are simple and to the point. However, when you check carefully whether their predictions match up with what we observe in reality, an enormous gap suggests that their logic in the first place was based on incomplete factors - which they perhaps ignore wittingly. Their discussion of the minimum wage would be a striking example.
Well then I'm glad that there's currently no need for, or existence of, diversity quotas to rectify the imbalance of hiring. Oh wait...
@@DocOck
Take a look at labor-force participation rate, by gender, over the years in the US. This act was enacted into law in 1963, diversity quotas came after this act was passed yet there is no significant change in the trend line. Looking at the data it makes much more sense to come to the conclusion that diversity quotas are to fix some other societal issue and not to counter act the imagined negative effects of this act.
Edit: I couldn't really find when exactly the first diversity quotas based on male female hiring were enacted, but if they were before or during 1963 then Friedman in his initial argument is choosing to ignore the obvious solution to his imagined problem that already exists. If they sprung up afterwards, then the years in between 1963 and whenever it first showed up show that his prediction was incorrect.
I hope this brilliant man is still alive so we don't have all these Bernie and AOC bullshit
Sadly, he is not :(
I've since figured the bit out - it costs more to be sexist and hire men over women, and if it is the same work, men will ultimately need to charge less, or women become high demand enough because of their low rate that they end up with a higher one. But I don't see how your response applies to the gender aspect.
This is the so-called economist who started the pillaging of the American middle class by proclaiming back in the 70s the only job of corporate leaders was to maximize shareholder value which, when followed over the next 30 plus years decimated all stakeholders including workers, suppliers, and even the environment. Now, he wants to confuse you by twisting the idea that it's work, rather than gender (or race) that's at risk. The purpose of the EWFEP proposed legislation is to insure that a woman, assuming she's the most qualified person for a job, receives the same pay as a man would if he was the most qualified. Question everything and everyone...
While he might have had stupid opinions on other topics, that doesn't mean his argument here is invalid. The purpose of the legislation is what you say it is, but his argument wasn't about it's purpose but it's effect. Could you point out where his argument falters, or cite data that contradicts his conclusion? I'm genuinely curious as I had not previously considered that equal pay laws could be bad before, and his argument seems plausible to me.
@@MrNikeNicke wouldnt this start an endless downward spiral of men and women (or other competing groups) always trying to be cheaper than the other?
@@Achelebachele People would only go so far down as to where they considered the deal to still be better than not taking the deal, and if another company offered better wages, it would be better to work there. So there would be a race to the bottom amongst potential employees while a race to the top amongst potential employers. These two forces would at some point reach an equilibrium. This only works if there are multiple companies competing for the same employees, which is one of the reasons why monopolies or other reductions of available options are antithetical to a well functioning market.
@@MrNikeNicke there are several places the argument falls flat. Very typically of a neo-liberal, Friedman constructs a theoretical reality in his head and makes arguments based on that, which don't take into account the wider reality. What we see repeatedly is that employers often give preferential treatment to workers not based on their productivity, but on implicit biases they carry. An example of this would be experiments conducted with hiring rates where the same CV was submitted to employers, once with an "ethnic" name and once with a "White" name. Repeatedly these experiments have shown those with White names are more likely to get employed. Are we really going to say that this is a rational decision based on productivity? Similar studies have been made for gender. Study after study shows that women are paid less for the same work as men, that women are more likely to be passed over for promotion than men, and that women are less likely to be offered the same opportunities as men. Perhaps every employer is just a "racist, sexist pig", as Friedman insinuates, and we're just waiting to be saved from racism and sexism by a "good guy with a job"; or perhaps everybody carries implicit bias, and these implicit biases mean that a free market does not offer equal opportunities for everybody based on their work, even if we don't take into account explicit bigots in positions of power.
Moreover, Friedman is ignoring the fact that those who start out poor generally stay poor, and the more money you have the better your opportunities are. White men have benefited from historical and current advantages in a way that minorities haven't, which are hardly the result of a free market handing out according to merit, and that perhaps in order for this idealised free market of Friedman's imagination to be realised, the government needs to take active measures to redress these historic inequalities.
This is the problem with divorcing economics from the other social sciences, you tend to see things purely from the perspective of economic models, which don't give you a full and accurate picture of society. Whether Friedman genuinely believed in what he was saying or whether it was just a grift I can't say, but the policies he espoused have been devastating for many people around the world because they are designed to work in the mind castle of folks who don't consider other social sciences important, and they don't work in real life.
@@kapitankapital6580 Thank you for addressing my question. It is true as you say that people's pay doesn't necessarily correlate properly with productivity, but Friedman addresses this point in a way that seems to me to work regardless of whether this is because of overt bigotry or implicit bias. He isn't saying it's not a problem, he is saying that the equal pay legislation worsen the problem.
You are also correct in that richer and otherwise privileged groups are afforded more opportunities than those less fortunate, but Friedman's point here is that by taking away the possibility of competing by accepting lower wages, you are also taking away the opportunity for those traditionally excluded to get their foot in the door. If no one is willing to hire me at the minimum rate they are legally allowed to offer, then I'll be jobless.
So respectful and clear. Why can’t we still have conversations like this?
Because people want to be right when they should want to be correct
Deep
Because of anger propaganda used to gain political power. I blame Newt Gingrich mostly.
Because the leftists lose every argument and therefore have chosen the path of violence to get their will.
Fools chatter, but the wise man listens. Most people chatter. Friedman was clearly respected, but this civil discourse would not be possible at most universities now I'm afraid because of angry, violent and loud mobs ruining any chance of dialog.
Equal pay for equal productivity, not for the same work. That is the thing people don't understand.
“So what you’re saying is that women shouldn’t bother trying and should just stay at home and play with Barbie dolls.”
If Friedman were honest (which he was incapable of), he'd reply "Not at all! They have the very important domestic function of keeping the house clean, making dinner, and keeping her husband satisfied in every way he demands! Until he trades her in for a younger model, of course!
Oops, did I say that out loud??"
Cathy Newman. Classic!
@@maskedmarvyl4774 My god. You do realize that his wife helped him with a tremendous amount of the research he did, right? And Friedman has never advocated that women be assigned to any designated role, domestic or otherwise. His entire political philosophy can be bottled down to two words: individual freedom. If a man wants to be a prick, let him. If a woman wants to be a domestic wife and nothing more, then let her. If she wants to go pursue astrophysics, then nobody should get to tell her or otherwise restrain her otherwise. He's never once suggested anyone do anything other than what that individual wants. Stop demonizing his views.
Friedman is wow! I'm watching all this videos and he says something incredibly wise and incredibly "simple" every 10 seconds. Plus he's one of the best orator ever! Too bad he's gone... some ppl should live 200y! We could use a Friedman here in Italy to explain to italians what capitalism, free market, freedom is all about, 'cos they dont have clue.
In Germany there doesnt exist a minimum wage law. I can not see any race to the bottom. On the contrary: germany has the lowest unemployment rate in europe. More impoprtnat the youth unemployment is also low. Milton Friedman is 100% rigth
The problem is there will always be cheaper slaves, and this system is sureshot gateway to slavery.
First the women will be cheaper, then children will be seen more cheap labour, later maybe some colony in africa.
His policies depend on giving free hand to capitalists. If the capitalists are forced to hire all genders, equal pay for equal work will infact be a good policy.
1. Because women did less work, they were paid less by companies. So women demanded "equal pay".
2. Because companies had to pay men and women the same, they hired more men because men worked more. So women demanded "gender quotas".
3. Now companies pay women and men equally, and have to hire equal numbers of men and women. I wonder what women will demand next?
I think what comes next is "equal respect/recognition". In the past, when an employee was a good worker, companies would respect them more, and companies would show them their appreciation by giving the worker more authority and/or more pay.
Today companies automatically give women more authority and more pay then they are worth (or face discrimination charges), so women have an inflated sense of self worth. Because they are given more authority and more pay, they think that this entitles them to more respect from their peers, but this is not how this works.
Women are skipping the part before hard where they prove themselves and get people respect/recognition, so this is something that women today are lacking in the workforce. Any money that the next thing women will demand from companies is "equal respect/recognition" for inferior productivity.
+Gabriel Lewicki I agree with what you are saying if its related to "men's job" Such as Construction labor, i totally agree with the "Equal pay for equal work thing" what i dont agree is when people judge men more intelligent or prepared for higher positions in a company. I believe thats what women is fighting for. ;)
Priscila Riscado
*I agree with what you are saying if its related to "men's job" Such as Construction labor, i totally agree with the "Equal pay for equal work thing" what i dont agree is when people judge men more intelligent or prepared for higher positions in a company. I believe thats what women is fighting for. ;)*
No. Women are doing the exact opposite. They are pushing for more affirmative action, pushing for higher female quotas, and pushing for women to be promoted faster than men so that there is male/female parity in the higher up positions.
Now when a woman gets a job or gets a promotion, people have to wonder whether she got this because she was just as "intelligent" as the men, or whether she got this just because she has a vagina. Whereas in the past, when a woman secured a job or received a promotion, everyone knew this was because she earned it.
+Priscila Riscado maybe these men that are being viewed as more intelligent are more intelligent? maybe they are seen as better prepared because they are better prepared it's a proven fact males significantly outnumber females when it comes to people with high iq's if you think people put gender over profits you are deluded
There are professions where women excell over men and Friedman would argue exactly the same towards men entering those professions.
I guess I'm trying to say, don't be so condescending.
Moreover, working moms have it double as hard.
Consider these issues too, there's no gender pay gap, there's a parenting pay gap
Holy shit, this is clever way to look at wage discrimination. I don't know if it has evidence to back it, but I like the thought process.
There is no overall wage discrimination and there is a ton of evidence to support that
*****
I know that.
It's pretty simple: if women are worth 72 cents on the dollar, then which idiot will pay men $1 when they can hire women for 72 cents?! I'd have the be the dumbest idiot out there, not to hire women only! Clearly that's not the case and by all measures, women do earn as much as men when you account for career choice, education, experience, hours worked, seniority, and so forth.
The Friendman clip was from...when? 1975? It sure wasn't uncommon back then that women did get paid less then men for the exact same job, hand while having the same qualifications.. Please let us not deny that there was gap in payment in the past.
Fortunately this has changed, but Friedman's logic here is too easy. Unequal pay simply did happen, penalties for prejudice or not.
I really admire Friedman, don't get me wrong, in particular his fast reasoning. But there are also things going on on this planet that make no sense, or do make sense but should not happen because it is unfair. You can throw all the logic in the world at it, but it simply doesn't make it go away.
"Oh, well. if this problem exists thennn...I am sure it is because of a valid reason, After all, I just delivered you a sound piece of logic showing us that under normal circumstances it cannot exist."
On the drawing board it looks amazing though.
"It sure wasn't uncommon back then that women did get paid less then men for the exact same job, hand while having the same qualifications..."
Citation needed, please.
That was my whole point. Govt. creat poverty but makes it appear that businesses are responsible. This drives the stigma against capitalism and the push for socialism.
He's describing a "race to the bottom" in wages. Of course, employers LOVE it. Competition isn't always "good" or "benevolent"...not for workers. In his model workers are competing to work for LESS. Yes it's Free Market theory, but it's a form of self-imposed wage slavery.
You’re not looking at the big picture. If the entire economy observes those market-oriented conditions of wage competition, then the companies who pay their workers the least will also be better able to afford to sell their products cheaper. Which merely means that the entire economy will have a stronger currency all around. Would you rather get paid $100 that buys 1 loaf of bread, or $1 that buys 100 loaves of bread?
@@lenforstell1139 It doesn't work that way.
@@jhaduvalaCompelling argument.
@@lenforstell1139what company would willingly narrow their profit margins? Because that’s what you’re asserting.
@@tomspaghetti
Seriously? In a truly free market environment, that’s pretty much one of the main things that companies DO have to do in order to remain competitive with each other. All else being equal (product quality, relative fungibility, etc.), what else should a company do in order to remain competitive? Race its competitors to Washington for subsidies? No, eventually there is a “lowest acceptable margin” that investors would be willing to risk their capital for, so if and once that level were hypothetically reached, the market would sort out which businesses stay and which either merge, cease, or reorganize. The analogy to labor falls apart, though, because in exchange for relatively low compensation (wages), the workers get paid REGARDLESS of whether the company turns a profit or a loss. The fact that Marxists keep trying to make false analogies between wages and returns on investment shows how either A) ignorant, or B) stubborn they are.
I want his brain. No creepiness!
I wish I was as quick as him.
ok, Mr. Zombie
@@alaskachan5914 cope harder
If women are paid less for equal work, why isn't our office staffed solely by women? We could save a tremendous amount and out compete others in our space.
Today feminists called it MANSPLAINING... Even if what he sait - it is true)
He seems like such a polite and nice gentleman. Also super interesting and intelligent, I wish I could have hang out with him
Yet, a half century later, that girl (someone like her) is now the Labor Secretary or a Lawmaker voting for a mandatory government enforced $15 minimum wage. Friedman will be proven correct again: to those who already 'got theirs' which in this case is to say they already attained the skills and experience, they are now guaranteed the job with no competition from those who did not YET get theirs.
Example:
Outback Steaks has a 22 year old waitress apply for the one position. She already has 4 years experience, she knows everything from the computer system, the terminology, how to work fast, when, she knows it all.
She knows that because at 18 she got her first waitressing job knowing nothing and was terrible but the employer could take her on for 7 dollars and hour.
The other applicant is another 18 year old girl with no experience. Outback Steak now has, by government enforced mandates, NO REASON to even consider hiring her. Why the hell would they?
They have to pay 15 by law to anyone so, of course they will ONLY hire the one who's already 'got theirs' which in this case are valuable skills.
IF you are a 17 year old then when you turn 18 you get in line. There will be a totally unskilled 19 year old behind an unskilled 20 year old and none are attaining any skills because Outback Steaks only hires experience-only people as it will have since the mandatory minimum wage law came in.
Friedman has absolutely summed it up: For you who think you're helping the working poor by demanding a mandatory minimum $15 per hour wage? "I'm on your side - but you aren't!"
2:20 The old boys behind her are surely laughing at her describing women as a minority group
Some people can't see the forest through the trees.
vikingfortiesfaeroes She said "avdocate."
@FreeWilly75 Or those who do the dangerous jobs, or the dirty jobs, or who die in workplace accidents.
these same arguments apply to the minimum wage, it only prices low skill labor out of the market
Milton's argument is correct as far as it goes, but also incomplete. True, where a man and a woman (or a white and a black, or an X and a Y) are equally qualified, businesses who hire a man (or a white, or an X) for, say, $10 per hour pay a cost of $1 per hour when a woman (or a black, or a Y) is willing to work for $9 per hour. True, and insightful. But what he leaves out is even more important. Where the employer's discrimination isn't quite worth $1 an hour to them, they will hire the woman, or the black, or the Y. But this means that the worker is the party that bears the cost of the employer's discrimination because they are taking home $1 per hour less than they would have had there been an equal pay law. It also means that the employer gets the "advantage" of paying a certain group less due to discrimination (probably systemic) against them. Add these facts in, and I think Friedman's argument crumbles rather quickly.
I love this guy. So calm and happy to explain topics to people.
Wtf friedman you are a freaking God
The South Africa example of White Labor Unions passing minimum wage laws is what Friedman should have brought up, it’s very simple and very easy to grasp even for people who don’t understand what he was saying here.
I'd suggest viewers, when wondering who is around these days who can still explain like Friedman, I'd suggest checking out Thomas Sowell.
One smart dude.
2:37 "NO one deserved Anything". Brilliant!!
Thank God we don't get what we deserve :))
Import note for:
Let me try to explain what he's saying.
Under equal pay, if a business management is sexist and prejudiced against women then they will always hire men. Because it costs the same.
On the other hand if there is no equal pay and hiring men costs more yet the productivity of male vs female is exactly the same then a rational, unbiased business will always hire a woman. The sexist business management would still hire men, but at a higher cost as they will be paying more than they would have if they hired a woman.
You know, I had never looked at this problem in this manner. Milton was an economic genius.
~~~
The most important part is that the rational unbiased business will undercut the sexist business management and thus the sexist business management will be forced to either hire women or go bankrupt. A rational consumer will purchase the cheaper product made by the more rational business. If irrational consumers purchase product from irrational businesses, you can ignore them, they do no harm to you.
I'm on your side, but your not. Best thing ever said.
WHY IS NO ONE TEACHING THIS?
😵😵😵😵
Because the education system has more bias to the left then the Congress of Socialism.
They are. You just didn't take economics classes 😂.
Or if you did, then they just didn't decide to teach you this specific aspect of what some economists think. You will often read about arguments against gov't involvement in the market from right-wing economists.
Because it's bullshit and based on the lie that equal pay is bad for you, and equal rights are bad for you.
I have no doubt that if Milton Friedman were in the KKK wearing a Klan robe and hood, he'd say to a black crowd, "I'm on your side, even if you're not!"
I do.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 let us know when Milton mentions equal rights are bad for you. He also explained why equal pay was bad, it means someone that could have competed with their lower wage to get the job, now cant get the job, so then end up on unemployment benefits which the taxpayer has to foot the bill on.
What a shameless troll Friedman was. This was a mean-spirited little weasel on every level. I think he took joy in convincing people that any improvement in their lives that cost the rich a penny was in fact bad for them. Here he makes the case that women who demand the same pay for the same work as a man are guilty of sexism against themselves, and should turn down a pay raise on principle. I have a feeling Friedman despised intelligent women.
I'm sure that somewhere Friedman made the same argument that if black workers demanded equal pay for equal work, they were guilty of racism against themselves, and should turn down an offer of equal pay "on principle".
If Friedman was married, I have nothing but pity for his wife....
I started out as a dishwasher in a restaurant making minimum wage. I kicked butt and when thing were slow with dishes they put me on the line. I got good at that they promoted me to the line and my wages went up. I got so good at that they made me run the line on some nights and my wages went up. Minimum wage was nothing but with 4 roommates and no kids I was able to get by . I learned skills and moved up. Wages are what two people agree to -whether we feel it is right or wrong.
I loved the face expression of that girl, she clearly had her own ideas and at the same time you can appreciate her open mindness to hear what Friedman had to say. She was willing to listen at him and learn, even if that implied to destroy her bases on feminism. Nowadays, when you think different, you get yelled at by the biggest ignorants on the planet.
I for one so sick and tired of everyone thinking everything has to be fair... and the way we achieved this utopian equal fairness is REGULATE everything and everyone to death. This country was set up so that each individual as the opportunity to seek out they’re own happiness, all this government for the people is supposed to do is to stay out of that goal, not put up road blocks . When people work hard and are determined to achieve.. they achieve.
Back when we used to have mature debates, and hear each other without screaming and smearing those we disagree with on social media...
Its stunning to me how articulate and well formed the young audience's questions when compared to watching a modern debate.
Right? I was seriously taken aback by how politely she asked the question. Would be simply unimaginable nowadays.
With all respect to this young lady but I really cannot understand how she got this 2:16 - 2:35 out of what Mr Friedman said..
Man...we need to get Friedman back 😭
Milton Friedman is the original Milo Bopodoyuponopolis
Except 10x smarter.
Well, when you compare Milo to Daddy to Grandaddy, you're going to come up short, obviously.
milo whateveropolis is an idiot. this man is/was a scholar
Most of his argument is based on jobs where being a man or a woman is in some way advantageous to doing the job. On building sites or in lap-dancing clubs that may be the case, but I'm pretty sure that in most jobs there is no reason to think being a man or a woman makes somebody better-suited to doing that job. He is approving of having no legal protection for a woman being intentionally underpaid for a job she does every bit as well as a man, on the basis that there are a small number of jobs in other fields where being a man or a woman is advantageous or essential. He should address the issue for women being underpaid in jobs where there is *no* advantage to having a man doing that job, because that is the *norm*. Talking about the exception instead is simply misdirection. He is being highly misleading.
Regarding his first point of the main source of apartheid being unions demanding equal pay is appalling. The source was white supremacists. That should have been stamped out with laws. It should not have been down to black people having to work for lower pay until they managed to earn equality with white people. That's repulsive.
He makes vary valid points, something I will definitely look into and share with others. Thank you Mr. Friedman!
@Leona sources?
"I'm on your side, but you're not"
damn he was a brilliant, cogent speaker
The argument is kind of ok, but he is just plain wrong, wage gaps is created because of pregnancy; saying in another words because economics factors and a culture which sees the mother as the only caregiver. Thus, companies try to promote men over woman and eventually hire more also.
Milton Friedman didn’t make a case against equal pay for equal work, he made a case against equal pay for unequal work (productivity)
No, he's literally saying "accept less than your work is worth to 'compete'"
@@noahdouble07 except that even when person works more the pay doesn't reflect that he is making the case for keeping your mouth shut and putting up with and it's bs
Even now the effect of equal pay laws have on the disabled, mentally ill, and ex convicts deny them the freedom to rebuild there lives. I have a history of mental health issues and now hold a full time job. After being "exploited" by current employer who offered me an unpaid work experience placement. He was so keen to have me back he gave me first refusal on my current job before he even advertised it.
Nice Strawman. The argument is not about pay based on experience. It is about paying different people with the same experience different amounts for prejudice reasons.
@@sliceronsteam if an employer is dumb enough to do that he will not get the best staff.
Lets assume that a company is ruled by sexist employers. Assume 2 types. Employer A is a sexist who will hire women but for low pay. Employer B is a sexist who will not hire women at all. If the Employer A type describes the market in general because of widespread prejudice, the woman does not have many options other than to accept low pay for the same type of work. In addition she must be able to negotiate her salary and that can happen only if: a) she has an idea of the salary potential of the employer or how much he is paying a male for the same job b)there is enough labor demand or low labor supply to be able to negotiate (i.e in high unemployment periods there is diminished negotiating power for the worker). In that case the sexist employer A will potentially benefit by exploiting low pay labor. He will not pay any price. Lets take Employer B. He will not necessarily pay the price for not employing women either. There are many skillful men to employ besides women and since men have had a head start compared to women in the work force, depending in the industry he may actually have an even larger crowd to pick a skillful male employee from. Employer B is not paying the cost either. He still has skillful employees. This is why it is important to at least have worker rights in the constitution that allow a worker, if there is evidence of real discrimination to raise litigation procedures.
Yall realize that girl was cara delivignes mother
How do you know? I tried looking it up but couldn't find anything.
The resemblance does indeed exist.
Sad as it may be, communism failed economically was because they went against this very trait of human nature and eliminated the incentive for the most productive in society to work harder and generate more value first for themselves but also for society as a whole. The truth of the matter is that Gordon Gekko, the villain of Wall Street was correct when he said that "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!".
Brilliant as usual.
best economist of all time
Aayy Emma Watson is a recurrent archetype!!!!
"I'm on your side. But you're not." Classic Milton Friedman.
Insightful, as always!