On Monday, shortly after President Trump requested two workers at a suburban Cincinnati producer to clarify their plans for the $1,000 bonuses they’d obtained, MSNBC’s Katy Tur ridiculed them on Twitter. Tur considered $1,000 a pittance, and contended that the bonus money wouldn’t genuinely help the workers involved acquire their acknowledged targets. On Wednesday, Tur responded poorly to the outrage over her condescension by making an attempt to range the subject.
I moreover well-known on Tuesday that Tur’s tweets used embarrassingly incorrect statistics on out-of-pocket costs for childbirth (using a decide for what insurance coverage protection firms pay), purchasing for a home (presenting a imply value 68 p.c elevated than the median price of properties on the market in the area), and school.
Here is Tur’s Wednesday response:
KATY TUR, MSNBC: On Tuesday (really Monday), the President highlighted a pair of workers in Ohio who’ve been using their $1,000 bonus to save lots of a lot of for some big-ticket objectives: starting a family, proudly proudly owning a home, and sending children to varsity.
We applaud them. Every buck counts, and $1,000 is a extremely big deal.
But along with cheering one-time bonuses, shouldn’t we be pushing for prolonged-time interval wage hikes, the kinds of sustained help which will rework big-ticket objectives into regularly realities? Because, give it some thought, starting a family, proudly proudly owning a home, sending your children to varsity, these must be inside the attain of every American, bonus or no bonus. Or does that make me seem out of contact? I’m merely undecided.
(after introducing guests)
TUR: … These one-time bonuses, Catherine. $1,000 is a gigantic deal. Nobody’s scoffing at $1,000. But is that the place we should at all times stop cheering, or should there be a push to range the system and get wages up so that workers can afford further of these regularly points?
CATHERINE RAMPELL, WASHINGTON POST: Obviously, we want eternal wage will improve.
Tur, who sneered at the significance of $1,000 on Monday, clearly protested an extreme quantity of in saying that “$1,000 is a big deal” twice with out apologizing for her Monday condescension. She as a substitute dared viewers to ponder her “out of touch” for pondering that “long-term salary hikes” are preferable.
- No one could be talking about bonuses or “permanent wage increases” if the tax-decrease regulation, which MSNBC’s hosts and leftist pundits serially lied about and bitterly opposed, hadn’t handed in December.
- There has under no circumstances been such a broad, immediate, and useful monetary response to a tax-regulation change.
- Who is that this “we” to whom Tur and Rampell are referring? It appears to be like they’re advocating for the authorities to drive wage will improve on employers, regardless of affordability.
- Many firms utilizing an entire bunch of a whole bunch have elevated wages in response to the tax regulation.
- The tax regulation’s acknowledged purpose is to increase workers’ earnings by $4,000 to $9,000 per 12 months in the subsequent various years. That has a a lot better likelihood of working than the authorities (Tur’s and Rampell’s royal “we”) exerting drive.
The reply to Tur’s “out of touch” question continues to be “yes.”
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.