Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level.
This is basic economic fact.
A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity.
And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…
And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.
Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs).
But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.
We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living
"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."
"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."
I’m sorry. But this shows a lack of basic economic knowledge. Money sitting in a bank does not slow down the economy in any way. The way banks lend out money is by taking it out of people’s savings. So when a billionaire has money sitting in his account it is actually being loaned out to businesses to start up, or to homeowners to get a mortgage for their house. Having all the wealth at the top is actually the most efficient way. However much it sucks. This is where government is supposed to step in and provide equality. However in the us specifically due to gerrymandering, there is the most unproductive US government in history, and since they all have so much job security they have no problem taking bribes from lobbyists. At this point I would honestly not consider the US a democracy. Democracy demands choice, of whichever there is none in the current system. I believe any of the founding fathers would agree. That is what has lead to the income inequality. A broken government, not a broken economic system. Capitalism is the greatest invention of human kind. Even Karl Marx admitted it. Anyone who says otherwise is simply undereduated on the matter.Edit: woops, I forgot to say that I whole heartedly agree about paying a living wage. Only your reasoning was critically flawed
Folks, this morning I got an ask in my inbox from the learned individual above me. It said “Please refrain from making up statistics. It does everyone a disservice.” No context, no explanation of what it might have been in reference to, and not a thought in the asker’s head that while whatever had prompted it might have been fresh and new in his mind, it was likely something days or weeks or even months old.
I point this out because thinking that his message alone was sufficient to convey any meaning to me shows both a failure of critical thinking and of empathy, both of which are key to believing that pure unbridled capitalism is the greatest system on earth.
Even though when one receives nonsense in their inbox—and a drive-by observation with no indication about what the observation is about is nonsense, let’s make no mistake—there’s no obligation to puzzle out for oneself what one’s correspondent couldn’t be bothered to make clear, I came to this blog to see if I could spot what might have prompted it, and here it is.
I’ll note that this person had nothing to say about the statistics I used in the actual reply to this post, which is a convenient omission… the asker would like to believe that the stats are made-up, but is clearly not confident in that belief.
You have an overly simplistic view of how banks operate, but I’m glad you brought them up, because they offer a fairly recent example of how the economy is better served when money circulates closer to the bottom.
See, banks don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan. In point of fact, the money that banks lend out is represented by only a fraction of their actual liquid holdings.
The money banks lend out is actually borrowed directly from the federal reserve at a lower interest rate, with the bank’s assets that include Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s cash simply the collateral. This is why the interest rate the bank will give you on your savings and charge you on your loans is tied to the federal reserve interest rate.
And actually, you can read the sentence “They don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan.” sentence with emphasis on either clause, because they really don’t give it to just anyone who needs a loan.
Maybe you’ve only recently started paying attention to the world, but you might recall that during the biggest round of the “too big to fail” bank bailouts, the decision was made to resolve the then-current level of crisis by pumping money into the banks to keep them solvent. The idea was that not only would this save the banks, but it would save the economy, because at that time, banks weren’t lending. There was a credit freeze, because their outstanding liabilities (loans, money they were owed) had too low a ratio against their cash on hand.
(Note that it’s not that they didn’t have enough cash on hand to cover their liabilities; they never do. It’s that the fraction was too low to allow them to do so.)
So the banks were either too broke or too nervous to lend money, and the economy ground to a halt, because we have a debt-driven society where individuals mostly lack the capital needed to start a business, build a home, or buy a vehicle, even though these can be essential parts of life and are major drivers of the economy.
(Sidenote: Capitalism! The greatest invention! will always and inevitably eventually lead us to the point where the economy grinds to a halt, because the competition that capitalism depends on has no reset button. Imagine if every time a team won a football game, they were allowed to carry over their score to the next game, and if they lost, they started over at 0. How many seasons would it be before a few teams had an unbeatable spread? And then next year, those teams would have an even bigger advantage. It takes an outside force—like government regulation—to ensure that the competition that capitalism depends on to do anything but produce an unsustainable oligarchy actually remains competitive.)
So, the American people or at least our representatives were sold on this marvelous plan whereby we give this money directly to the banks and they will then be free to start lending again.
Do you remember what happened next?
The banks, recognizing that the system was still shaky and volatile and that their basic position hadn’t changed, hoarded the money. The credit freeze continued.
It was a classic case of “YOU HAD ONE JOB!” We gave the money to the banks with a clear expectation of how it would be used, but no enforcement clause because ew, regulation, and because rational self-interest, and because invisible hand of the free market… but apparently the invisible hand was taking a personal day, because the predicted market forces did not act upon the banks and they acted in irrational self-interest to preserve themselves in a way that prolonged the crisis that was endangering them.
Even now it is markedly harder for the average person to get a loan for… well, anything. Loans have resumed, but money is still mainly circulating near the top, which in terms of overall health of an economy, is not much different from money being hoarded at the top.
Now, there was an alternate bailout plan that never got much traction for reasons having to do with the cultural consciousness of the U.S and how it’s been warped by worship of capitalism and the related “Just World” fallacy.
The alternate plan would have been to bail out the people whose homes were being foreclosed upon, the people whose mortgages were at the crux of that aspect of the crisis. Just take the same money and start paying off mortgages and other loans.
Now! What would the result have been? Well,the first thing is: the banks still get the same money. The money ends up in the hands of the bank. But all those people making mortgage payments also effectively get that money. Because the money they would have used for a payment is still in their hands, at whatever point they would have gotten it.
We the taxpayers spend the same money, but double the results! Magic, isn’t it? And the magic doesn’t stop there, because… again… the money in the homeowners’ hands will be spent, and passed on to someone else, who will spend it again, and again, and again… right on up the chain.
The extra money that the bailed out homeowners would have gotten due to the alternate plan would have still ended up at the top. Because that’s how capitalism works. So there’s no reason except base, venal greed of those at the top to oppose “bottom up” economics like this, and the economic lift they generate benefits the people at the top all the more.
A dollar released into the economy will keep being spent until it’s in the pocket of someone who can afford to save it, at which point it will be saved in a bank or invested in the markets. Even if you think the best place for the dollar is the bank/the markets, letting it run up the ladder first is helpful.
And the banks, under this plan? The banks can increase their lending based on this influx of cash, but we’re not depending on their generosity to jumpstart the economy as much as we did under the bailout we gave them. And since they’re no longer holding so many unstable assets but they also can’t look to the paid-off mortgages as a potential source of income, they have more of a reason to start making more loans, which from the bank’s point of view is an investment. Their lending is also emboldened by a rosier financial outlook, because all those people whose mortgages were paid off? They have a higher credit score. They have more money. They have fewer worries. They have more cash and more reason to spend it, which the economy kind of needs.
And the economic gains don’t stop there! A lot of people whose mortgages were “failing” (though “sabotage” might be a better word, though that’s another post) went through foreclosure. There’s a cascade effect here, as people who lose a house often lose so much more. First, there’s the equity they had in the house. The bank does not pay them back the money they’ve put in the house. They don’t “own their share” of the house, however long they’ve been paying off the mortgage. Second, there’s the expense of moving—if they could find another place—or the reality of homelessness, which makes it harder to hold a job or access basic services.
Basically, a foreclosure is one of the most expensive things a person can go through, but it’s something you only go through if you can’t afford it.
Capitalism! The greatest invention of mankind!
Now, let’s talk about all those foreclosed homes. Under the “money belongs in banks, that will jumpstart the economy!” plan, the banks ended up the proud owners of millions of empty houses that no one could afford to buy.
Is this good for the banks? No. Is it good for the economy? No. A house depreciates in value each year; an empty house deteriorates rapidly. The average foreclosed home in a bad economy is not an asset to a bank, but a liability that they feel in their hearts should be an asset.
According to the almighty laws of supply and demand, all those empty houses should have created a bonanza for first time homebuyers. It should have been a buyer’s market. Did you know banks have been paying to have empty houses bulldozed rather than maintaining them? Did you know that several municipalities have created—at the urging of banks—programs where banks can donate the land that was under these houses to the city for tax credits (that don’t come close to the value of the land, but if no one can afford to build or buy a house, then they can’t sell the land)?
According to basic market economics, if a bank is paying a dude in a bulldozer $2,000 (note: arbitrary figure, insert whatever number sounds realistic to you here) to destroy a house, I should be able to walk up and say, “Gentlemen, I will solve your problem for the low, low cost of $1,800.” As in, they pay me to take the house off their hands. Why shouldn’t they? If things worked the way the fairy tale version of capitalism says they should, banks would give away homes or pay people to take them before they paid more to destroy them.
And yet that didn’t happen, because the banks realized that if they sold their houses below “market value”, the price of homes would fall, and the value of their holdings would fall even farther. Note that “market value” here is not actual market value, the actual price the market will bear. According to fairy tale capitalism, with all these banks in the country we would just need to find the one bank that’s willing to deal fairly and give it our business and the other banks would follow suit or fall behind.
But that doesn’t work if the banks are more interested in protecting their own game.
So all those empty houses, deteriorating, losing value… people pumped a lot of money into those houses and a lot of that value is just gone. Rotted. Burned. Bulldozed.
If we’d injected the money closer to the bottom than the top, that value would still be around. We could have saved that value.
We have had decades of experience in all the myriad ways that trickle-down economics don’t work, but the main reason is the simplest: money doesn’t trickle down in a capitalist system. Expecting it to is like expecting the higher scoring team in a game’s points to leak over to the other team’s side.
If we’d bailed out from the bottom up… the banks would have gotten their money, but everyone else would have benefited and the economy would have been lifted as all those dollars “trickled up”.
So Paula Deen has a new cooking network. Not one show but a whole network. Tell me again about the poor racists having their lives ruined.
and its subscription based which someone invested 100 mill into
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!
I want to make sure every one knows about this and what it can do to your pets
this is what has happened to my sisters cat after she wore a hartz flea and tick collar and now has a burn like wound on her neck. please pass this on and do not buy hartz’s products! they use poison in their products pets have died because of this!!
Yes this is my cat she is doing fine at the moment but I’m so sorry for the people who’s pets are not so lucky
oh my god
PLEASE REBLOG THIS PEOPLE
Hartz is the worse EVER! my aunt used it and it ended up killing two of her cats. only one survived but she had the worse skin condition. NEVER USE HARTZ
BETTER REBLOG THISS!!!
Guys this is an actual issue. We had Hartz collars for my dog and he kept having seizures. one seizure he had on the stairs and fell backwards down the stairs, and he also stop breathing from these seizures. When I found out about Hartz causing this I took it off my dog and he hasn’t had a seizure since. And he used to have one at least every few months. DON’T USE HARTZ.
Okay so sometimes when there is severe trauma like this to an animal’s neck they will continue to scratch the fuck out of it and it might not heal. If your poor baby has this problem with this sort of traumatised skin around their neck, this may seem like a weird fix, but this actually saved my baby cat’s life.
For about 2 weeks, put a bit of neosporin on the wound. Then take a tube sock, yes a tube sock, and cut off the foot. Fold the tube-y bit in half downwards, and then slip it over your cat’s head. They will have a scarf. They will not like it, BUT, it will prevent further trauma to their skin if they scratch at it more. Once the worst of the wounds are healed, you can try going without the neosporin + tube sock and see if they can leave their necks alone, but if they keep scratching at it, they may have to keep wearing the sock for a while longer. Always use clean hands when treating the wounds and always use a new/clean sock every day.
(my cat was attacked by a dog and was severely injured, he was so traumatised that he would scratch his neck almost to shreds before we started ‘socking’ him. he’s worn socks for 10 years because otherwise he will tear himself up again, but with the socks he is happy and healthy)
- why is
- im gonna
- i cant
- look at
Red Carpet Queens | Janelle Monae
Lucy Liu photographed by Henry Leutwyler for LA Times Magazine
Not all women are the owners of a uterus, and not all owners of a uterus are women. A transgender man—that is, a man who was assigned female at birth—may very well have a uterus, may become pregnant, and may very well need the same access to reproductive health options as your average cisgender woman. The same can be said for non-binary individuals who were assigned female at birth. As people who don’t identify as a woman or a man (though they may identify themselves as both, neither, or a combination of the two), some may feel that this language erases their identity or leaves them out. Yes, these people may have a uterus—but it’s not a “lady part.”
While there’s little doubt that women make up the largest segment of uterus-owning individuals, this name further ostracizes oft-overlooked members of society like trans men and non-binary individuals who were assigned female at birth. To exclude them in this, an organization aimed at educating the public on the issue of reproductive health, would seem to negate the organization’s stated goals by erasing identities and perpetuating the already stressful and exclusionary culture these individuals are forced to inhabit.
So Paula Deen has a new cooking network. Not one show but a whole network. Tell me again about the poor racists having their lives ruined.