This is the underlying problem with how we use money as a proxy for power. As soon as someone signs something into their family's name it becomes nearly inaccessible to the justice system, because of due process and corporate personhood. Bank transfers are pretty instantaneous nowadays, the justice systems are very much not. Which leaves these families on years-long time-consuming expensive missions to force any blood from that stone.
I have a zany idea for partially remedying this. Send the person to actual prison when it becomes clear that the companies they have a financial interest in have not shown progress on divesting their assets and removing the person from the business, let's say after 1 month - just enough to appoint an independent auditor. No professional communication with the person except via their lawyers and auditor. Economic sanctions for all companies dealing with that person until all appeals are exhausted, except their lawyers. No merchandise deals, movies, supplements contracts, guest hosting on Steven Crowder's podcast, none of that.
If businesses have legal personhood, it's time to start applying personal consequences for the key decision-makers of those companies when they commit crimes or facilitate the people avoiding consequences.
Oh right because this was the only thing keeping businesses from switching to zero wage robots. No companies were already planning on doing this, but now that employees get a livable wage, all bets are off.
Went in, doctor numbed my balls without an injection, opened with laser, snip snip, cauterized the ends, clip on as a safety, apply some glue to close the openings, 10 minutes total, here’s a Coke to put some sugar in you, buhbye!
This is what’s important to these people. They don’t care about millions suffering every day, they don’t care about the climate going to shit, they don’t care about the economy. They’re up in arms because someone might not wear a full suit in their presence. These are your “representatives”.
They didn’t get into power magically. Every single one was elected. So unfortunately we get the politicians we deserve. It ticks me off that in a non presidential election it’s basically impossible to get even half of eligible voters to show up at the polls. If more Americans cared then we might get more politicians who care.
Not magically, no, but it’s no secret that the more evil the candidate, the more money they get in campaign donations and behind the scenes help from billionaires who really really want them on their side when they are in office. Americans are not getting fair elections with fair information.
Americans have more access to good information now than ever before. If Americans want to be informed they can be. Billionaires don’t have mind control rays. Too many Americans just don’t care. Not all but the vast majority of us can name the athletes on our favorite teams going back decades but don’t know the name of the men and women who represent us. Or the name of our state’s governor.
To your point, more people have access to information than ever. Good and bad. Look at all the crap around COVID. You have medical professionals releasing studies and vaccine, and some douche named Q saying “Nah, it’s poison. Drink bleach instead”. Obviously this is an easy example to differentiate what’s good and bad info. But people still tried bleach. Countering good information with a malicious, self serving narrative seems to be as easy as saying “That’s what the establishment wants you to think”, and people fall for it all the time. In huge numbers. Over every little piece of bullshit that gets published somewhere. Politics are a huge centre of misinformation and disinformation, making it very challenging to pick out what’s not total crap. And that’s the point.
Verify it against what? Additional information of dubious quality? Case in point, the whole “vaccines cause autism” thing. That finding was published by Andrew Wakefield in Lancet and cited everywhere. Only thing is that is was debunked almost immediately, but people kept citing the publication.
My point being that few people have the gumption to check sources, and if they do, fewer still are going to keep tabs on them more than once, or verify the validity against… yet additional sources. Every step in the process has the end user trying to determine if what they are reading is true, against other information they don’t know is true.
My point is that misinformation has always been here. This isn’t something new. In the past you had to do actual research to verify if something was true, half-truth, or completely untrue. Now you can easily find information. And compared to researching something in a library, easily verify it.
This could be a generational thing but it’s so incredibly easy to disprove something now. If you Google, “do vaccines cause autism” in less than a quarter of a second Google gives you government websites, scholarly articles, links to university studies, etc. It’s easier now than ever before to find and verify good information. And I’m not trying to be dismissive but I don’t think anyone will convince me otherwise any time soon.
It’s a little out of order, but I just wanted to mention that I don’t disagree with you, and I don’t find your tone dismissive at all! Further, I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything specifically, just raising points of interest. We’re just having a fun little back and forth!
Misinformation and falsehoods are as old as time, absolutely. What is new is the lack of trust in the authoritative bodies that would typically provide that ballast of truth, to measure against. People distrust the government (and if what I’ve read about the history of US politics is true, there might be something to that). They don’t typically associate government information with “good” information as they would have in the past. Even official publications are not immune, as per my previous example with vaccinations. Lastly, I believe you and I have the ability to search something and find a suitable result to cut through bad information; at least better than most. Passing the “smell test”, if you will. We take that for granted. The vast majority don’t realize how to find information effectively. They may search “vaccines cause autism” as a question, but that may very well return many fringe articles with that exact string in it, providing validity to the statement where none was before.
Basically, the game is rigged. We’ve figured out how to navigate those waters with a reasonable amount of success, but it’s a skill we’ve invested in. Most people do not possess that, and are unwilling to acquire it (those same people that will put in a support ticket before trying literally anything to resolve a technical issue they may be encountering). For them, the information bounty we are enjoying is a minefield of confusion.
It’s ostensibly true that they were elected by the people, but after many years of observation I have to assume that no one gets into the position to be on those ballots without an entire shit-ton of shady backroom wheeling and dealing. I assume all of the top level politicians are corrupt and we aren’t given any choices for legitimately altruistic politicians.
If the American people wanted better politicians we could vote them in. Most politicians are able to get on a ballot by getting signatures on a petition. If people cared about politics as much as they cared about their entertainment (sports, movies, TV, games, etc) then there would be an entirely different class of politician running for office.
I’m not sure we could. Who was on the ballot in the last presidential election? Not anyone whose politics i want to support. I can’t vote people who represent me into power because those people can’t get ballot access. Sanders isn’t even that guy for me but at least he’d be something. He almost broke through twice but each time he was stomped down by the status quo politicians.
your attempts to avoid the reality and excuse yourself are predictable, and limited to the realm of social media.. you are social media beings.. dignity is something you must aspire to, and then express.. you can't demand it out of fairness..
I’m not commenting to support your approach to this, but your comment about dignity hit home for me. I’m an American who recently traveled to Scandinavia for the first time. There is something wholly different about the feel of the culture over there, even in mundane everyday details. I was seeing levels of dignity and respect (for self as well as others) that I am NOT used to here.
Over here I’m used to pride, competition, and indifference to the plight of others.
Over there I observed dignity, cooperation, and well, dignity.
it's not possible to be xenophobic about Americans, they have no character.. if you dislike Americans, it's because you dislike blandness, not that you're afraid of something you don't understand..
He… does have a point. I haven’t really seen anyone attack his premises, only the way he’s presented them. Our shanty towns grow larger and more numerous by the day it seems, along with injustices like that mentioned in the article. There are 330 million of us and we’re kinda letting this happen.
So, the core of his argument is clearly just a troll’s attempt to get a rise out of everyone and I don’t really want to engage any further with it because I have places to be today.
But what’s been bothering me lately is that many of us, myself included, are acting like these are things that are happening to us, as if we have no agency in the matter. Perhaps, at this point, we don’t. If the government isn’t addressing our wishes, why aren’t we fielding and voting for candidates that will?
We really don’t have any agency. The federal government is set up so we’re stuck with elected officials until their time is up with no democratic way of removing them from office.
The main problem is that the people who have the highest voter turnout are retirees whose brains are fucked from years of lead poisoning, and these same old fucks are also running the country.
I mean, hell, just look at the 2016 election. The person with the most votes lost. That’s proof that the will of the people isn’t being honored even at the highest levels of government.
Alright, what are you basing your claims on? You’re clearly not from the US, and I’d bet money you’ve never visited or even spoken at length in person to an American citizen.
Does your paintbrush extend to the incarcerated black Americans who are victims of the policies observed by the UN, or do you mean a specific subset of Americans when you say these things?
it's not possible to be racist toward Americans, your argument makes no sense.. you're trying to hide behind social media consensus or something, it's pathetic..
You’re trying to sound deep and full of worldly knowledge, but I just want you to know it’s extremely apparent that you’re a child who has no real world experience.
Oh good, a pompous, nonsensical, deeply condescending, deliberately inflammatory, provincial and unhelpful comment! That’s just what we need, said no one, ever.
And then, when this predictably puts all the small time, local food joints out of business, the people that vote for these clowns will be complaining that big corporations control everything.
Can you guys even see 10 inches in front of your own nose?
OK I fat fingered 20 instead of 60. That’s even better for my argument. To get the good pay you have to work for a huge multinational. Who else has 60 locations in the US alone?
What are you smoking? You know there’s a labor market right? And companies compete for workers? Imagine you run a taco shack and every one of your employees is waiting for the minute there’s an opening across the street at taco bell, or the opening of the new burger king down the street. What do you do? High turnover and employee resentment or raise wages? If raising wages means going out of business you’re stuck.
And then small minded people like you will be in a thread in 2 years quoting statistics showing how big corporations are putting smaller ones out of business and taking over all the industries, even going so far as to blame corrupt politicians and corporate capture, conveniently forgetting that you cheered on the very corporate capture legislation that led to it.
idk personally I think if you can’t pay a living wage you don’t have a business model, you have a loophole of exploitive policy. Like, you’re saying all this and I’m hearing “but without slaves to pick my cotton I’ll go out of business!” good
This is the fast food lobby’s main talking point. Personally, I don’t disagree. Decide a living wage, make that the bare minimum for everyone. The talking point however is that “my poor wittle small business can’t afford to pay people enough money to live please daddy let me continue the exploitation.”
Indeed - not saying I agree, but this is the main talking point from the fast food companies. It’s not fair they have to pay more when (sometimes) slightly smaller businesses do not.
The raise takes effect on April 1 and applies to workers at restaurants that have at least 60 locations nationwide — with an exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread, like Panera Bread.
Where did you get 20? And does your point about minimum locations make sense with also bringing up local joints who are explicitly exempt given said minimum?
Edit: I see, are you saying that small businesses won’t be able to compete with this new wage minimum? Valid point there.
My bad, 60. That’s even better. To get the good pay you have to work for a big corporation.
Yeah, the “exempt” ones will be in a situation where they’ll have to raise pay above what they can afford, thus going out of business, or have high turnover and high employee resentment. The end result of all of this is of course more big multinational control over the fast food industry.
Yeah the obvious solution to stop big businesses is removing all regulations. Once everyone is all getting paid below minimum wage, wages will magically go up and they’ll be better off.
I never said anything about removing all regulations.
Just, think about the downstream impact of what you’re doing. This one’s fucking econ 101 level obvious, there’s a meme about shit this obvious involving a bicycle and a stick. There’s got to be a better, more well thought out idea. Here’s one off the top of my head: a 0.1% additional business tax for every location above 10 in the state that goes towards housing assistance for food service workers. That’s a win win; either you get more business diversity in the state or you get all the workers at all the fast food businesses a pay bump.
If you think this isn’t corporate capture and corrupt business politics you’re nuts. There’s a fucking exemption in the law for panera bread.
I don’t wanna debate the subject or anything but I did want to point out that there ARE other factors that keep employees around besides wage especially at lower skill jobs where there is wide range of ages that could work there. If you’re a good boss to work for in a small business, less money could be worth better work environment.
A lot of people are scared of change. And im sure there are plenty of people don’t really try to achieve more on life than being content.
and also McDonald’s has had competitive pay above minimum wage for a while now. Idk I just don’t think this stuff will be such a pendulum swing as you anticipate because of these things so I wanted to share.
Well, my thoughts on that are 1) if you wouldn’t move for 20 an hour because the environment’s good, is $20 really a living wage? If you can stand $15 then that’s gotta he enough to live, right? 2) if people won’t achieve more than the minimum they need to get by, maybe that’s something we should just let happen, and 3) if companies are raising pay to stay competitive without government action, doesn’t that negate the argument used to institute stuff like this?
All of your arguments in this thread sound like someone who really has already made up their mind how they feel and you just say whatever feels right. Your last point alone is so silly, as if there hasn’t been decades of history proving otherwise. Maybe try focusing on listening for a while instead of trying to be right.
Um… literally all of it? All you have shared are opinions.
You’re not only just stating your opinion but it’s also your opinion of what the consequences might be. Shit that hasn’t happened yet!! And you haven’t even used any source or data or even a reference to a specific time in history where something like this happened that leads you to believe in the consequences you’re insisting will happen, which would at least be something I could point to as true or not. So like, yeah man idk but you really do not be so stubborn about what you think might happen in the future.
I literally don’t care if something is owned by a small or big business. The obsession of small businesses is absolutely stupid. I only care if prices are low and wages are high. If that means only “big businesses” can provide that because of economies of scale, than good for them, companies should be rewarded for doing that.
If “small businesses” want to compete they should provide equity, there’s literally nothing stopping that from happening.
There’s a local barber shop that I go to and in my province the min wage was increased 50% while the prices have climbed 80% since I started going to them. But guess what, there still the best price/service wise so I go to them. The chains cost more than double plus taxes. And a lot of the local neighboirhood goes to them.
The only business that complain about labour laws especially laws like this that put heavier burden on larger companies are poorly run companies.
I see good business treating people good so when things like this comes up it shows me that business people will always push against progress.
If it’s better for customers and workers what’s the problem (from a capitalist perspective)?
Do you want to punish success?
If small businesses become successful and grow do you want to purposefully stop them?
I always ask what is the difference between a small and big business and nobody gives a good answer.
Small business is always used as a shield to attack workers.
Genuinely, if they don’t offer a innovative product, what’s the point of “small business”? What’s the point of a “small business” barber/retail store/grocer/etc. besides better prices?
When does a “small business” become a “big business”? And should we stop that from happening?
It seems to me that “small business” is just entitled people. If those same people became a “big business” they would want to crush their competition (i.e. “small business”) look at Bill Gates/Steve Jobs against IBM.
The only thing that “small business” people want is for them to be the owner of a “big business”. That’s it.
If you actually care about distribution of ownership and wealth. You’d advocate for co-operatives, ESOPs and distributed ownership structures. Otherwise I don’t care.
The issue is that this inevitably leads to monopolization. When a large business is able to keep competitors out of the market, they eventually are able to raise prices without any competition which is drastically worse for consumers. There are many reasons why monopolies have historically been broken by the government and why the government should continue doing so. It’s not for anyone’s best interest other than the shareholders.
I have literally seen a small business expand beyond my city and become regional over a couple decades. And probably will try to be national chains.
From a capitalist perspective. What’s bad about monopolization? For big businesses to be big business they need to have success. Why do you want to break success? Why do you want to pick winners and losers?
I don’t believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.
If the consumers own their own stores through a consumer cooperative than they can set the prices for themselves. And hence don’t need “competition”. And since the shareholders would be the members (i.e. the consumers), in a consumer cooperative, then that means they’ll benefit. No need to have any billionaire tyrant either local nor from a big box store.
In Denmark McDonald’s employees make $20~ an hour and a big Mac costs less. The only reason prices need to go up is to keep profits at an all time high to satisfy the Almighty shareholder. It’s just greed.
Edit: an extra $4.5 on a 40 hour a week is $180 or $360 pretax. The average rent in Cali as per Google is $1,726. 160~ hours a month ASSUMING you are allowed to work 40 hours you’d make $3200~ a month pretax after tax (per Google) it’s $2,608. Which leaves you $882 after paying rent (around 64% of your income). This part I don’t know about, but around $322 per month for one person for groceries. Leaving you $560 if you are just one person, if you’re a single parent with one or more kid you’re pretty much out of money at that point. Car payment, gas, you have zero extra money at all.
The point is that they’re able to raise wages and keep prices the same. It has nothing to do with being in a different country. Why would it not be the same case in the US?
Obviously wages can effect price but the wages and cost of food in Denmark is proof that fast food joints can afford $20/hr without raising prices. You’re bringing up extremes without looking at the reality that exists in other countries. Get out of here with your bad faith arguments.
I’m saying they will likely raise prices. Not that they can’t keep them the same. Not that food may be cheaper elsewhere. None of the other shit the lemmykins are pretending I’m saying.
As you yourself fucking said - wages can affect prices.
To take it to an extreme - if CA raised the minimum to $100/hr would you expect a 1$ burger still?
How about the opposite? To take it to an extreme, if CA raised the minimum to $100/hr would you expect a 100$ burger?
There’s obviously a price that consumers won’t accept and so some of the cost of the wages need to start coming out of the pockets of people making millions.
I’m not sure their point was that prices should go up, but that they will go up. Which you seem to agree with, you even cited greed as the explanation.
I cited that if they did, it would be because of greed. If you have to stop paying slave wages, record profits go away. If they want to pass 100% of that cost onto the consumer, then sure prices will go up to keep those record profits. In no way does it need to though.
I never said it won’t increase prices. What I am saying is that supporting record profits on the backs of people that are unable to afford to pay rent is fucked up. If they can’t supply a product that people can afford without basically using slaves to do it, then they shouldn’t exist. The fact that McDonald’s can exist in other countries and supply a product that is cheaper than it is here is proof that it doesn’t have to be the way it is. Despite doubling cost of wages they should have never been that low in the first place. If you have to eat into your record profits to have people be able to afford to live then that’s your problem Mr every corporation.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.