The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[GranTurNismo]

Most workers are not paid minimum wage. Most of them earn more than that, because they earn it. Minimum wage hurts poor people, it prevents them from accessing jobs that would otherwise exist. It creates a barrier to entry for the workforce.

2.3 percent of hourly workers make minimum age. You think this is some kind of huge problem that corporations will never pay more than they're required, but 97.7% of hourly workers are paid ABOVE minimum wage VOLUNTARILY by corporations. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because not all hourly workers are low-wage workers? The average hourly worker in the US makes $24.57 per hour, which in most areas of the country certainly isn't a poverty-level wage. Many jobs, even middle-class ones, in manual labor sectors, education/public health, and hospitably, are paid-by-the-hour jobs. 58% of all jobs in the US actually, according to the BLS. Therefore, a minimum wage increase wouldn't affect these people. And even still, just because an employer doesn't pay the exact minimum wage doesn't mean the employees are paid fairly either. Before the pandemic I was making $11.95/hr at a bodega a few blocks away from me (the NJ minimum wage is $10.00). Being that NJ is the 2nd highest COL state in the US, who on god's green earth could get by making $12 an hour and also pay rent, healthcare, utilities, transportation, childcare, etc? This seems to be a common practice among certain employers, to pay slightly above the minimum wage for low wage jobs, because it makes the job seem more appealing compared to others. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a fair wage. If NJ mandated a 15/hr minimum wage then I suspect many employers would be paying their workers $17-18 per hour.

A raise in the minimum wage would likely result an increase of the prices of certain goods (though not as extreme as some suspect), but it would also increase buying power for low-income people, which in turn benefits the economy. The Economic Policy Institute claims that a universal $15 wage would increase the wages of 40 million Americans. They also estimate that if wages kept up with productivity (which has increased DRASTICALLY higher than real wages), then the minimum wage would be over $20 an hour.

I've seen both arguments of the $15 wage debate. I honestly can't fathom how an increase in the minimum wage would actually hurt poor people. Am I supposed to take the statistic that only 2.3% of all hourly workers make the lowest possible wage as proof that corporations actually do put people over profits?

EDIT: Do you know if the BLS statistic that 2.3% of all hourly workers make minimum wage is referring to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (which most states, even Red states, have ratified a higher minimum wage), or all minimum wages, which varies by state and locality? The page you referenced doesn't seem to make that clear. Because if it's only referring to the former, then FAR more than 2.3% of hourly workers are making minimum wage.

https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/

 

[Liquid]

Donald Jr vs Donald Sr

 

[Chrunch Houston]

 

[Danoff]

I've seen both arguments of the $15 wage debate. I honestly can't fathom how an increase in the minimum wage would actually hurt poor people. Am I supposed to take the statistic that only 2.3% of all hourly workers make the lowest possible wage as proof that corporations actually do put people over profits?

No. It's proof that economics works.

Maybe because not all hourly workers are low-wage workers? The average hourly worker in the US makes $24.57 per hour, which in most areas of the country certainly isn't a poverty-level wage. Many jobs, even middle-class ones, in manual labor sectors, education/public health, and hospitably, are paid-by-the-hour jobs. 58% of all jobs in the US actually, according to the BLS. Therefore, a minimum wage increase wouldn't affect these people. And even still, just because an employer doesn't pay the exact minimum wage doesn't mean the employees are paid fairly either. Before the pandemic I was making $11.95/hr at a bodega a few blocks away from me (the NJ minimum wage is $10.00). Being that NJ is the 2nd highest COL state in the US, who on god's green earth could get by making $12 an hour and also pay rent, healthcare, utilities, transportation, childcare, etc? This seems to be a common practice among certain employers, to pay slightly above the minimum wage for low wage jobs, because it makes the job seem more appealing compared to others. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a fair wage. If NJ mandated a 15/hr minimum wage then I suspect many employers would be paying their workers $17-18 per hour.

Wages aren't calculated based on what the employee can buy, they're calculated based on what the employee can earn. And having to earn $15/hr from the get-go, with zero work experience and zero credentials is not easy. It's a lot to ask of our least skilled workers. If minimum wage is $15/hr and you can't earn $15/hr, you don't get to work.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Wages aren't calculated based on what the employee can buy, they're calculated based on what the employee can earn. And having to earn $15/hr from the get-go, with zero work experience and zero credentials is not easy. It's a lot to ask of our least skilled workers. If minimum wage is $15/hr and you can't earn $15/hr, you don't get to work.

So what's the appropriate wage for a menial worker then, if you could quantify it please? Whether you believe in a minimum wage law is beside the point here; I'm sure you could define a wage for a menial worker that seems sensible; not too much, but enough to get by. In my opinion (I guess I should've clarified this earlier) a universal $15.00 minimum wage is not a one-size-fits-all solution, as the COL varies too greatly across different areas of the US. In extremely high COL areas like the Bay Area, DC, NYC, and Boston, $15.00 as the bare minimum is actually too little. Though in places with very low COL like West Virginia and parts of the Deep South, $15.00 is over double the existing wage and would be too dramatic of a change; I'd wager that $13.50 or so would be a good starting point. My point is, the minimum wage should be at least enough for any individual to pay their rent, utilities, food, transportation, and healthcare (well ideally, there'd be universal healthcare) and other essential expenses, and have a slight amount of money left over. Oftentimes minimum wage workers cannot pay for all of these things each month with their salary (let alone have ANY leftover money) therefore they have to ration things and avoid payments in certain areas. Also, no one should be paying more than 50% of their monthly income on rent. In low-income urban areas in NJ, this is a shockingly common occurrence. Again, if $15.00 or so is too much to ask for from our menial workers, then what do they earn? And do CEOs and upper-level management all "earn" their multi-million dollar annual, or even monthly salary?

Do you know if the BLS statistic that 2.3% of all hourly workers make minimum wage is referring to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (which most states, even Red states, have ratified a higher minimum wage), or all minimum wages, which varies by state and locality? The page you referenced doesn't seem to make that clear. Because if it's only referring to the former, then FAR more than 2.3% of hourly workers are making minimum wage.

You didn't seem to address this. It matters since it would make a huge difference if 2.3% of all hourly workers make the federal $7.25 minimum wage, or if 2.3% of all hourly workers make any minimum wage. Most minimum wage workers aren't even making $7.25 anyway, since most states have their own minimum wage laws and the states which still do have $7.25 as the minimum wage tend to be smaller populated states.

 

[Danoff]

So what's the appropriate wage for a menial worker then, if you could quantify it please?

What they can earn.

Again, if $15.00 or so is too much to ask for from our menial workers, then what do they earn?

Depends on what they do.

And do CEOs and upper-level management all "earn" their multi-million dollar annual, or even monthly salary?

No, not everyone earns their salary. But people are generally paid what they could earn in their job. So a CEO could be paid a multi-million dollar salary because the job can be worth that much, and then that CEO could cost the company millions and not only not earn their paycheck, but cost lots of other paychecks in value. Similarly any employee at any level can waste money or bring in less than they cost. But the job where it is easiest to see whether someone is earning their paycheck is the lowest paid job. You can generally look and see if they're doing the job, and if they're doing it right. Immediately you know whether they're earning their paycheck or not (creating the wealth that they are paid). That cannot be said of all jobs.

So yes, a CEO can earn millions. In some cases, many millions.

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[UKMikey]

I wonder how many innocent men were shot and killed by police in the US just for being guys. Breonna Taylor didn't commit any crime.

 

[Sander 001]

the jobs were never 'stolen;' just taken elsewhere

That's really very comforting to all those who got laid off, lost their homes, livelihood, and children's education.

 

[Dotini]

That's really very comforting to all those who got laid off, lost their homes, livelihood, and children's education.

Possibly human life is a sort of competition for homes, livelihoods, and brighter future for our children. There are few guarantees and promises of such things as a birthright. So if you've had these things then lost them in a fair and square competition, there is indeed little comfort. There is the bottle and the needle.

Before the industrial revolution, most people relied on subsistence farming for a living, I suppose. That's thousands of years of human civilization with minimal population or wealth growth. Now that we've done the industrial and digital revolutions, we may have largely ended the need for human labor and jobs. Humans are needed really only to consume and vote. Yet how are people without livelihoods going to pay for consumption or taxes? The answer may be they are not. So now we are faced with a conundrum or two.

 

[BobK]

That's really very comforting to all those who got laid off, lost their homes, livelihood, and children's education.

What about the people who got the job the laid-off person lost? You'd rather they stayed unemployed?

 

[Sander 001]

What about the people who got the job the laid-off person lost? You'd rather they stayed unemployed?

"the idea that American companies are beneficent organizations helping out the world's poor with the gift of a job in a sweatshop is ridiculous,"

https://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/no...source_catastrophe_and_workers_pay_the_price/

 

[Danoff]

Possibly human life is a sort of competition for homes, livelihoods, and brighter future for our children.

It might be possible if economics were a zero-sum game. Fortunately it's not.

"the idea that American companies are beneficent organizations helping out the world's poor with the gift of a job in a sweatshop is ridiculous,"

https://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/no...source_catastrophe_and_workers_pay_the_price/

Better take those jobs away from those foreigners and give them back to red blooded 'mericans.

 

[Sander 001]

Better take those jobs away from those foreigners and give them back to red blooded 'mericans.

Or continue to allow corporations to bolster the Chinese Communist Party's hold on power via economic prosperity.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Breonna Taylor didn't commit any crime

Was she shot by the police because she was black? If you could change one thing to prevent that killing would it have been her skin colour?

 

[Sander 001]

 

[UKMikey]

Was she shot by the police because she was black? If you could change one thing to prevent that killing would it have been her skin colour?

I would have had the cops turn up to the right house. Why were they there in the first place? Could it have been because her boyfriend was black? He didn't commit any crime either.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I would have had the cops turn up to the right house. Why were they there in the first place? Could it have been because her boyfriend was black? He didn't commit any crime either.

Well, that isn't the answer I was going for, but my understanding is that they had reason to believe the place was being used as drop off point for illegal drug deliveries, and returned fire when fired upon, killing an innocent person who happened to be black. I'm definitely not excusing the ****-poor policing that went into that scenario, but I can accept that it wasn't racially motivated. FWIW, I was going for the gun-debate angle. Make the couple white, and I think the police would still have opened fire if they're fired upon by a suspected drug dealer. If the guy didn't have a gun, would the shooting have started in the first place... that's more my line of thinking.

 

[UKMikey]

Well, that isn't the answer I was going for, but my understanding is that they had reason to believe the place was being used as drop off point for illegal drug deliveries, and returned fire when fired upon, killing an innocent person who happened to be black. I'm definitely not excusing the ****-poor policing that went into that scenario, but I can accept that it wasn't racially motivated. FWIW, I was going for the gun-debate angle. Make the couple white, and I think the police would still have opened fire if they're fired upon by a suspected drug dealer. If the guy didn't have a gun, would the shooting have started in the first place... that's more my line of thinking.

I think he felt he had a right to defend his home from unwarranted intrusion and don't think the cops would've stuck around if it were a white couple that answered the door. Maybe the incident report would clear this up if it weren't almost entirely blank.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think he felt he had a right to defend his home from unwarranted intrusion

I don't know about you, but this doesn't involve firearms or gun fire for me.

and don't think the cops would've stuck around if it were a white couple that answered the door

My understanding is the police didn't knock first. I don't know if it's standard protocol to announce a drugs bust is going to happen before you execute it, to the people you think you're about to bust.

Maybe the incident report would clear this up if it weren't almost entirely blank.

Incompetent, negligent, indicative of massive issues with police conduct... yup... but would the police reports be any different if the couple had have been white? Would they just have admitted being useless, would they have put more effort into concealing being worse than useless?

I'm not defending the actions of the police here, I'm just wondering what makes it racially motivated.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't know about you, but this doesn't involve firearms or gun fire for me.

The intruders were armed. His choice was to give in or fire upon them. He didn't know they were cops because they didn't tell him.

My understanding is the police didn't knock first. I don't know if it's standard protocol to announce a drugs bust is going to happen before you execute it, to the people you think you're about to bust.

They used something called a no knock warrant as I understand it. These have since been outlawed as a result of the events of that night.

Incompetent, negligent, indicative of massive issues with police conduct... yup... but would the police reports be any different if the couple had have been white? Would they just have admitted being useless, would they have put more effort into concealing being worse than useless?

I'm not defending the actions of the police here, I'm just wondering what makes it racially motivated.

I don't know what they would have done had the couple been white because as far as I know this hasn't happened to a white couple. It sounds like the equivalent of being swatted, except that it was the police doing the swatting. It's not something that happens in the UK.

I suspect the reason why there isn't a high profile case of this happening to white people is that such a case wouldn't disappear into the woodwork if people didn't protest against it. I don't feel that the homeowner would have been charged with assaulting a police officer.

It's probable that you don't find the "black people wouldn't be shot by cops if they didn't commit so many crimes angle" offensive but I hope you can understand the anger people feel over this one. Incidence of arrest isn't incidence of criminality.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The intruders were armed. His choice was to give in or fire upon them. He didn't know they were cops because they didn't tell him.

Terrible policing. Were his choices any different if he was white?

They used something called a no knock warrant as I understand it. These have since been outlawed as a result of the events of that night.

I hope knocking doesn't allow too many scumbags to flush their stash.. but I'll admit I only know about such things from 80's action films.

I don't know what they would have done had the couple been white because as far as I know this hasn't happened to a white couple. It sounds like the equivalent of being swatted, except that it was the police doing the swatting.

Lots of white people get killed by the cops too, is it that they never get it wrong with white people? IDK, genuine question.

It's not something that happens in the UK.

Easier to de-escalate when everyone is armed with guns.

It's probable that you don't find the "black people wouldn't be shot by cops if they didn't commit so many crimes angle" offensive but I hope you can understand the anger people feel over this one. Incidence of arrest isn't incidence of criminality.

Not sure if this was aimed at me since that's not the message I'm trying to get across. To be clear, I believe having armed police and armed civilians is the cause of this unnecessary death, not bias against skin colour. I happily stand to be corrected by fact in this case.

 

[UKMikey]

Lots of white people get killed by the cops too, is it that they never get it wrong with white people? IDK, genuine question.

I don't have the data but I genuinely would like to know of a case where an innocent white person has been gunned down in their own home without a subsequent investigation.

Not sure if this was aimed at me since that's not the message I'm trying to get across. To be clear, I believe having armed police and armed civilians is the cause of this unnecessary death, not bias against skin colour. I happily stand to be corrected by fact in this case.

It's aimed at the original meme which started this convesation. The cops are armed in other cases and I can't prove a negative. I just haven't heard about a similar case happening to a white couple. Perhaps it happened and wasn't publicised because the press is racist? But I suspect that he was mistaken for the perp because of his skin colour.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Liquid]

This thread needs more Coldwar Steve.

 

[DG_Silva]

Looks a lot like The Divine Comedy's last album...

 

[TexRex]

Looks a lot like The Divine Comedy's last album...

View attachment 941359

Nice spot, plus I didn't know there's a new album, so thanks for that. Aaaaand now I've got "National Express" stuck in my head.

 

[DG_Silva]

Nice spot, plus I didn't know there's a new album, so thanks for that. Aaaaand now I've got "National Express" stuck in my head.

Da da dah da, da da dah da, da da dah dah, Da da dah da, da da dah da, da da dah dah, da da dah da dah da da dah......



I actually went to see them last year on their album tour, absolutely brilliant!