minimum standard

What worker unions gave America
  • The 40 hour work week
  • Holiday pay
    • Every work holiday other than July 4th and Christmas
  • Overtime pay
  • Hazard Pay
  • Sick days
  • Holiday time
  • Disability insurance
  • Mandatory fire escapes on the job 
    • on top of other basic-shit like requiring handrails, notices for dangerous chemicals, safety equipment, asbestos abatement, and more
  • Mandatory lunch breaks
  • Well-paying blue-collar work
  • The breaking of Robber Barons of the and early 20th Century
  • Decreased income inequality
  • The Minimum Wage
  • Medicare
  • Social Security
  • Pensions
  • The 401k
  • Increased standards of living
  • The Civil Rights Act and the EEOC

Don’t wait until Labor Day to thank the men and women who literally fought and died to give you the benefits of the society you’re living in today.

Not fake news. Just the facts.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

so there is currently a bipartisan bill that congress is working on to improve access to hearing aids by making a class of hearing aids available over the counter. apparently only about 30% of people with hearing loss have hearing aids, and one of the main reasons why is that getting them can be very cost prohibitive. so having low-level aids available over the counter will hopefully make them more affordable at least to some people. these hearing aids will be fda regulated and required to meet minimum standards. hearing loss advocacy groups and the AARP support the bill

and conservative interest groups are opposing the bill basically just because elizabeth warren is involved with the bill 🙄

anonymous asked:

I'm curious about what procedures you think need to change in the livestock industry?

Practically, or philosophically? There is so much that can be talked about in this field

From a practical standpoint, there are a number of areas where current livestock practices are far from ideal. Farming has a huge history behind it, and many of these practices are ingrained and so difficult to change.

Before I go through the list, I should preface that if you’re not comfortable with the fact that farmed animals die for human benefit, if you just want all farms to stop using animals, then you’re not going to find this list satisfactory. If you’re fundamentally uncomfortable with livestock industries, and you haven’t already questioned why you consume the products it produces or what your alternatives are, then it might be worthwhile.

For now, these industries are not going anywhere. They’re certainly not perfect but we could improve them. Regardless of whether you personally believe all these industries should be ‘just stopped’ you have to agree that will not happen overnight, and that other welfare improvements could happen today.

  • Pain relief being more widely used. There has historically been an aversion to using pain relief medication in livestock due to expense, drug residues and the lack of products made for and tested in the species. This is beginning to change so there are not more options for pain relief at castration and mulesing , for example, but this needs to be more widely used. Another hurdle to this is that they are prescription products, and in order for a veterinarian to prescribe them they must have been out to that farm within the last year and be familiar with their set up and stock. Not every farm will call out a veterinarian on a regular basis.
  • Minimize transport time. Transport, whether by road, train, boat or plane, is incredibly stressful for livestock of all kinds. We can measure their physiological stress, so this is definitely not just anthropomorphism. Livestock are more stressed in transport than they are by witnessing death, which is the opposite to what many people would think. 
  • On-farm slaughter and refrigerated transport. Following on from the previous point, we have the technology to transport chilled carcasses. Performing slaughter on farm removes or eliminates a large percentage of the transport an individual animal needs to be exposed to, and will improve their welfare. Animals don’t perceive death the same way we do, having a mini abattoir at the farm entrance isn’t going to bother them.
  • Using genetics instead of procedures. It astounds me in this modern day that we still have breeders of hereford cattle that breed the horned version, and then de-horn the calves, instead of selecting stock with the polled (no horns) trait. If you want horns then fine, but if you’re going to cut/burn/cauterize them off anyway when why not remove them genetically? The polled gene exists! Similarly there are a small number of merino sheep with a ‘bare breech’ trait, which don’t need mulesing. It would be ideal to spread this trait through the Australian sheep population, but with millions and millions of sheep and a ram only about to impregnate about 60 a month, that will take time.
  • Enrichment. Toys. Something for animals to play with, to investigate, to do. This has been historically neglected for a long time because originally animals weren’t though to have souls, or to be thinking, feeling entities. We know differently now. Enrichment only improves the lives of these animals, and often reduces unwanted or destructive behavior, like piglets biting off each others tails.
  • Dam-neonate bonding in certain industries should be reconsidered. In some situations, the dairy industry in particular, neonates may be taken from their mothers within 24 hours to reduce disease transmission in eradication of certain diseases, like Johnes disease, but in other situations it’s because for some mind boggling reason it is more cost efficient for a farm to sell the mother’s milk and feed the neonate on milk replacer.  
  • In a similar vein, giving sows enough space to nurse their litter would be great. They’re kept in sow stalls (basically a cage that they can stand up or lie down in that the piglets can run through) so that they don’t squash their piglets and kill them. That’s great and all, except you can accomplish the same thing by giving the sow more space to turn around it and slopes on the wall of the pen.

So, the important question I hope you’re asking is why don’t we do these things already?

There are lots and lots of reasons someone could grab, but the short (and I dare say more honest) reason is this: Money.

Granting an animal more space costs you money because it reduces the number of animals you can stock in your space. Using more pain relief medication costs you money. Calling out a vet costs you money. Providing enrichment costs you various amounts of money. On-farm slaughter and refrigerated transport is more expensive than the current system.

So if this is all about money, is it the fault of greedy farmers? Well, generally no.

Most farmers actually like the species of animal they work with. And most of them, especially with recent droughts, the current political climate and monopolization of the companies that buy their products, are not making big buckets of cash. More and more farms are selling up and small producers are not keeping up.

They are under constant pressure to lower the prices of their animal products because there’s only a few big buyers, and right now it’s the buyers that dictate what price they’re willing to pay. Because these animal products are perishable, you can’t save them for a rainy day if you don’t sell them, and these buyers are big enough, they can hold out and only pay what they want to pay. This severe downward pressure means farmers get paid progressively less, and these companies make more profits while claiming it’s good for consumers.

^ Look familiar?

So we get cheaper food, the company makes more profit, and the individual farms get screwed.

Especially with milk, there was a huge crisis recently where one of the big milk buyers suddenly declared it had been overpaying dairies, and that not only was it now going to pay them much less for the season (on contract mind you), but that all their dairies now owed them thousands of dollars. After years of downward price pressure on their product many farms could not, and can not, afford this. You can get an overview here.

The point I’m trying to get to is that if these industries are gong to improve, then we need to value the individual animal and its experience of life more than we currently do. 

If we value the experiences of the individual animal, and consequently put our money where our mouth is when it comes to their products, then there should be both motivation and financial ability to improve their lives. We could progress from mere ‘prevention of cruelty’ and minimum standards towards animal welfare and good welfare states.

Changing consumer patterns is probably the only way to do this, and it’s quite hard when you’re already paycheck to paycheck, but a in depth rant/discussion about politics/policy/economics etc is beyond my scope, though I would happily add veterinary and industry specific detail to a discussion if someone wants to tackle that side of it.

anonymous asked:

What exactly did trump change about animal rights?

The big kerfluffle is mostly that the USDA website seems to have purged any references to proper welfare. Not that the USDA standards were the best of the best but they allowed layfolk and animal keepers to easily access a standard of minimum care, and also allowed outsiders to have a point to compare something to if they saw a situation they thought was amiss.

Purging that info doesn’t really serve a purpose except to hide practices and make it more difficult for already touchy areas of animal care like the housing of wild animals and the running of factory farms to be even harder to call out when they pull something shady.

Specifically it stands to effect domestic pet animals because those guidelines also govern things like puppy mills.

What Gough did

101 years ago today, Gough Whitlam was born. This is what Gough did:

- Introduced universal healthcare
- Introduced no-fault divorce
- Introduced Racial Discimination Act
- Introduced the Trade Practices Act
- Established Family Court
- Established Legal Aid
- Made unis free
- Sewered poor suburbs
- Abolished (federal) death penalty
- Replaced ‘God Save the Queen’ with ‘Advance Australia Fair’
- gave the NT and ACT representation in the Senate

International stuff
- Scrapped the draft
- Freed those guilty of refusing the draft
- Ordered home all Aussie troops in Vietnam
- Started relations with China
- Forbid ‘whites only’ sports teams
- Voted for sanctions on apartheid South Africa at UN
- Granted independence to PNG
- Scrapped White Australia policy
- Established Multiculturalism policy
- Got France to stop Nuclear tests nearby

- Reopened the equal pay case at the Arbitration Commission
- Set up women’s shelters
- Made The Pill easier to get
- Introduced single-mum welfare support
- Established a “Women’s Adviser” to the PM (first in the world!)

- Funded arts bigtime
- Raised minimum local content standards
- This meant more Aussie stuff on TV/movies/radio/stage
- Established Triple J, multicultural radio stations and FM radio.
- Established Australian Film Commission
- Established Australian Council for the Arts
- Established National Gallery of Australia

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
- Established Department of Aboriginal Affairs
- Funded existing Aboriginal Legal Services
- Set up new ones
- Gave the Gurindji people deeds to part of their land
- Pushed for more ATSI land reform

- Introduced environmental protection laws
- Ratified World Heritage Convention
- Established protections for the Great Barrier Reef
- Established Australian Heritage Commission

That ain’t even all of it. Thank you Gough Whitlam.

anonymous asked:

Have you ever seen Supervet? Idk of it's shown in Australia but it's a tv show based in a vet practice called Fitzpatrick Referrals and the guy does all sorts of technologically amazing treatments but I have to admit, I don't know if he doesn't sometimes take things too far and should just be euthanising these suffering animals. It also fits in with something I saw recently about a man giving horses prosthetic limbs when they'd normally die after a broken leg. How far do you think is too far?

Within the industry, specialist surgeons have a reputation of being very ‘cut happy’, generally speaking. It’s like when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

I have seen some of the episodes, quite a long time ago. He certainly seems to know his stuff, but I don’t like the dramatization. I also don’t like how the show just skims over costs of these procedures and didn’t emphasize the simple fact that experimental surgery sometimes doesn’t work.

If someone is going to go to extreme lengths to save an animal, they should do it properly and a well equipped specialist hospital with a knowledgeable surgeon is the place to be. However, not every case can be saves.

I’ve said previously that I try to avoid making judgement calls about ‘should’. The exception to this are cases where the animal’ welfare is compromised. I feel like it’s our job to advocate for our patient’s welfare, particularly making sure that minimum standards are not compromised.

I think the proliferation of two legged dogs that are allowed to live to adulthood are an example of things going too far. The  media treat these stories as inspirational, when really they shouldn’t have been allowed to get this far. This is sad, not inspiring, and I feel bad for the dogs and cringe at the thought of their orthopedics.

And the  media just praises it for trying to survive without so much as tossing it a pair of wheels.

I mean, if you’re going to try to keep an animal with a disability to make yourself feel better, either do it well or don’t do it at all.

Technology and medical techniques should advance over time. It’s not unreasonable to expect the scope of treatments we can offer to expand. On the topic of horse limbs, the difficulty in treating horse limb fractures is due to their size and damage that occurs to the other legs while they’re healing. Small horses cope with some prosthetics, but large and flighty horses tend not to.

How far we can push treatment will no doubt change in the future, but we need an ethical framework to ask ‘should we do this’. If we’re undertaking a treatment for our benefit over the animal’s, I have to ask why. It is their welfare that should be a priority in these decisions. Not human ego.

anonymous asked:

Are you a part of the LGBT+ community?

This question is being asked in an odd way to my mind (I think?), but if the question is do I identify as something that falls in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, the answer is no. I’ve identified as male my whole life, and have been quite privileged to be referred to as male by everyone else since I was born. I can’t imagine what it’s like to identify as a particular gender and have others incessantly and insistently refer to you as a different one. That’s a hard road, and it has everything to do with the world, and nothing to do with the individual. It’s good to see that, at least in the communities I’m a part of, there’s a conscious effort to do others the “small” courtesy of accepting them at their word when they tell you what gender they are. (lol Can you imagine? Seriously, who’s supposed to know you better than yourself? The audacity of some people! It’d be like you meet somebody, and they say, “Hi! My name is Dan”, and you’re all like, “lol yeah right buddy, your name is James, I can tell”, like, whaaa…?!)

I’m also heterosexual. Again, this has afforded me a huge amount of privilege, since if you’re heterosexual, people tend to leave you alone, which is mostly what I enjoy. In general, it seems if you respond to any question the way that people expect, they’re happy and leave you alone; if you don’t, though, it becomes their business to either figure you out or fix you. The hell’s the deal with that? Interest is one thing, but there’s listening to listen, and then there’s listening to figure out what your next demand is going to be—basically a conversation vs. an interrogation. Sometimes interrogation is necessary (e.g. you go to get the last piece of pizza and it’s gone), but when it comes to something like one’s own sexuality, that’s private, and not up for negotiation.

So when it comes to my identity, I don’t fit into LGBTQ+. But the reason I didn’t want to say “no”, was because I didn’t know how you were using the word “community”. In the narrow sense (regarding identity), no, I am not, but in the broader sense, I try my best to be an ally, and support LGBTQ+ rights, because I don’t see any alternative. It honestly feels weird to say you support LGBTQ+ rights because it automatically suggests that there’s an opposing position, which there shouldn’t be. These are rights, and we’re talking about people. There shouldn’t even be a discussion, unless it’s working with a definition of “rights” and “people” that are alien to me. It’s depressing to think that in a country that prides itself on freedom there’s a struggle to ensure that certain groups within that country are able to achieve the bare minimum guaranteed to all citizens. It’s depressing because people my age went to school and learned “Back then [whether ‘back then’ was the 1860s or the 1960s] certain American citizens were discriminated against, but we fixed that!” We were lied to. A lot of things are better, but better is not perfect—in fact, better is not even adequate, a lot of times. And on top of all that, I think a lot of us also had the feeling, “Well, at least we’ve achieved this bare minimum standard, and it’ll never go back to the way it was”, but it is going back! No achievement is irreversible. So not only do we have to struggle to improve things, we have to struggle to maintain the status quo!

(Especially recently, the behavior of the radical right has baffled me. It’s like they woke up one day and said to themselves, “Hey! Hey everyone! It’s not illegal to be racist! It’s not illegal to say misogynist things to women! There was an amendment that says it’s not illegal!” And I’m like, “But it’s immoral? And disgusting?” And they’re all, “BUT IT’S NOT ILLEGAL!”, as if “immoral” doesn’t even mean anything anymore… As if the only possible standard for being a good human is whether the American government considers what you do to be technically legal.)

Bit of a tangent there, but the tl;dr of it is, no, I do not identify as LGBTQ+, but I am a huge supporter of the LGBTQ+ community, and try to be the best ally I can be. <3

“i love you regardless of your sexual orientation”

yeah i realize that you think that’s like, a cute and supportive thing to say to someone but in reality it’s patronizing and self-congratulatory. like you’d never say that to a heterosexual person, would you? 

my sexual orientation shouldn’t be a factor in whether you care about me or not to begin with and that statement carries the implication that it does factor in but you managed to push past it somehow. it still carries the implication that i’m different and that difference matters to you

and secondly… great? i’m glad you’re treating me just like anyone else? or at least you think that you are? because you should be treating me the same as anyone else and so should everyone. you’re not special or progressive for meeting the minimum standard of human decency

anonymous asked:

Following the euthanasia discussion, you've talked a lot about end of life care, but how do you decide when intervention is worthwhile for a sick or hurt pet? Taking out cost as a factor, are there injuries that, even if they can heal, it's not worth it to try, due to the recovery time/pain? What about continuing treatment of a sick animal, if there's the potential for recovery but, if they don't recover, you're needlessly putting them through painful treatments or surgeries?

So, basically I try to avoid making this decision. It’s a judgement call, and I’m not here to judge my clients for the decisions they make, I’m here to guide them towards the better options, and away from the outright bad choices they might otherwise have made.

Most of the time, as long as you chose something, it’s better than nothing.

Take lymphoma treatment for example. After a pet is diagnosed with lymphoma, you have three basic options.

  1. Chemotherapy. 30% chance of surviving more than 3 years
  2. Prednisolone. Will feel much better for 1-2 months, then very much worse
  3. Euthanasia.

As long as something gets chosen in the following few days, it’s not my place to say which one is ‘correct’ because none of these options are wrong. There may be other factors, such as age of the pet, the owner’s own experience, or the pet’s temperament that affect their choice, but it’s not my place to decide whether these big choices are worthwhile.

As another example, Osteosarcoma of the limb in large breed dogs has treatment options that look more like this:

  1. Limb sparing surgery, + chemo or radiotherapy, average survival time 6 months
  2. Amputation + chemo or radiotherapy, average survival time 6 months
  3. Amputation alone, average survival time 4 months
  4. chemo alone, average survival time variable (spontaneous bone fracture can still occur and require euthanasia)
  5. Lots and lots of pain relief.

I’m not going to make the judgement call for somebody else’s dog. I would make the judgement call for my own dog, but I know what my reasoning is. I can guide someone through why they could consider each option, but I can’t make the choice for them.

Factors I encourage people to consider are:

  • Are the odds of success or average survival times good enough in your view to make this decision?
  • If the recovery time is X and the expected lifespan of your pet is Y, are you comfortable with this?
  • Are you comfortable with the expected cosmetic result after treatment? (eg after amputations)

And if it is at all possible for me to do so then I will make the pet comfortable and encourage owners to take 24 hours to make a decision. Sometimes it’s not possible to grant them that time and I have to force them to think quicker, but I hate having to do this. The animal, however, has to remain my priority.

As a side note, there are ways for me to steer the conversation and lead people towards making the decision that I want them to make, but I rarely do this. I usually only use this technique when there aren’t very many good options and the pet needs a fast decision, or if the owner is stuck. I try to avoid doing this because it could be ethically questionable to lead people into making big decisions in this way.

But in conclusion, while I will attempt to enforce a minimum welfare standard for all my patients, for more extreme interventions I try to abstain from making judgements about what’s ‘worthwhile’, only presenting facts.

Do you want to talk about how underpaid teachers are?




I get paid $44,000 a year, give or take, which is actually higher than many districts in my area. 

Assume, for a moment, that my job was…just babysitting. (It’s not, of course, but let’s assume.) And Let’s assume that I’m a REALLY REALLY cheap babysitter. Let’s say I charge $5 an hour per kid. Below minimum wage. 

Let’s ASSUME that I’m only at school from 8am to 4pm. (I’m not. I’m really there from 7 to at LEAST 5, sometimes later, but we’ll assume.) So 8 hours a day, per kid. 

Let’s ASSUME that I have an average of 25 kids in my room at a time. (I don’t. Last year my largest class was 29 students. The Science teachers regularly had in the mid 30s. But we’re assuming)

Let’s say that the only days I actually get paid are days when there are children in the classroom- 180. (Not including staff development or summer training or work I do on the weekends.) 

$5 and hour X 8 hours a  day x 25 kids at a time x 180 days in a year = $180,000

If I got paid $5 per hour per kid to baby sit, I should get $180,000.

I get $44,000. 

Be nice to your teachers. 

THIS shit is important. Reform this, not minimum wage

No. Reform BOTH. Put everyone on a basic universal income system. Raise the standard of living for everyone. 

Again, because capitalism won’t let you starve to death if you choose not to work??? 🙄 Give me a break. Your implication here is some of the most overt intellectual dishonesty I’ve seen coming from a status quo-apologist.

Socialism/communism: Everyone gets a minimum standard of living for existing in society, and they aren’t required to work by society (especially if they are physically/mentally disabled, elderly, or too young). If enough people aren’t working that it impacts the resource supply, then the people come together to evaluate the problem and democratically-assign tasks that need to be done.

Capitalism: If you don’t have sufficient access to capital or don’t generate work that is profitable to someone else, you starve. A welfare state might be created to stave off some of that poverty and to give people enough income to buy the products the capitalists sell, but this does not change the core fact that people are overwhelmingly only able to access resources if they generate work that is profitable to a plutocrat. If enough people aren’t working that it impacts the economy, then capitalists call in the police, who forcefully break up strikes and coerce people back into work; no working class means no profits for the rich, and you’re a fool if you think this wouldn’t happen in a class-based society.

Prisons flooding in Houston, people trapped in cages while toxic disgusting water reaches their ankles and higher, inmates forced to risk bacterial infection by drinking their toilet water, the state abandoning regular activities to ensure the minimum standard of health and safety to inmates, violating what I’m sure is a constitutional amendment, and a dozen other important statues, Houston’s horrific, inhuman prison trafficking, “fast track” for minor and non violent offenders, (not that prisons are a moral punishment for violent offenders itself) one of the worst offenders in the country, responsible for hundreds of human rights violations, and violations that just border on such, decades of unaccountability, decades of low paying legal slave labor jobs, all boiling down to this, total abandonment. And yet the devils on this website, with their fetish blogs, (of course, as always) have the gal to not only not look into the federal and state statistics which prove beyond a doubt that a majority of people in prison, by their warped definitions don’t “"deserve it”“ but also to just condem people to living in sewage because they’re in prison? Disgusting, its wrong on every count imaginable, prisons don’t help anyone, they disappear social problems and just exemplify them, just brush people under rugs like animals while making money off of them, it’s a business.

knightinironarmor  asked:

yeeeah look i'm gonna be That person for a minute: this is your blog, you've demonstrated you're a fan of tony, steve, and bucky in countless occasions (your url and icon for god's sake), you get to post about the perspective of each character as you see fit. there's no standard minimum amount of 'defense points' you need to gather to call yourself a fan of character x. i get that anon may have good intentions and all but this guilt-trippy fandom policing --

2/2 where you need to be visibly sufficiently self-deprecating as a tony fan in order to be seen as a legitimate steve and/or bucky fan has got to stop.

god nat im gonna cry, you’ve managed to explain everything so succinctly, thank you so much. [fun fact the only reason i have this url/icon is /because/ of my follower base and b/c im scared to change it to anything tony stark.]

How to analyze a POT. $$$

I read a lot of girls posting analysis of income, and tell if the guy can afford to have a sugar baby.
Here is my take:
Big city and single: 250k
Big city and married: 350k
Not big city and single: 150k
Not a big city and married: 250k
Net worth and income do not always have a direct relationship with each other.
Scenario 1: guy makes 50k and inherited 5 million
Scenario 2: guy makes 300k and spends it all.

I think you should use this for a basis of what you are looking for a pot to spend minimum: 3000/month big city and 2000/month not big city.

Now, I firmly believe that someone who is making more than 400k per year is smart enough not to reveal his true net worth. Why would someone smart enough to make that kind of money put himself at risk of blackmail by showing off? What girls should be more concerned about is how much he is willing to spend on you. I think anyone making 200k has the spending power (depending on circumstances) to afford at least 2000/month.

For my profile, I put an income and net worth to portray the type of allowance I want to spend. I don’t reveal my true income. I don’t reveal my true net worth.

How to tell if someone is rich AND willing to spend $:

Not by how he dresses. My father used to take me to clothing trade shows when I was young. He pointed out. See everyone in suits! They are not the rich guys. Look for the guys who are dressed casually in T-shirts ( Egyptian cotton), they are the ones who don’t have to look nice because they hire people for that.

Not by his car ( although there are minimum standards. An E class would be a minimum as well as A6, 5 series, etc “hybrids excluded”) anyone who drives anything less is either lying or cheap. If you make 200k and drive a civic, ur not gonna be spending thousands on an arrangement. Reason being, these cars are safer, more comfortable, and shows that a man is into luxury hence, able to afford a SB.

Drinks. Anybody making 50k can afford a restaurant bill. But they can’t afford good champagne. On your next pot date, tell them you like champagne and ask if they would like to “have champagne with you” ( never ask to share a bottle) In effect, what you have done is tactfully put them in a position to reveal what they are comfortable with or whether they are comfortable and accommodating. A man who is serious about impressing a girl will order a bottle whether they like it or not. Anyone who has money has had champagne and can tolerate it even if they don’t like it. If they tell you they will have something else, in effect they are forcing you to order by the glass (aka shitty stuff). ( this is my opinion and may not be correct for all guys) but one thing is true, if he orders a bottle of something nice, he is willing to spend money on you. You can’t get good champagne at a restaurant for under 150 dollars (small city prices) and 250 (big city). This, in my opinion is a good sign for a pot date. Lol. So many guys are gonna hate me for this but I’m tired of all these bullshit guys ruining it for real SD’s.

His watch. At some point, ask him the time and compliment him on his watch. Ask about it and take genuine interest. Google it later and if it’s worth 5k and up, he is a pot that will have money for a consistent arrangement. I know a lot of rich people and 98% of the ones making 300k+ have a watch worth 4-5k minimum. No exceptions. This shows he has disposable income to spend on himself and you. Nobody poor spends their tax return on a 5000 watch. 1000 maybe. Watches for men is the gift they treat themselves for being successful. They all do it. If you spend 1000 on a watch, you only have one. If you spend 5000 on a watch, chances are you have more than one. Also, anyone with a Rolex is a douche (opinion) because they just want to show off. For that price, there are so many other options that are far more satisfying than a Rolex. Now, if he says the watch has sentimental value (eg. his father gave it to him) then price is not important.

Travelling. (Note: this applies to 80% of pots) Anyone with money and who is willing to spend money on you (aka discretionary spending) will like to stay in nice hotels. This is not a maybe or an option because rich people (half have expense accounts) don’t stay in shitty hotels in big cities (does not apply to small cities due to lack of options) Talk about travel. Then mention ritz Carlton or trump hotels. Ask them if they have stayed in those chains. Ask them what hotel chains they like. You can read up on them online and pricing. When a man doesn’t cheap out on hotels, this is a big $$$ sign that they like luxury (aka:you) and will pay for it.

With these three things, you will be able to determine if he is willing to spend money on you. Being rich doesn’t matter if they are cheap. All that matters is if they are willing to part with their money.


This week thousands of indigenous participants are UN Headquarters in New York to discuss issues affecting human rights defenders, indigenous women and youth.

They are also marking ten years since the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Declaration is the most comprehensive international instrument on indigenous peoples’ rights and established a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.

📷: UN Photo / Evan Schneider, Rick Bajornas


I tried to send in a light hearted find, but couldn’t let this fly. I was stuck in this small town called Escanaba, MI. It’s in the Upper Peninsula (The UP) of Michigan. I had no idea there was a Scandinavian confederate battalion in the north most part of the country. 😑

There is currently 20 black people in Escanaba, so this was kind of scary to find being Black Person #21.

Why Goodwill would sell this, I have no clue. But they really need standards.

Oddities Note: I totally agree with you. I think Goodwill really needs to sift through this stuff. You aren’t the first person to send me racist products that Goodwill has sold. Sadly, I’m not terribly surprised because Goodwill isn’t that great of a company anyway. The disabled people they claim they help by giving them jobs make cents per hour. Pay them minimum wage at least. Goodwill makes billions on stuff they get for free. 

Goodwill pisses me off in more ways than one. I try to go to different thrift stores when I can but unfortunately most of them are Goodwills around here.