wage increase

fortune.com
McDonald’s Says its Wage Hikes Are Improving Service
Turnover is down, and customer service scores are up, company says.

So McD’s increases employee wages 10% and the move leads to massive unemployment, forces restaurants to close, & bankrupts the company the first sales gains in over two years for the chain!

Almost like treating your employees like human beings mean they treat their customers better and the customers notice or something.

Hmm.

remedialaction  asked:

"If McDonalds can't afford to pay what I say they should be paying, they're a failure because reasons. Somehow increasing labor costs won't also lead to price increases because I expect the companies to just eat the cost cus I've never heard of profit margins."

You know McDonald’s pays their employees in Australia $15 an hour, yeah?


Also, without changing the salary of the executives or bonuses to CEOs or anything else,  If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16.

anonymous asked:

Why should we want to give people free college tuition and free this, and free that? That does nothing but make those who actually earn a college education less competitive in the job market because it'll become oversaturated with people who don't deserve degrees, having them. At the end of the day, there need to be people flipping burgers & tending to the garbage -- and no, they shouldn't make $15 an hour either.

Let me get this straight, we should not insure that we have an educated workforce because you are afraid of competition. Also, we need people to flip burgers and pick up garbage, but we should not pay them enough to live. 

There is one thing you are right about, minimum wage workers should not be making $15 an hour, they should be making more. We have made huge gains in productivity in this country on the backs of middle class and lower class workers. These gains in productivity means that a current minimum wage worker has to be doing more fiscally productive work throughout their shift than they had to 45+ years ago.

So why is it, that when adjusted for inflation, we are paying minimum wage workers less than their counterparts 45+ years ago made. They are doing more work and creating more in profits then their past counterparts, why do they deserve less? 

If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968 we would have a minimum wage of $10.90 right now.

If the minimum wage had kept place with productivity since 1968 we would have a minimum wage of $21.72

These facts lead me to some interesting questions you might want to consider. 

If the wealthy have been taking almost $14 per hour of work from each minimum wage worker, how much do you think they take from you?

If the minimum wage was $21.72 an hour, how much more do you think you would be compensated now if your boss knew you could go get a job flipping burgers for over $45,000 a year?

See when you argue that others people’s wages should be kept below a living wage, or below productivity increases all you are doing is arguing for a lower wage for yourself. 

Those minimum wage jobs act as competition for workers time. If they are paying enough to lure away good prospects from other jobs, the compensation for those other jobs must be raised if other companies want to retain the talent they have or to acquire new talent.  

As a consumer, options are good for you. The more options you have for work, the higher your wages are going to be. The more options you have in product choice, the lower you will pay for a good. 

These are simple economic truths. 

But if you want to still argue that all of our wages should be kept down because minimum wage workers don’t “deserve” $15 an hour, by all means, go ahead.

-Tony 

huffingtonpost.com
Iowa Republicans Pass Heartless Minimum Wage Rollback
It's the first time that a state has nullified local minimum wage ordinances that have already taken effect.

In an appalling move to keep low-wage workers locked in poverty, the Iowa legislature this week gave final approval to a bill that reverses local minimum wage increases already approved in several counties and bans cities and counties from setting any wage and benefit standards.  It is the first time that a state has nullified local minimum wage ordinances that had already taken effect and forced jurisdictions to lower minimum wage rates that had previously been raised.

For the struggling workers and families harmed so directly by these lawmakers ― these pawns of the rich and of powerful business interests ― it is troubling to realize that there are elected “leaders” who would be so singularly devoted to ensuring that they stayed poor.

This is literally stealing from the poor to give to the rich. This is beyond abhorrent. These representatives need to be voted out.

Boost your Spanish with Spanish common expressions

Here you have a list of Spanish expressions with their literal translation, the example and the explanation. Some of them are quite funny. I’m from Spain, so I’ve listed expressions we use in informal situations here. If you know more expressions, feel free to add them (and there are, I just didn’t want to add a lot)!

  • tener/haber ____ para parar un tren (to have, there’s ____ to stop a train). meaning: to have a lot of the same thing, it doesn’t have to be an object. example: tengo hambre para parar un tren (i’m so hungry that it could stop a train) - hay agua para parar un tren (there’s water to stop a train)
  • ¡_____ muerto, abono pa’ mi huerto! (dead _____, fertiliser for my vegetable patch!). Used to talk about how the fact that a type of person is dead is actually positive. example: ¡fascista muerto, abono pa’ mi huerto! (dead fascist, fertiliser for my vegetable patch!)
  • ser de la acera de enfrente/ser de la otra acera (to be from the other pavement. english: to play for the other team). Used to say that someone is not straight. example: amiga 1: sergio es guapísimo amigo 2: pues es de la acera de enfrente (friend 1: sergio is really handsome friend 2: he’s actually from the other pavement)
  • estar a dos velas (to be at two candles). Two meanings: you don’t have money (broke, basically) or you haven’t had sex in a while. example 1: se quedó sin trabajo y ahora está a dos velas (he lost his job and now he’s broke/at two candles). example 2: Andrea rompió con su novia y ahora está a dos velas (Andrea broke up with her girlfriend and now she’s at two candles)
  • ser la leche (to be the milk). Used to say that something/someone is really cool. example: ¡ese libro es la leche! (that book is the milk!)
  • estar hecho un Cristo (to have been made a Christ). Used when someone has been beaten or something has been destroyed, leaving them in a poor condition. example: ¿has visto a Andrés? está hecho un Cristo (have you seen Andrés? he’s been made a Christ). You can also say ir hecho un Ecce Homo (to go around like an Ecce Homo), especially when someone’s clothes are a disaster.
  • hacerse el sueco (to do the Swedish). I’ve talked about this one before. Used when someone ignores something they have to do. Basically you pretend that you don’t understand what you’re being told, ignoring the message. example: no te hagas el sueco y paga tu parte de la cena (don’t do the Swedish and pay your part of the dinner)
  • donde dije Digo digo Diego (where i said “I say” i say “Diego”). This is playing with really similar words. Basically, used when someone says something that they had said they wouldn’t do. example: el político dijo que no prohibiría el aborto, pero, ya sabes, donde dije Digo digo Diego (the politician said that he wouldn’t ban abortion but, you know, where I said “I say” I say “Diego”)
  • apaga y vámonos (switch it off and let’s go). 2 uses: Used when something is over and you have to leave or used when someone says something really stupid. example 1: apaga y vámonos, la fiesta se ha acabado (switch it off and let’s go, the party is over). example 2: persona 1: yo creo que la tauromaquia no debería prohibirse. persona 2 a persona 3: apaga y vámonos (person 1: i think that bullfighting shouldn’t be banned. person 2 to person 3: switch it off and let’s go)
  • con la iglesia nos hemos topado (we’ve bumped into the church). Used when you have an idea that is not accepted in a conservative environment. Also used when you want to do something but a higher power doesn’t let you do it. example 1: siempre hemos apoyado ideas progresistas, pero nuestros padres no. con la iglesia nos hemos topado (we’ve always supported liberal ideas, but our parents don’t. we’ve bumped into the church) example 2: querían salir antes de clase, pero el profesor no les dejó. con la iglesia se han topado (they wanted to get out of school earlier, but the teacher didn’t let them. they’ve bumped into the church).
  • hablando del Papa de Roma (talking about the Pope of Rome). Used when you’re talking about someone and that person appears. example: amigo 1 a amigo 2: ¿has visto a Julia? julia: *entra* amigo 1: hablando del Papa de Roma… (friend 1 to friend 2: have you seen Julia? julia: *comes in* friend 1: talking about the Pope of Rome…
  • estar en la luna de Valencia (to be on Valencia’s moon). Used when someone is daydreaming. example: ¡Juan, estás en la luna de Valencia! Baja y atiende. (Juan, you’re in Valencia’s moon! Get down and pay attention)
  • hace un frío de los cojones (to be cold like bollocks). Used when it’s very cold. example: fuimos al centro y hacía un frío de cojones: we went to the centre and it was cold like bollocks (cold as fuck, basically). I’ll do a post about expressions with bollocks because there’re SO MANY.
  • Dios los cría y ellos se juntan (God breeds them and they join). Used to talk about a group of people with similar characteristics that end up meeting each other and having a really strong friendship. example: los idiotas son así, Dios les cría y ellos se juntan (Idiots are like that, God breeds them and they join)
  • ¡Jesús! (Jesus!). The Spanish “Bless you!”. Used when someone snorts. You can also use “¡Salud!”.
  • quien se fue a Sevilla perdió su silla (the one who went to Seville lost his chair). Used when you sit on a chair previously used by someone else. example: 1: ¡eh, yo estaba sentado ahí! 2: quien se fue a Sevilla perdió su silla (1: hey, i was sitting there! 2: the one who went to Seville lost his chair)
  • ponerse las botas (to put the boots on). Used when you eat/drink a lot. example: nos estamos poniendo las botas a vino (we’re putting the boots on wine).
  • tener un morro que te lo pisas (to have such a huge lip that you step on it). Used when someone is really lucky. example: a alba le han subido el suelo, tiene un morro que se lo pisa (alba has had her wage increased, she has such a huge lip that she steps on it).
  • a palo seco (in a dry stick). Used when you someone eats something without a sauce or dressing. example: se comió la carne a palo seco (he ate the meat in a dry stick).
  • costar un ojo de la cara (to cost an eye of the face). This one exists in Italian too! Used when something is really expensive. example: me iba a comprar un portátil, pero cuesta un ojo de la cara (i was going to buy a laptop, but it costs an eye of the face).

I suppose it’s important to acknowledge that there are many right-wing libertarians who aren’t raging ultra-nationalists underneath a thin veneer of liberty rhetoric. I remember back several years ago, when I fell into the right-lib camp, I considered myself a “cosmotarian” – Reason Magazine’s term for someone who was “culturally-liberal and fiscally-conservative”. I suppose these “cosmotarian” types, alongside other “might-as-well-be-a-liberal” types, probably don’t have a hyper-reactionary bootlicker lurking just beneath the surface, and I’m willing to give them that benefit of the doubt. However, I still think “cosmotarians” and other Propertarian-Lite™ types (”socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative”) are intensely naive to the ramifications of their ideology. 

The preferred economic setup will usually have the biggest sway in the social makeup of a society. Top-down economic arrangements are often “socially libertarian” when the dominant class’s power isn’t threatened. Smoke some weed, have a gender-neutral marriage, carry a gun, allow for a nominally censorship-free press, etc – as long as these all take place on the terms set by the dominant class, they can be “peacefully” reconciled into the capitalist status quo. Once dominant class interests are materially threatened by strikes, occupations, direct action, mutual aid, dual power, and cross-racial solidarity, however….then the libertarian pretense goes out the window. A militarized police state and partially-legitimized right-wing militias are the agents who will “restore law and order” when the “degenerate leftists” push for “chaos and depravity”. The right-libertarians who recognize this and openly embrace it are the ones who start dabbling in ultra-nationalism and fascism, the ones who see the class privileges of property and whiteness slipping out of their fingers. Anti-capitalist, anti-racist movements challenge the class structure’s legitimacy and therefore “require” a swift reaction from the powers that be. 

Because “cosmotarians” lack a class analysis of any sort, their perspective is limited to celebrations of “personal freedoms” – a convenience store is allowed to sell gallon-sized jugs of soda, a sales tax is lowered by 4%, an increased minimum wage proposal is struck down, regulations on cars are cut back, etc. At no point does it occur to them that there are dominant class interests at play and that the state manifests itself mostly in accordance with these interests. Thrust the moral dilemma of right-libertarianism-turned-fascism onto them and I do believe many of them might be receptive to some class struggle outlook, but just as many of them will find some circular justification for the rising police state they’re witnessing – ultimately similar to other liberals. 

TLDR: Not all right-libertarian types are secretly fascists, but most of those who aren’t secretly fascists are also intensely naive to the ramifications of their ideology and the natural functioning of the capitalist class system.

The notion that economic populism pedaled by Sanders is a big tent everyone can get on board, while social issues are limiting and divisive is just patently false.

Before anyone goes, why can’t the left, esp the democrats, be about both & we don’t have to choose? Well that’s what the democratic base - made up of people of color, esp black women - has always been saying, that Democratic Party needs to be both, coz we can’t just deal with economic issues while letting social issues take a back seat, because that’s how we often end up with economic inequality.

Race and gender are very much part of any economic issue yet often missing in economic policymaking; and the focus on class warfare alone isn’t fixing, doesn’t fix, and hasn’t fixed the underlying causes of our economic inequality.

Take this latest fiasco on reproductive rights as negotiable in favor of more “neutral” economic issues. Those who get less pay, not considered for certain jobs and promotions are because we have a uterus and/or are still expected to maintain traditional female roles, while trying to compete professionally under a very white and patriarchal cis male playing field. We get periods, get pregnant, are expected to raise kids, leave work early for PTA meetings, call off work when kids get sick, and/or stay home when we can’t get a baby sitter - and these are used against us to not get the same pay, get jobs, get promotions, advance in our fields at the same pace as our male counterparts, etc.

While it is true more men are taking paternity leaves and not all women get pregnant or have kids, but it’s women, regardless of what reproductive choices we make, are still the ones who get penalized economically.

So if you just advocate for equal pay and paid leave, but not have women, especially women of color, help develop the policy or at least form policies with race & gender lenses/minimum standards in mind, then you’ll create policies that speaks to and benefit mostly white, mostly male and mostly in the upper class.

Additionally, the sanders economic populism is short-sighted, which is why he often don’t get anything passed legislatively, even though they’re well, popular economic ideas.

Take also the fight for 15, which is one of his hills to die on. I applaud the unions and labor groups fighting for a living wage, and that’s what unions do, collectively fight for better pay for workers. But when you’re leadership or seeking leadership in a political party, or already an elected official, you have to have broader ideas and policies for jobs than just increasing minimum wage.

Even if we accept that the reason white working class voted for trump is solely coz of jobs, their main concern wasn’t they’re not getting $15 per hour, it’s they’re losing their jobs all together and they’re not getting them back. Yet Sanders economic populism, like Trump’s economic nationalism, has given lots of platitudes but still has no real policy answer to that.

Right now, we are also dramatically losing jobs that pay by the hour to automation, especially in retail and fast food restaurants, jobs mostly held by women and working class of color. Nothing, even platitudes, is given to address that. By the time we have $15 minimum wage, there won’t be anymore hourly jobs to take.

Economic populism that caters to white working class by default doesn’t transfer to benefit everyone else also, it in fact leaves the most vulnerable behind and keeps people of color invisible.

Sanders and any democratic leader can’t talk about jobs by paying platitudes to white working class at the expense of ignoring working class of color and women, because then they’re intentionally ignoring their own base who demand leadership that addresses and prioritize their economic concerns as well, and leadership that doesn’t treat social issues as secondary issues and in silos.

anonymous asked:

Tonight I had the pleasure of listening to a lady complain to me, a minimum wage customer service employee, about the upcoming minimum wage increases and how they're going to ruin the economy and drive businesses away.

My personal favorite is the people that complain how unfair it is because they earned minimum wage and now they won’t benefit. -Abby

explainguncontrolandsafespaces  asked:

You are anti capitalist. The other end is communism. Is that what you support? If a person chooses not to work in your ideal economy what happens to them?

I feel like the reason you’re asking this is because you’re assuming that communism would entail “the collective” forcing a person to perform labor and then extracting their labor product when finished, yes? As if to imply that starvation in a capitalist economy is significantly better? Nah, we don’t want some collective committee forcing an individual to perform labor – and if you think that’s what the anti-capitalist critique boils down to, you’re denying yourself a layered understanding of capitalism itself, as well.

Are you under some sort of impression that workers get to control the full product of their labor under capitalism? That the critique of capitalism is merely “do basically everything the same as capitalism except have a significant place for the state sector and regulation”? Or, like, “the state does everything”?

C'mon mate, read a bit on historical materialism – the social structure of society is overwhelmingly dependent on technology, the material conditions, and our relationships to the means of production. For instance, we had feudalism when there was the windmill, we developed capitalism as the steam engine and the commercial factory took off, and now we’re fast approaching a scenario where extensive automation could free millions upon millions of people from even needing to work a job beyond couple-hour shifts, if that. The changing technology will necessitate a change in social structure, as history has shown, or we’ll continue to slip further into obfuscating barbarism managed by a ruling class of capitalists and state bureaucrats. Rather than continue to compel people to work 8+ hour shifts, starve, or have their jobs lost to machines, machines ought to replace every job they feasibly could; at that point, society should democratically control the abundance-producing machines. Figure out what jobs need to be done to satisfy needs, cut out the many jobs that literally aren’t needed to sustain society (and are just there to help with profit extraction and bureaucracy), automate wherever possible, divvy up the work that can’t be automated, and then people get to pursue whatever they want once those economic faculties are covered. In the end, people have bountiful leisure time, thus expanding their freedom (ya know, the fetishized but actually-neglected concept of capitalism). I’m simplifying the process a bit, but that’s the general trajectory that ought to be embraced.

The capitalist system has many innate tensions within it, but that automation conundrum is HUGE – capitalists want the most profit possible, and soon they will automate away jobs as wages start to increase again. This is why liberals miss the point in the grand scheme of things – yes, increased minimum wages CAN lead to job loss, and automation WILL consume jobs left and right in the coming decades. But that’s not due to the “greedy workers wanting more” or whatever bullshit right-wingers argue – it’s because the system is not structurally designed to meet everyone’s needs. It’s not about freedom or individualism or serving human need; it’s about profit extraction for a small caste of elites.

Zoom out and consider where humanity has gone and will continue to go as time moves forward. You’re sitting in an idealistic fantasyland if you think capitalism can maintain itself forever as the modes of production change and as we slip further into environmental collapse. I implore you to dig past surface ideology you’ve been fed since childhood and locate the true source of tyranny and widespread human suffering.

anonymous asked:

came for the fantasy biology, stayed for everything else. Happy International Women's Day! Do you think the feminisation of veterinarian field is contributing to lower wages? In Eastern Europe, where the entire medical profession is seen as "women's work", medical doctors are paid very low wages, similar to teachers. It seems that the more women enter a field, the more it becomes undervalued and lower wages results. In the west, where medicine is male dominated, there are good wages.

Yes I do think the increasing percentage of women in veterinary medicine has contributed to the profession’s relatively low wage/ I was going to write this as a part 2 for the original post, but since you asked I’ll put in here.

Consider this Feminization of the Veterinary Industry, part 2.

As a society, we unfortunately have a tendency to perceive ‘women’s work’ as being less important. This is bollocks, but it’s a perception that exists. It’s pervasive and insidious. As society views women’s work as less valuable, it inevitably ends up viewing work done mostly by women as, by definition, ‘women’s work’. As a result work done by female vets seems to be valued less, and eventually so does the work of our entire profession.

I still see this directly sometimes. A price or estimate for a procedure given by myself is more likely to be disputed, sometimes quite aggressively, but the same arguments is not raised against estimates given by male coworkers.

There’s been a pretty good study called ‘Effect of gender on ownership and income in veterinary practice’. If you have access to the Australian Veterinary Journal you cal look up the paper directly. The data could be summaries as follows:

  • All age groups of vets are averaging more than full time hours
  • Men achieve practice ownership sooner, independent of geographical location
  • While new graduates are starting on similar wages despite gender ( median 39k for men and 36k for women)
  • While 10-20 years after graduation men are working more hours than women on average, this is still above full time hours for both groups.
  • 20 years after graduation, when men and women are averaging 50 and 49 hours per week respectively, the average incomes are 81k and 51k respectively.

That’s female vets with the same years of experience earning 62 cents in the dollar compared to their male counterparts, for those playing at home. You might wonder whether that’s because male vets are working more hours, or because more of them are practice owners. The study wondered this too. Here are their results.

According to these results, even when female vets are working more than full time, they are still earning less than their male counterparts. Female vets that own practices are earning similar incomes to male vets who are only employed. This is disappointing when the pay scales were so equal at the early stages of the career.

There was also a study I’ve read, but cannot for the life of me find (but will offer cookies for anyone that does locate it) that collected historical wage data for veterinarians, dentists and general practitioners from around 1970 onward to compare this data to the percent of women in that field.

 At great surprise to nobody, wages were pretty similar for the three professions when all three were male dominated. But the data showed that while dentist and GP wages increased roughly with inflation, veterinarian wages increased at a lower rate, resulting in the average vet wage in the modern day being approximately half that of the other two professions.

The wage gap for new graduate veterinarians is pretty little. This is probably explained by the phenomenon of ‘poaching’ male new grad vets.

In short, male new grads are a rarity. They’re outnumbered by female graduates by 4 or 5 to one. Vet clinics that really want a male new grad, often because male practice owners see something of themselves in the new grad. Male new grads seem more likely to have job offers before graduation, often from clinics they’ve done work experience at. This is what we called ‘poaching’, because these male new grads didn’t even have to hit the job market for their first job.

The wage gap for practice owners is more concerning, and I don’t have a likely reason for why this would be so, or why it would be so marked. The most likely scenario I can think of is chronic undervaluing of services and their own work.

The chronic lower income of female veterinarians, which means the majority of the vet workforce has a lower income, may have contributed to the rise of the corporate vet practice chain.

Traditionally, a practice owner who wanted to retire would sell their practice, their life’s work, to their younger associate. If your younger associate has earned less than she perhaps would have for the previous 10-20 years, suddenly the younger associate isn’t in a position to buy the business. The practice owner needs to sell their business to retire, but their protege can’t afford it. Consequently, more and more of these practices are being bought up by different corporate chains when the owner wants to retire, but doesn’t have a buyer of their own.

I don’t know anyone who sold to a corporate as their first choice. Mostly this happens because there wasn’t another buyer who could match that price. The industry in general was very resistant and hesitant about these corporate practices, but they have now secured themselves in the industry and are here to stay. Once a corporate owns a practice, they rarely if ever sell. They are more likely to close the practice and transfer the client base than to sell it.

The old style of vet clinic, the small or family business where the owner is working alongside everyone else, is slowly vanishing. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable, because I don’t believe corporate medicine is the way it should be.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am female, and work more than full time hours across two jobs. One is in a locally owned small business, and the other is in a corporate emergency center. There is so much paperwork, customer service training and difficulty getting paid at the corporate clinic, it really is a huge amount of wank. But the corporate chains are the only enterprising willing to run them.

I can get away with not doing a lot of the stupid things the corporate wants me to do because of my years of experience and knowing just how fundamentally useful I am to them, I can call their bluff. A new graduate in my position wouldn’t be able to, and that worries me.

So what can the vet industry do?

I’d like to point out that at the tie of the study referenced above, the average wage in Australia would have been around $42k per year, according to taxation records. So the wages for many of us were proving to be very, very average.

If we’re going to stem the corporate takeover of the veterinary industry, then we need to be able to pay our employed vets better. They are working in their job to eventually buy their job, if you continually underpay them they wont ever be able to buy their way up, and for women this barely seems worth doing.

The veterinary industry needs the general public to be more willing to invest in animal health and care. This likely needs greater uptake of pet insurance policies, and that industry needs to get itself organized too.

Legacy planning should be considered earlier for vets who intend to sell their practice when they retire, i.e. most of them. This should be mentioned early as a potential future, or smaller percentage buy-ins over time rather then one lump sum.

This is just one of the issues the veterinary industry is currently facing, but the chronic undervaluing of women’s labor can’t be dismissed as a factor.

This topic had been requested by my supporters on Patreon. You can gain access to early content and vote on major topics for this blog by pledging as little as $1 a month

anonymous asked:

How is it some lines of noble families end up as poor as the Tolletts, or end up becoming merchants like the Gulltown Arryns?

Good question!

There are many ways a noble family can either fall into genteel poverty or experience downward social mobility into the merchant class or even below (just look at the Heddles), but most of them come down to the relationship between rent, income, and debt:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.”  (Dickens)

Almost by definition, the major source of income of a noble family is rent income from their lands, and rents were overwhelmingly set by custom and tradition. This meant that most nobles were living on something like a fixed income, which meant they were very vulnerable to changes in prices. Crop failures, rebellious peasants demanding wage increases, competition from foreign countries, all of these things could seriously negatively affect the bottom line. 

This could be especially problematic, because nobles were supposed to A. live an ostentatious lifestyle (hunting, hawking, entertainment, and fancy clothes cost a lot), and B. not care about money like some grubby bourgeoisie. A combination of these two social expectations means that a lot of nobles went into debt to keep up with their social peers, and since land was the only collateral they had…you can see where this goes.

So you get a gradual process by which trying to keep up with one’s station and the Joneses lands you in debt, the debt eventually gets larger than your ability to pay, you end up losing bits of your land to satisfy your creditors, that reduces your income and exacerbates the problem, and so on…

  • adult: kids these days are so lazy! they just make their parents pay for everything! i paid my way through college and-
  • me: but the federal minimum wage hasn't increased with inflation over the years
  • me: and college tuition prices are steadily rising
  • me: we have to work more hours than you ever would have had to in order to pay for the same percentage of tuition
  • me: it's even legal to pay workers who are younger than 20 years old $4.25/hr, which is over 40% less than the regular federal minimum wage, for the first 90 days of employment
  • me: minors are prevented from working full-time during the school year anyway because of compulsory schooling laws
  • me: so it's not exactly easy for them to be able to pay for their own things
  • adult:
  • adult: teenagers shouldn't be making as much money as adults they have no need for it where do you get these ideas

tipping is such an insidious labour issue because moralistic people turn it into “always tip! not tipping makes you a bad person” because how is a service worker supposed to pay their rent without the tip money? when in reality their employer is relying on misdirected anger toward customers to distract from the fact they aren’t paying a liveable wage to increase their own profits and placing the blame on the customer for not paying a tip or the worker more often than not for “not doing enough to earn a tip”.

what i’m saying is kill your bosses and form a union

theatlantic.com
Why Are State Legislators Working to Roll Back Laws Voters Approved?
In November, citizens around the U.S. said they wanted minimum-wage hikes, higher taxes, and criminal-justice reform. Now their elected officials are trying to roll those changes back.
By David A. Graham

But 2017 has seen legislators in states around the countries moving to try to reverse ballot initiatives passed by voters in Novembers election, seeking to roll back minimum-wage increases, tax increases, and other matters. In other cases, legislators are seeking to make it harder to place such initiatives on the ballot in the first place. 

[…]

“We did some initial polling and we realized that there was a pretty significant disconnect between the people and our elected officials when it comes to corrections policy, and primarily when it comes to a desire to address issues of addiction and mental illness with treatment rather than with punishment,” Steele said. “The best way we felt to ultimately change the path that we have been on forever was to bypass the political gridlock.”

He set about assembling a coalition that ran from leftist groups that saw criminal-justice reform as a matter of social justice to religious ones that saw it as a vocation to conservative ones that saw it as simple fiscal common sense. They placed two measures on the ballot in 2016, one reclassifying some drug and property crimes as misdemeanors, and the second directing the savings from de-incarceration to rehabilitation programs. Voters approved, passing both by comfortable margins.

That might have been the end of the story. But some legislators had other ideas. When the legislative session began in Oklahoma City in February, several legislators introduced bills that would roll back the reforms.

“Am I surprised to see this kind of pushback? Unfortunately, no. Am I disheartened? Yes,” Steele told me. “I would hope that our elected officials would focus on protecting and implementing the will of the people rather than trying to undo or usurp the will of the voters.”

He blamed an ongoing perception gap between legislators who still feel the need to appear tough on crime, despite the November results. Still, Steele was unsparing in his verdict.

“It’s indefensible,” he said.

anonymous asked:

how do i reply to people who use the "incentive to work" argument against communism? this is probably a stupid question but yeah

i feel that this question has become easier and easier to answer as capitalism has developed, as there are many new approaches to its solution. i’ll try to cover the ones that ive used the most frequently in debates with capitalists. 

one of the ways that has been particularly useful in attacking this anti-communist position is to point back to the sort of early communism that engels talks about in his “origins of the family”. people worked together on a communal basis because they had to. if they didnt, they would not survive. our incentive then, is not for material gain, but to stay alive. its an incredibly simple answer, but one that i think has some explanatory power to this day. despite all of the complex social relations that have developed in the past 100,000 years, the innovations in technology, breakthroughs in medicine, we are still laboring for the same reason: to survive. if the productive classes of history had all decided to abstain from their work, humanity wouldve been died out long ago. in capitalism, we work to sustain ourselves, our families, even society itself– that much hasn’t changed– but what has changed is the incredible productive force that we engage in our labor. 

the world since the industrial revolution has given us access to mechanized labor that is responsible for directly producing many of the commodities that we consume. under capitalism, this is actually a large problem for the worker. as marx acknowledges, 

[The workers] direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

workers are forced to compete with the mechanized labor that is constantly introduced. this is a struggle that has been going on for a long time, and capitalists are constantly adjusting their ratio of living and dead labor (workers to machinery) to lower prices and increase profits, but at the same time, they begin to lose their consumer-base as more and more wage-laborers are replaced by machinery. 

it becomes instantly easier to imagine a world without an “incentive to work” when you realize that we have this gigantic web of production that could produce for us, almost entirely without any direct input of human labor, but in our current system, where the struggle between living and dead labor exists, that isn’t an option. 

indeed, you do see what appears to be labor without incentive in the modern world outside of the factories. many computer programs are developed for free without the producer ever making a penny. artists are constantly writing, painting, filming, etc, often just in their own free time, without ever being paid for it. this sort of work is done because they have the leisure to do so, something that would surely exist in a communist system. taking it a step further, into the more direct realm of social production itself, some people actually enjoy woodworking. who’s to say that that no one will enjoy it in a communist system? what if they like producing chairs and tables and barns? isn’t it possible for someone to be productive because they enjoy it, rather than because they must do it? this can only be achieved generally when there is an accessible social surplus of goods. 

in communism, production would continue for the same reason as in its earlier form– for survival – but that process is performed indirectly, placing less stress on the mass psychology. you can almost picture this alongside mallow’s hierarchy of needs. when people (and societies) achieve their basic level of sustenance, theyre able to do more. theyre less distracted by problems that are frequent in class society, and theyre often able to do things that they want to do. 

for example, we all have different interests. i like economics, but most people consider it a very boring field. they think its a lot of math or just hate the idea for some other reason, which obviously i disagree with. i enjoy it a lot. you might like chemistry. i dont. well, in a world where productivity (or reproductivity) can feel more like personal enjoyment rather than a job to you have to do in order to survive, you can do your chemistry and i can study my economics. having our own interests, when given the tools to pursue them and create things, which is what communal ownership of the means of production offers, social (re)productivity can’t help but expand in all directions. can you imagine how many people aspire to be doctors (or any other profession) but can’t because they dont have the money to afford the education required? this is an example of how capitalism actually hinders growth and kills incentive. imagine the amount of knowledge that could be accumulated if we were able to devote ourselves to fields that interest us, rather than sell our labor to produce what marx calls “crappy shit”.

capitalists like to think that there is no incentive in socialism, that its just an altruistic utopia, and they think this because they analyze the world through the lens of self-interest, but not just through any self-interest, through bourgeois self-interest. because of this, they do not understand that socialism is a completely self-interested act on the part of the proletariat. it is in its own self-interest that it struggles against capital by fighting for wage increases, better working conditions, benefits, etc. socialism offers all of that (or at least the abolition of the necessity of some of those things), which is a giant incentive for its realization

anyway, i think ive said enough to give you something to work with. i’ll end with another quote from marx that ive always loved. 

“It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. 

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.”

i hope this helps. let me know if you have any other questions.

Here’s something I don’t understand:
In the narrative of potentially raising minimum wage to a living wage, where workers will be able to actually earn enough to live at a level consistent with the average cost of living instead of under poverty, it confuses and saddens me that everyone is so quick to show off their math skills with such observations as “Raising minimum for fast food workers will only raise the price of your cheeseburger by 3 cents! If Walmart paid their employees a livable wage, your average bill would only increase by 72 cents!” Obviously the message they’re trying to convey is “This isn’t a lot; don’t be greedy! Care about people!”
But it seems to me that the missing step in their logical process should be obvious as well. I have not yet seen anyone ask “Who is the audience for this message?” When you specifically mention Walmart and fast food and the pennies difference that we assume a change in wages will cause (not an illogical assumption), you are basically saying “You, minimum wage worker, who can only afford to sustain yourself by shopping at the cheapest places because that is also where you most likely work, will be getting a pay increase but will also bear the financial burden of a change in the market, therefor diminishing the small gains you have fought hard for.” We are so used to a capitalist economic system which devalues and dehumanizes its labor that we automatically assume the affect of any change in the market, especially for the benefit of the labor force, will be detrimental (no matter how miniscule) to that labor force and not to those who benefit the most from our labor. But why should it be this way?
We could just as easily be making posts saying “Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour would only decrease a Walmart CEO’s annual income of $40 million to $36 million! That’s not a lot! Don’t be greedy!” I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly have a problem with this. The rich dude is still rich, and the workers aren’t barely scraping by trying not to end up on the street anymore via increased wages and stable market prices.
But that’s not the narrative the assholes in charge of all this want us to hear. They don’t want us to think about them and their wealth at all, because the minute we start doing that we might actually realize that they created this whole desperate environment for their own benefit… and we might actually realize there’s more of us than them and try to stop them.

seeking arrangement - pt.1

Group : BTS

Member : Kim Taehyung 

Genre : Sugar daddy!Tae, lots of smut and fluff coming soon 

Word Count : 3285

Description : Working as a secretary for Kim Taehyung, CEO of one of the biggest company worldwide, has filled your bank account up in a record time. But when even your wage as his secretary isn’t enough to pay your college tuition anymore, your boss is willing to increase your wage but in another different way than being his secretary…

A/N : I finally finished the first chapter and it’s crap. But I still hope you like it a little bit. I have been in a writer’s block for a while and not writing everyday had worsen my writing ugh 

MASTERLIST 

Keep reading