Legitimately curious what she is expecting. My kindest interpretation is she thinks students or teens should get work experience. Maybe she thinks people should have to work several jobs if it’s too… Easy?
Not that students should have to work…
Customer service jobs are some of the worst outside of Malaysian ship breaker or Siberian lumberjack.
In my experience dealing with these sorts of people trying to to justify this argument, it’s a combination of:
-
These are not supposed to be permanent jobs for anyone, i.e. only high school and college students should work them.
-
These are jobs that should be worked by >!non-white!< people who are comfortable with lower standards of living.
-
You should work a second job to supplement your income if you aren’t earning enough.
For #1, they believe that because they (or people they know) treated lower paying jobs as a foot in the door/stepping stone at a time in their lives where they had a social safety net looking out for them, then everyone else can do that, too.
For #2, they believe that there are people who don’t need to live well and are okay with that. Typically this comes down to racial distinctions and the idea that non-whites must love poverty because so many of them live in it.
For #3, they’ll dig up some anecdote about some random family member in the past who used to work two jobs where they had to walk uphill both ways there and back and that’s what a real work ethic looks like, then go off on a tangent about how people today are just too damn lazy.
-
The idea that younger people just need “work experience” is a vestige of a bygone world, when just having that little bit of experience would make you qualified for the job – THE job – that you would continue to do forever, because companies paid for loyalty with loyalty. That isn’t how the world works now and every job, entry level, dead end, or otherwise, is the job that you might need to do forever. That’s why a living wage is more important now than perhaps it was in previous years.
If easy jobs become living wage then victims of abuse can better escape via building an escape and self sustainability purse.
Being able to escape the household head’s abuse is anathema to the “family values” system conservatives try to appeal to whenever gays are allowed more freedom than being sent to Jesus camp or force married by their parents.
And I think you hinted at it, but also women in abusive relationships, even if they’re too indoctrinated to realize it. Even without physical violence, being expected to be subservient to your spouse is very common abuse in conservative USA.
Yeah, I charitably hope she is interpreting “living wage” as living super comfortably in a mini McMansion in the suburbs with a pool in the back yard and a new car in the driveway every 5 years or so. I mean, that’s how many of this generation experienced success, so it makes sense if that’s her frame of reference. But a literal _living _wage is something you can…you know …live off of. With super extraneous purchases like food and clothes and a roof over your head. They don’t stop and think what they’re expecting people to do - work all day or night long so she can have her ice cream and still not be able to afford rent. It’s cruel and dehumanizing.
She wants underpaid service jobs so the services they provide remain cheap for her personally. And the teens and work experience thing is just a lie they tell everyone, in reality what they see as worthless jobs don’t deserve to live well. Finally they see others gaining position and wealth as a direct threat to their level of privilege.
I kinda agree in the aspect that a passing fries and a burger out a drive-thru window shouldn’t be the standard of job people expect to live off forever, and that there should be room for starter-jobs.
But, the costs of living have gone up while the number of viable of decent jobs has gone down. Maybe the issue isn’t that a burger job isn’t meeting the bare minimum but that people expect you to work an office job for barely more than the burger one, while often also asking for some pretty hefty credentials/experience to boot.
Even in the McJobs, there should be some path for workers to have stepping stones to better positions. And yeah, there should also be no tolerance of assholes. Fuck “the customer is always right” and make it “we strive for customer satisfaction, but if you’re an awesome we have the right to refuse service”
The thing that bothers me about comments like this is that it has the underlying attitude that everyone should eventually “be someone” and “do something with their life”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to go to work, work your 8 hours a day, clock out, leave work at work and enjoy or do whatever you want for the rest of your hours that day.
These McJobs seem to be jobs “people trying to succeed in life” don’t want to do, but are services and products they expect to be able to purchase and enjoy.
There is nothing wrong, lazy, or ignorant about people whose priorities are not about work and “getting ahead” - Maybe they want to do their hobbies, or hang out with people they like, or sit in their backyard and no nothing. Not everyone wants to, should, or is frankly qualified to meet some arbitrary measure of success
People doing the McJobs should still be able to eat, live in a safe home, and raise a family and not have to work 2 or more jobs, or be treated like they are worthless. They are stepping up and doing the jobs we all want done in society.
And yes, someone’s McJob in middle of nowhere, flyover state might be liveable at minimum wage, and that exact same job be 3 or 4 times that in a big city. It doesn’t change the fact that it should pay whatever it costs to be liveable in the place the job is located. If a company can’t afford to pay it’s employees a liveable wage, it can’t afford to do business there. Same as if the business can’t afford the electricity or clean water.
Did anyone watch Office Space? Sometimes happiness is found leaving the rat race and TPS reports and doing a McJob that directly benefits others and doesn’t follow you home or ask if you have a case of the Mondays.
They factually aren’t starter jobs because the people overwhelmingly doing them are people that need to live on those wages.
Low end jobs cannot meaningfully structurally serve as stepping stones within an organization because such professions/companies need massive amounts of low wage labor, very few better paid workers, and most of the actually well paid positions are available via an expensive education not earned by hard work within the org. That is to say Burger Bob’s thousands of franchises need tens of thousands of flunkies, hundred of slightly higher paid flunkies, and dozens of high paid people who are mostly recruited out of college or industry.
This is to say statistically approaching zero of Bob’s employees can escape poverty by working hard for Bob. The alternative is imagining that a peanut butter sandwich can feed a stadium full of people because in theory any one of them could eat it.
The short answer is her idea of a “healthy society” is not an equitable one.
In case you’re wondering how someone can have such an unhinged opinion about labor: Conservatism is the belief in natural hierarchies, that some people are just better than others. This lady makes a living wage, and she deems service staff to be beneath her, therefore they are not allowed to enjoy the same America as she does.
They’re not necessarily that unhinged from a moral perspective. They’re just incredibly privileged and ignorant.
They truly believe that because they didn’t get stuck with a low-wage job that it must be an active choice that people make, and that people should strive to be better to improve society.
And when you point out that they’re privileged they see it as an insuly - like you’re saying they didn’t earn their way. And that’s the real rub. Many wealthy people absolutely do work their asses off, and from their perspective all that work has paid off. What they don’t understand is that their success is a mixture of their hard work AND luck.
Saying they’ve been lucky shouldn’t diminish their work. I think everyone who works hard to be a success should have that opportunity. We’re not asking that their hard work be ignored. We’re asking that everyone else’s be recognized with a living wage.
They actually are that unhinged, and have been for awhile…
There was a time EVERYONE was like this, back in the 50’s or so they did a bunch of experiments and found people who were poorer were dumber, more violent, prone to crime, and more likely to have mental issues…
So they concluded that people fell into poverty because of personal failings.
Funny thing about Science, you can have all the right data and still get the wrong answer. Most commonly you get cause and effect backwards.
These people weren’t poor because they were violent and stupid, they had merely been reduced to a state of being violent and stupid because of the horrible things their poverty exposed them to.
Conservatives never got the memo, and those that did, ignored it.
My current total comp puts me in the top 1–2% for my country (based on reported incomes). The difference between the billionaire class and me is massive; I still have to budget for my bills, expenses etc.
That said, I am fully aware that I’m in a privileged position.
I grew up in government housing and suffered malnutrition as a child because my single working mother couldn’t afford enough food. I worked my arse off in school and was lucky enough to be eligible and accepted into a scholarship programme for University; I would not have been able to attend otherwise.
Since then I’ve had relatively good career opportunities and have taken advantage of them. I tried hard and continue to do so because I know what it’s like to not have enough.
I think that I worked hard to get where I am. I do not consider myself rich (where some people might understandably do so), but I know what it is like to be wanting.
Despite my hard work, I do not in the slightest think that I got to where I am based purely on bullshit like grit and determination. I have absolutely taken advantage of opportunities in front of me, but I was lucky to have those in the first place. I think I deserve to be where I am, but I also think plenty of others also deserve it and are deprived of the chances that I got by pure happenstance.
Yes, you have to work hard to change your lot in life, but to say that hard work will solve everything is ludicrous.
I’m entirely on board with a living wage, UBI, and anything else to make things more equitable. No one should have to worry about feeding their family. And I’m happy to pay more tax to make that a reality.
What they don’t understand is that their success is a mixture of their hard work AND luck.
How does having certain morals/principles fit in? I know plenty of health care workers and educators who do so because it’s how they want to contribute to society. Not only that, but rejecting offers with 2-300% increase pay from the private sector, only because it goes against their principles? They’d work less as a result too!
It takes some effort to imagine the level of human shitstain to suggest the low pay is “deserved” or due to a lack of not being lazy.
I think a lot of people attribute to malice that which is coming from ignorance.
We all live in bubbles of one kind or another. I like to think that I work very hard to identify my biases and privileges, but I know I fail.
Some people never try to challenge their biases, so they remain in ignorance. It’s not that they’re evil - just that what’s so weird to the rest of us is their normal.
I work for (but do not live in) a tiny city (around 10 employees for the entire city) that’s an enclave for the super-rich. We’re talking 8-9 million dollar houses being the norm.
The residents here aren’t evil people in their hearts. They just live in a completely separate world from the rest of us. They went to private schools, fly on private planes, and the poorest people they interact with on a regular basis have 8-figure valuations.
They think they’re middle-class because most of them aren’t billionaires even though their houses cost more than I make in a century.
They’re immorally rich, but they don’t know it.
To be a conservative you need to enlarge the fear center of your brain, believe strongly in hierarchy, and want at least one level of the hierarchy to be miserable and suffering.
And if you can’t move up in the hierarchy it’s because the lower castes are dragging you down.
I bet she goes to Dairy Queen though
And demands to see the manager.
Look, I’m reasonably left wing, but it is fallacious and unhelpful to do this American thing of trying to lump everything into “us” and “them”. Polarisation and oversimplifiying is how this mess happened in the first place.
Conservativism is principally concerned with the preservation of the good. The failings of Conservativism are simple: it’s also quite good at preserving the bad. Why? Because there isn’t a robust enough system to determine one from the other. One person’s moral outrage is another person’s right to exist, and the other way around.
What low-IQ, highly manipulated and brainwashed people do is they call something a name, but it actually has nothing to do with the name. Christianity is the perfect example, historically speaking, whatever is observed by the American Right has almost nothing in common with the core principles of Christianity. It’s the fucking opposite.
Hierarchies obey the same logic. Human beings are different to each other. Sometimes these differences are the same in various demographics. This is not a contraversial statement.
Does this stop the right to opportunity and life? Of course not. Choosing to celebrate it, along with all the nuances makes it a wonderful quirk of the world we live in. Human beings are hierarchical creatures, because some of us are fundamentally more competitive than others, some more cooperative. This isn’t news to anyone, and no amount of political posturing is going to change this. This isn’t anything to do with Conservativism, because it’s just an observation of reality. Politics that does not observe reality is doomed to fail from the outset.
It is not “conservative” nor is it honest to say that everyone is as good at a specific job as anyone else. Some people are just well arranged to do some things well.
Conservatives conserve capitalism, which needs social hierarchies to function. Conservatives conserve the class war. Oppressors / Oppressed. If you’re not an oppressor, you’re being oppressed. Historical Materialism:
They conserve a lot of things. Choosing one that you think is bad as an example is reasonable, but it doesn’t really make a point.
It’s arguable (but not something I agree with) that you simply don’t understand that capitalism is, because no one person is able to fully comprehend all of the unintended consequences of a system. It may be that in fact the only human compatible system that doesn’t immediately decay. (Again - Obviously, I don’t believe this)
A theoretical argument for this (that I don’t necessarily agree with) could be that because we are hierarchical creatures, it’s the only way to reasonably integrate this, via a system of social classes. But the system would have to be sufficiently performant for the lowest class, otherwise it would collapse. So perhaps the only evil in capitalism, is the manipulation and dishonesty towards the lower classes, to accept something that is not performant for them. Perhaps if the system was policed with honesty, then it might allow an interation of the system to be discovered that does not fundamentally abuse its constituents. Perhaps even, if the classes simply represented different subcultures but were fundamentally equal in the eyes of the social system?
Enough with the theoretical, the point is nuance is essential. The more we dispense with it, the more embedded, violent and dysfunctional everything becomes.
Undoing mistreatment by mistreating the mistreaters doesn’t exactly set a precedent for a mistreatment free future, does it?
What good things do conservatives “conserve”?
They said language. This is what they want to conserve.
What is “good” is subjective to the individual. A conservative doesn’t necessarily conserve good ideas, often simply preferring the status quo due to its stability. On the other hand, a liberal doesn’t always want good reforms
I’m not sure you are asking an actual question but an example might be language, or attempting to preserve the existing culture. This is a noble effort, but often falls short in reality because it becomes too inhibiting or unreflective of the state of play for everyone.
What part of egalitarianism advocates for mistreating people?
Conserving the wealth inequality. Conserving the status quo. Conserving the social stratification. What is the superstructure that defines these structures?
—- Capitalism.
Rosa Luxemburg answered this question 125 years ago.
she argues from a historical materialist perspective that capitalism is economically unsustainable and will eventually collapse and that a revolution is necessary to transform capitalism into socialism.
Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing. Treating everyone right of you as “them” and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said. Yes, conservativism maintains a lot of bad things! We have already discussed this.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
Just a whole lot of nothing.
I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Because older people don’t need equal rights?
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing.
You veered from the original post. Not me.
Treating everyone right of you as “them” and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
Is Nazi apologia, and dangerous.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said.
Just because someone doesn’t cowtow to your circular logic doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
One. Give me one example of how capitalism has been reformed— and lasted.
Because younger people will be the audience for a high school wikipedia article link. While I’m sure it’s reflexive for some to check the basics on Wikipedia, others thankfully may not be in that particular educational stage, as this discussion wouldn’t be valid otherwise.
My comment on it’s relevance stands, I don’t think I veered at all.
I’m depressed to see that you invoked Godwins law with such enthusiasm. Please don’t ever reference nazi apologia to me in the same breath as justification for dehumanising others. It’s in acutely poor taste and education.
There is nothing circular about my logic that I can see, and youve not highlighted any. I’ve accused you of speaking the same rhetoric despite it being addressed which might qualify?
Luxemburg is proven wrong by there never being a revolution, the reformation and lasting are a separate discussion.
This is a really good explanation. I really hate this kid of mentality online where people lump things they don’t like, like conservatism, with completely unrelated things like this comment and say that this is what conservatism is. Through this us vs them mentality people seem to forget to at things critically and immediately take the us vs them approach to everything they see
This is literally the epitome of what conservatism is.
deleted by creator
And when it comes to US of Dairy Queens, where exactly is status quo conservatism seen in modern times?
So no true Scotsman fallacy?
Lack of empathy caused by lead poisoning
And childhood abuse and neglect, probably.
Or just a shitty person
Lead poisoning caused by lack of regulation, failure to maintain and update safe infrastructure, and by outsourcing all manufacturing to China.
So, basically greed and fiscal conservatism.
more like generations of entitlement.
Unintentionally stumbled on the truth of capitalism; you need an underclass to run the whole engine
It’s not needed.
It’s just needed to provide fantastic profits to the owners.
You can definitely have capitalism that pays a living wage, it just cuts into billionaires’ profits.
Agreed, but keep in mind that within a capitalist system, the owners will always be fighting to take the working classes money with their profits.
The working class must always be vigilant and read to fight for their wages. There is no rest in a capitalist system.
Absolutely. 1000%.
Hierarchies are a necessary component to keep the Capitalist murder-cult running. You cannot maintain global domination without class-based social hierarchies.
Hierarchies are a necessary component to keep
the Capitalist murder-cultany human society running. You cannot maintainglobal dominationliterally any organization of humans without class-based social hierarchies.Ftfy. Abolishing class is a utopian pipe dream. A good society allows for class mobility and tilts the social scales to make life more tolerable for the lower classes.
Are you misunderstanding what the word “class” means?
Nope.
Given your other response, the answer is actually yes.
Uh huh
Even with a living wage, workers are still the underclass, and owners the overclass. As long as class dynamics exist, and class interests conflict, the class with more power will dominate the system overall in their favor.
That’s why government should be the most powerful class, which keeps the ownership class in check via strong regulation.
Government isn’t a class, really, unless it owns the Means of Production in some fashion. Government takes on the characteristics of whatever class is in power, as long as there is Capitalism Government will serve the bourgeoisie.
Thanks, Captain Pedantry. What would we do without you.
It’s not pedantry, you have Utopian thinking. You believe the less powerful can wield the state to suppress those with more power, simply because it’s “just” for that to happen. That kind of moralistic utopinaism, ie belief that because things are “right” that they will be, without actually seeking to understand mechanics, is counterintuitive.
It’s not utopianism, it’s be central premise of democracy, and has been successfully done numerous times. This isn’t some radical new idea. It’s how our existing government is supposed to function.
Feels like skooby-do pulling back the mask of capitalism to reveal that it’s all just medieval peasants and serfs lol
The medieval peasants and serfs got more days off.
Yeah but what was the point when they didn’t have videogames?
Yes, capitalists certainly think so. Of course it’s not true.
I wonder if the capitalist perspective isn’t driven by the perception of ready supply/demand of people that will, at least initially, apply to take shit jobs/compensation.
Why don’t people just use twitter instead of looking at twitter screenshots on every other site on the internet? The names are blanked so we don’t even know who these people are supposed to be. There’s no reason at all to darken our day with her obscure ramblings. It only had 2 retweets and 17 likes when somebody seeked this out to put in other people’s faces. There’s no point to this at all.
Simple: ex-Twitter has an abominable app full of ads and tracking, that isn’t useable without account. And if you actually log in, it’s full of right wing shit and musk (which one could argue, is also right wing shit).
I have no intention wasting my time by searching for the gold nuggets in that giant pile of shit. I was on Twitter when it still was Twitter (until they killed third party apps) and even then, you saw the best tweets as screenshots on reddit.
Because like this, I don’t have to use xitter.
Strange take.
Not really
What an absolute shithead opinion. Fuck you, lady. Let me get you a spoon so you can eat my ass.
I think I have been doing it wrong. I never tried eating it with a spoon.
So… slaves? What fucking solution do they expect here?
Christ, barely even slaves. Just purely disposable temporary humans. Locked into a Dairy Queen to work until you die, then flushed out and replaced with someone new.
At least now we know why these people want to outlaw abortion. Gotta do something about all that human turnover.
I read it as Dairy Queen shouldn’t exist because it depends on unhealthy labor. You could interpret the whole thing as anti work.
Many comments here seem to assume the opposite though. I don’t know who that person is.
How does that quote go? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and be confirmed one. Something like that. Anyway, it applies here.
“…than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”
That’s it! Do you remember who said it?
Albert Abraham Einstein Lincoln.
Pretty sure it was Mark Confucious Twain Switzer…Jr.
Pothetato said it
It wasn’t Sr?
Sadly, the author isn’t actually known.
‘Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.’
So Mark Twain then, since he said everything.
Or Shakespeare.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
The Romans, google this: si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
Wilson, Tim Taylor’s neighbour.
deleted by creator
Same brand of passing the buck as
“Sell the homes to who, Ben? FUCKING AQUAMAN!?”
First time I’m reading about this, looked it up and had a good laugh, thanks.
Well, and for the really uninitiated, this is youtuber H. Bomberguy. He’s known for making extremely long and high quality video essays, mostly about video games, shows, and politics. And when I say politics, I mean he generally tackles right-wing hot button issues like vaccines and climate change.
This clip is from his climate change video.
I absolutely do not agree with her. Their view point is that Dairy Queen is a “starter job” for someone who lives with their guardian(s). Then the Dairy Queen worker takes their experiences and “upgrades” to a better job. Thus, leaving the position open to someone who doesn’t need to afford to live or whatever…
People like this woman completely ignore the fact that professionals are also struggling right now; and people are also sick of being paid unreasonable wages due to a lack of experience. She also ignores that not all young people have safety nets as well.
Should all minimum wage jobs be closed between the hours of 9pm and 4pm? No, in fact a decent amount (if not all) need done in some capacity throughout the day.
Or another one that those kinds of people don’t like to be asked: So if the minimum wage is for children (high school students getting their first jobs), what should be the minimum wage for adults?
She (and the people like her) fail to grasp so much about their arguments it’s infuriating. They feel that those who work minimum wageshould suffer. Usually they’ll talk around saying it, but that’s the just of what they say.
I know these kind of people.
No not kid, kids. I meant kids as eighteen year olds.
Which is an odd point because either these kids need to afford college which isn’t cheap or they are already on their own or saving money to be on their own.
I know I’m not disagreeing with you but man its laughable because anyone who looked around would notice that most of these jobs are actually done by adults. There aren’t enough teens who actually want to work to fill 5% of them, they can’t work the specific hours you need them, or enough hours period and they aren’t very motivated or very trainable because they have no reason to care.
Regardless of how much any teen cares about their after school job, it’s just that: an after school job.
This opinion of service work expressed in the OP doesn’t seem to realize that if we restricted these jobs to only the people who don’t “need” a living wage, then there would be no fast food for lunch, no quick trips to the store during school hours, and no starbucks in the morning on the way to work during the school year. If you want the convenience of near instant food and services at any time of the day, then you need to pay the price of giving the workers a living wage (or we end up where we are today)
It’s not that they wouldn’t exist during the school year they wouldn’t exist at ALL and while some are non essential like fast food many of them are essential to the existence of our lives and economy.
Ugh, why do we need a bottom half of the ladder when I’m already halfway up it?
Making ice cream cones at Dairy Queen should be enough to live on. It shouldn’t be able to buy you a super yacht. Then again, I don’t believe anything should be able to get you a super yacht. Just get a regular yacht and be happy.
This is the fundamental messsage I think. She thinks that she is inherently better than “those who have to work at dairy queen”, and is making up her view of what a functioning society is without thinking any further or actually having to design a society.
But I need a yacht larger than the one I bought 2 years ago or I’ll never be happy!
Hmm, I wonder how many people that believe this would also happen to be the people who raise hell when nobody gives enough of a shit to make their burger right…
deleted by creator
Wouldn’t self checkout be the opposite? If companies had to pay a living wage, they’d be even more eager to replace the humans with machines
deleted by creator
yeah I’m saying paying more would exacerbate that.
Also tbh, when you account for the extra theft those machines allow, they’re not much cheaper than minimum wage workers, otherwise there would def be a lot more of them, including outside of big stores.
How do self-checkout machines allow for extra theft? Sounds more like a problem of cheaping out on employees to watch the check-out area if you ask me. You can hire one employee to watch over multiple self-checkouts the entire time, and end up paying less, many stores do that and it works.
I’m in a relatively rural area and pretty much every general store here has a lot of self-checkouts, and they’re usually busier than the human checkouts (because it’s way faster and more convenient).
Even without having people at self-checkouts, and assuming that allows people to steal more, theft is pretty much negligible compared to profits from additionally having the self-checkouts in the first place. Many people find it less of a hassle to go grocery shopping if it means they don’t have to have a cashier check them out, and the throughput is higher.
A lot of times big box stores close down and blame it on theft, but in reality it’s never theft, usually it’s because the workers were about to unionize, or because upper management needed a scapegoat for below expected profits from the store.
If you don’t pay the people watching over the self checkouts a living wage, then why would they care to stop theives? I sure wouldn’t protect the corporation who is exploiting me
you can say the same about stealing in general. what’s stopping them from just rolling out of the store with everything in their cart? or hiding stuff in their clothes?
The self-checkout should make life better because less workers are needed to perform the same work. However under capitalism everyone needs a job to survive. Additionally, the theft issue wouldn’t be an issue if people were able to just grab what they need and leave the store, no paying a corporation before you go. But a non-capitalist society feels like a pipe dream.
Or get bent out of shape about how everything is being automated…
Every mom in my family is about this stupid, let me be honest, even dumber than this lady and that’s about 20 people. They are conservatives. And they vote!
These people don’t deserve to have their voices reinforced by idiot representatives.
So don’t you skip that vote this year okay?
And please vote more often because there is actually a lot of voting to be done.
Moms don’t want the loneliness that comes when their kids move out, I guess
The conservative philosophy right now can be well summed as “Make the kids come back for thanksgiving again!”
I think what she’s trying to say is that we need a UBI that covers living expenses, and providing the essential service of making Oreo blizzards is on top of that.
I’d honestly be okay with that.
If every person over about 16 was guaranteed the option of a bare minimum personal living space, a usable Internet connection, plumbing, clean water, and basic nutrition; then I don’t care if there are jobs that pay $3 and hour.
If we eliminate forced homelessness, give victims of abuse a safe escape, allow people with both recognized and unrecognized disabilities a guaranteed foundation to live on, and generally just take care of the people we extract taxes from to fund our society; then a lot of my concerns about labor and wages evaporate.
Of course, what we don’t want to to “accidentally” create a de-facto neo-slavery caste who are stuck with the bare minimum and unable to get better work.
Hell, if someone wants to lay around all day and do nothing but watch TV, I’m okay with that.
If they want to spend that free time pursuing education for a better life, that’s great too!
I don’t care, as long as we can get rid of the shitty system we have now in the US. Too many people fall through the cracks and never make it back.
